Sitting of 25 May 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Employment Exchange Managers (Pay)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Labour if he will grant to branch managers of employment exchanges the same war bonus as paid to civil servants of the same grade, the same rate of pay for overtime and holidays with pay.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Branch managers are not civil servants, but agents whose conditions of service have been agreed by the Departmental Whitley Council. The general Civil Service conditions as to pay, bonus, overtime and holidays are, therefore, not applicable to them, although, in fact, it has recently been agreed that they should, generally, receive war bonus at the same rates as civil servants.

    Man-Power and Hardship Committees (Release Applications)
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider adapting the functions of either manpower or hardship committees so as to meet the growing need for providing some machinery whereby the release of men and women from call-up may be effected in cases in which circumstances have so changed that in the new conditions they would have originally been exempted.
    Mr. Bevin: Release from the Forces is a matter for the particular Service Department concerned, which acts in consultation with my Department when industrial considerations arise. I have no reason to suppose that the existing arrangements are not adequate.
    Wing-Commander James: Having regard to the fact that a similar subject is being raised on the Adjournment tomorrow, I will seek an opportunity, if I may, to take this point a little further.

    Coalmines (Directed Youths)
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to recent prosecutions of youths for refusal to obey directions to work in the coalmines, and the sympathetic view taken by some magistrates in cases where the youths are members of pre-Service organisations and anxious to enter a fighting unit; and whether he will now reconsider his decision, and exempt from the ballot, youths with two years proficient service in these organisations, and whose records show them to be especially suitable for service in one of the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Fosterasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make, having regard to recent police court decisions in the cases of youths refusing to carry out the directions of the Ministry to work in the mining industry, with a view to clarifying the position.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour, whether, in view of the growing protests against the policy of balloting for the mines, he will now reconsider his decision and exempt from the ballot boys who have reached a required standard of pre-Service training, and who desire to enter the fighting Services.
    Mr. Bevin: The decision to direct young men to work in the coalmines was taken by the Government after the most careful consideration. Having regard to the vital necessity to increase the labour force in the industry if the war effort is not to be impeded by lack of coal, there can, at present, be no question of a revision of that decision. As regards the ballot scheme, there is no doubt that, on the whole, it is working well, and that the system of the ballot is the fairest that can be devised. The young men who have patriotically accepted the position—and they are the overwhelming majority—are doing extremely well; all honour to them. The number of young men who have disobeyed directions to undergo training for coalmining is very small. I am anxious that all possible steps should be taken to persuade them to obey the directions, and

    901
    thus avoid having to penalise them, but if they disobey the directions I have no alternative but to institute proceedings.
    Some statements that have been made seem to imply that there is some indignity about work in the coalmines, but the truth is entirely the reverse. My attention has also been drawn to remarks, said to have been made by the chairman of a local committee of the Air Training Corps, that he would do what he could to support members of the organisation who fail to comply with the lawful directions given to them, and I must, in this connection, remind all who are in positions of authority, that it is their duty to encourage those with whom they have influence to serve their country wherever it is found necessary in the national interest to post them. Any person who encourages young men to act otherwise, is doing a great disservice to the country at this grave juncture of the war. As regards the action of certain magistrates, while I am always pleased to see justice tempered by mercy, it is the duty of magistrates to enforce the law, and it is no part of their function to use the courts for expressing their personal views on the policy of that law, and certainly not to exercise their judicial powers so as to defeat its purpose.
    As regards the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East-bourne (Major Taylor), I would point out in respect of the members of the Air Training Corps, that all young men who volunteer and are accepted for flying duties in the Royal Air Force or the Fleet Air Arm, are automatically exempted from the ballot, and it is, therefore, only members of that Corps who are training for ground duties who are liable to be directed to coalmining. Having regard to the extreme importance at the present time of increasing the labour force in the coalmining industry which has a very high priority, I should not feel justified in exempting further categories of young men from the operation of the ballot.
    Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Minister of Labour to comment on the action of magistrates, or on what their duty is in certain cases?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman merely made a general statement and did not comment on the action of particular magistrates.
    Mr. Turton: With great respect, as I heard the right hon. Gentleman, he gave a direction to magistrates on what their duty was.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it in that sense.
    Major C. S. Taylor: While I should like to thank the Minister of Labour for the very full reply he has given, I feel that there are certain aspects of this matter that need clearing up, and as I see no possibility of doing so by Question and answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Hospitals (Nursing Staffs)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the increasing strain imposed on hospital nursing staffs, he will enable nurses attached to industrial establishments to be transferred to hospitals if they so desire, as many of those nurses cannot now secure this permission.
    Mr. Bevin: In order to strengthen the staff of the hospitals in the near future, I am arranging, with the co-operation of industrial nurses and their employers, that there shall be loans of services of a proportion of these nurses from factories where they can best be spared. I have also recently reviewed the cases of the younger women employed as industrial nurses, with a view to their transfer to hospital work. My general policy is to allow industrial nurses to be released for hospital work, if they so desire, subject to the need, in some cases, for providing substitutes beforehand.
    Mr. Sorensen: While expressing appreciation of the Minister's reply, may I ask him whether these industrial nurses who have applied to be transferred to hospital but who, heretofore, have been refused, can now make a fresh application?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

    Theatres and Music-Halls (Male Employees)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Labour the number of male persons under the age of 30 who are at present employed in theatres and music-halls; how many have served with His Majesty's Forces, and for what reason were they discharged.
    Mr. Bevin: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.
    Mr. Liddall: Will the same consideration as is shown in this case be shown to small private traders?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I think I have tried to treat everybody justly.
    Viscountess Astor: Is not the Minister aware that some of the most tragic cases are among those fellows who cannot go into the Army or the Air Force, and who Teel it very deeply?

  REGULAR SERVICE PERSONNEL (CIVIL REINSTATEMENT)
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to ensure that naval, military and air personnel, now serving under regular conditions of enlistment, will be guaranteed employment on return to civil life, as is the case with those who are serving on a non-regular basis.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) on Tuesday.
  Mr. Kirby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act refers to serving men who enlisted since 25th May, 1939, and, therefore long-service personnel do not benefit under it? Does he realise that long-service soldiers, airmen and sailors who have been serving the country for 10 or 12 years, will not benefit under the Act?
  Mr. Bevin: I realise that that is the position, but where a person goes into the Services for a career it is impossible to deal with it within the limits of reinstatement with a particular employer. The Government, however, are fully alive to the necessity of looking after these men in the general provisions for employment, but I could not see my way to tie a particular employer, to employ a man after long years of service.
  Mr. Kirby: Does the Minister realise that many of these regular Servicemen were serving on short-term engagements, and got caught up in the troubles of the war; and will he look at the matter again?
  Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act is a
  904
  limited Measure, and I do not want to create in the minds of men in the Forces the idea that it solves the whole problem of reinstatement in industry. We have to deal with people coming out of the Forces on a wider basis than the limitations imposed by that Act.

  INDIA

    Censorship
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for India if he has considered the complaint made by the editor of "Reynolds" newspaper against the political censorship applied to their special correspondent Mr. D. N. Tahmanhet; and if he is taking further action to prevent political censorship in India.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in touch with the Government of India with a view to effecting a re-organisation of the censorship.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I understand that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) is referring to an article in "Reynolds' News" on 23rd April. I am in communication with the Government of India regarding the censorship of Press messages from India, and hope to be in a position to make a statement on the whole question fairly soon.
    Mr. Dobbie: In conjunction with this matter, will the Minister consider other complaints which I am able to submit to him?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I will consider the whole question.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's reference was to the message sent from India to this country referring to hunger, from which message the censor eliminated the word "hunger"?
    Mr. Amery: I am referring to the message of 23rd April from Mr. Tahmankar.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Is the Minister aware that political censorship now being applied by his Department is causing great disquiet among the Indian people?
    Mr. Amery: My Department applies no censorship. I have already stated, in

    905
    reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) on 18th May, the principles according to which the censorship of the Government of India is applied.
    Miss Ward: Will the Minister also inquire into the censorship of letters—to which my Question relates—and not only that of Press messages?
    Mr. Amery: My communication to the Government of India covers that subject also.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that, apart from narrower political issues, this censorship did, in fact, prevent the British people from knowing the full extent of the Indian famine for far too long?
    Mr. Amery: I must await an answer to my communication.

    Nutrition
    Wing-Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for India what steps are being taken to improve nutrition in India by providing synthetic vitamins and food yeast as additions to a diet mainly of cereals.
    Mr. Amery: Apart from their use by the Services, large supplies of synthetic vitamins have been distributed under medical supervision for the treatment of famine victims in Bengal. World supplies are very limited and there cannot at present be any question of their general use as part of an Indian diet. But the results of experimental administration in Bengal and by the Services are now available to the Government Nutritional Research Laboratory at Conoor which exists to study and recommend possible improvements in nutrition in India. Plans for the production of food yeast and its use in civil and military diet are before the authorities in India and are to be the subject of consultation with experts who will shortly be available in that country.

    Food Supplies, Bengal
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for India if he will indicate the measures that are being taken to prevent the recurrence of famine in Bengal.
    Mr. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply, circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 6th April, to a question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).
    Mr. Loftus: Will the Minister consider instituting an inquiry, by commission or some other means, into the whole question of the pressure of population on the present food resources and productive capacity of India?
    Mr. Amery: I think the Government of India have already announced that they are contemplating an inquiry into the famine position.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: With regard to the inquiry—I thought it was instituted and not only contemplated by the Government of India—when does my right hon. Friend think it will be finished; and when will the report be circulated, as there is a great feeling of responsibility about the matter in this country?
    Mr. Amery: I understand that the contemplated or arranged commission, will be setting to work in a very few weeks' time. It is under instructions to work as quickly as possible, but I cannot at this moment give definite dates.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend consider circulating the names of the members of the Commission in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Amery: As soon as they are finally settled, I shall be glad to do so.

    Coal Mines (Women Workers)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India approximately how many women are now employed in coal-mining; and how much coal has been exported in recent months.
    Mr. Amery: The latest available return shows that before the removal of the ban on underground work by women about 32,000 were employed, all above ground. Since the removal of the ban about 10,000 have been employed underground. Limited coal exports from India are taking place for important war purposes.
    Mr. Sorensen: How many women are working on the surface; and, if exports of coal are now taking place from India. does it not seem that the right hon. Gentleman's previous references to the need for women being employed in mines for Indian purposes, no longer holds good?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir, on the contrary, the Indian coal situation is still very acute. At the same time, it has been very necessary to send certain limited exports from India for important war purposes.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: May it not be that Indian women are working underground and producing coal in India, for export to countries where women are not allowed to be employed underground in coal mines?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

    Service Canteens
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the unsatisfactory conditions of the canteens in India under the present system, he will appoint officers from outside to make a report and recommendations, and communicate the same to this House.
    Mr. Amery: I have already asked for a report from the Government of India and I see no reason to appoint officers from outside to report on a matter which is within the competence of the Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief. I wish to make it clear that, in asking for a report, I in no way associate myself with the view that the canteen system in India is inefficient or incompetent. On the contrary, when regard is had to the difficulties in obtaining stores both from the United Kingdom and United States of America and to the strain put upon the organisation by the great expansion of the forces in India, I consider that remarkably good work has been done in this connection.
    Mr. Astor: Will this report be made public as soon as it is received?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot guarantee that.
    Miss Ward: Does my right hon. Friend think that a 48 per cent. charge on goods going into India for our troops is really efficient, or that it operates satisfactorily?
    Mr. Amery: Under very difficult circumstances, yes, Sir.

    Nurses (Training Facilities)
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India how many fully-trained nurses there are in India; and what steps are being taken to increase training facilities.
    Mr. Amery: The total number of nurses for the civil population is understood to be about 5,000. Provincial Governments are making every effort to increase the number of nurses, but hitherto the response in India has been somewhat disappointing.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that in the Burma campaign nurses have been in very short supply, can my right hon. Friend say whether any V.A.D.'s have been sent out?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Lady is referring to military nurses, I must point out that my reply dealt with civil nurses. Military nurses are the responsibility of the War Office. Undoubtedly there has been difficulty in getting as many as are needed, but I understand that some 250 V.A.D.'s are being sent out, to supplement the existing staff.
    Mr. Sorensen: How many of the 7,000 are Indian nurses?
    Mr. Amery: I think they are mostly Indian.

    Health Survey and Development Committee
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India what are the terms of reference of the Health Survey and Development Committee and when it is likely to report.
    Mr. Amery: In connection with post war reconstruction plans, the Committee is "to make a broad survey of the present position in regard to health conditions and health organisation in British India and to make recommendations for future development." It is hoped that it may report this year.

  FOREIGN COURTS, UNITED KINGDOM (DEATH SENTENCES)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to preclude foreign courts in this country from sentencing their nationals to death for offences that do not warrant the extreme penalty under our own laws.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison)): By the Allied Forces Act, 1940, provision

  909
  was made whereby the Allied Powers were enabled to exercise in this country jurisdiction over members of their armed forces for certain purposes. Except in the case of the United States of America, this jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the courts of this country in respect of any conduct that is also an offence against our law, and the Allied Powers have agreed that they will notify any death sentences passed in the United Kingdom by their courts to the Minister responsible for the appropriate Service Department and that they will not carry out any such sentence except with his concurrence. As regards the United States, Parliament by the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, gave to the United States authorities exclusive criminal jurisdiction over members of their armed forces. I am not prepared to consider the introduction of legislation to amend either of these Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the Minister aware that the American authorities in this country have sentenced to death certain negroes for offences that are not punishable by death in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "And white people, too."] Can he do anything to prevent the American Government sentencing to death on British soil persons whose offences are not so punishable under our law?
  Mr. Morrison: The colour of the troops is, of course, irrelevant. With regard to the other aspect of the matter, this House, deliberately, with its eyes open, and I think wisely, gave to the American Forces complete criminal jurisdiction. That being so, the laws of the United States must necessarily apply.
  Hon. Members: Why?
  Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  IDENTITY CARDS (CHECKING)
  Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent civilian British subjects were called upon to produce their identity cards during the check-up of identity cards, which took place on the evening of 16th May; and whether the demand was made by British police or
  910
  military personnel, or by members of the U.S.A. Armed Forces.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that this examination was conducted for the purpose of detecting absentees from the Armed Forces of the United States, and that in the course of it some civilians were asked to produce their identity cards by the British police, who accompanied the American military police for the purpose. I have no definite information that civilians were asked to produce their identity cards by the United States Armed Forces, but I am assured that, if this did occur, it was contrary to instructions and that steps will be taken to prevent any recurrence.
  Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his reply will clear up a good deal of misunderstanding?
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does my right hon. Friend propose to publish the result of this round-up?
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

  WOMEN POLICE
  Lady Apsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider appointing a woman assistant inspector of constabulary at the Home Office, to advise chief constables on the selection and training of women police, and to represent provincial policewomen on the Police Council.
  Mr. H. Morrison: While I am anxious that full use shall be made of the services of women police, I do not think that at the present time there is a case for the appointment of a woman inspector of constabulary. I have, however, arranged for the advice of senior experienced policewomen to be made available in connection with the training of the women, who are now being recruited for war-time police duties, and the selection of volunteers from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if the employment of women police is to be extended, there should be greater official encouragement at headquarters?
  Mr. Morrison: It is getting plenty of encouragement from headquarters, but I cannot see why I should appoint officers, about the necessity for whose appoint-

  911
  ments I am not clear, merely for the purpose of encouragement. We have enough difficulties about staff now.
  Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that two committees have been set up to look into this question of women police, and that both agree that there should be a woman assistant inspector?
  Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but, if so, I disagree with them.
  Viscountess Astor: The right hon. Gentleman did not want to have women police until he was pressed.
  Mr. Morrison: That is very unfair.
  Viscountess Astor: No, it is not a bit unfair.

  SERVICES (NEXT-OF-KIN, TRAVEL FACILITIES)
  Lady Apsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ensure that when next-of-kin are informed by the police that their Service son is dangerously ill and that they should visit him,. the police messenger will bring with him the necessary travelling warrant which must bear police signature and thereby save in some cases a journey by the recipient to the police station of several miles to obtain this and enable the relative to start immediately for the military hospital.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I undertand that the normal procedure in these cases is for a telegram to be sent from the hospital to the relatives, who take the telegram to the nearest police station and obtain a travelling warrant. Exceptionally, the police are asked to deliver the message, and I am considering whether any improvements can be made in the arrangements for the issue of travelling vouchers in these exceptional cases.

  SIR OSWALD MOSLEY
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now the medical condition of Sir Oswald Mosley.
  Mr. H. Morrison: It was not made a condition of release that Sir Oswald Mosley should submit himself at intervals of time to medical examination. His re-
  912
  detention could only be ordered, if I were satisfied that he had failed to observe any of the conditions of his release, or that the operation of the order for detention can no longer remain suspended, without detriment to the public safety or the defence of the Realm.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask whether Sir Oswald Mosley is not suffering from flea bites and not phlebitis; and will he be invited to go down the mines? What work is he doing?

  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS)
  Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that workers from Northern. Ireland, who have crossed to Britain in order to carry out certain work, will receive exit permits to enable them to return home on the completion of the work for which they were engaged.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Travel between this country and Ireland has been suspended except for business or work of urgent national importance or on compassionate grounds of the most urgent or compelling character. Workers such as those to whom my hon. Friend refers will be at liberty to return to Ireland, if they so desire, when the present special restrictions on travel are removed.
  Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the interests of business within the United Kingdom, he will make arrangements whereby occasional travel permits will be granted to business representatives in Northern Ireland to enable them to transact their business in Great Britain.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Exit permits on business of urgent national importance are granted, in accordance with the terms of the public announcement of 13th March, that is to say, in cases in which a Government Department, whether in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, certifies that the journey is in the national interest and cannot be postponed.

  PRISONS (MAILBAG MANUFACTURE)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mailbags a year are sewn by

  913
  prisoners; who they are sold to; whether the prisoners are paid who make the bags; and if any profit is made by the transaction.
  Mt. H. Morrison: During the last financial year about 2,360,000 mailbags were made. Prisoners employed on this work may, like others, become eligible at certain stages of their sentences to earn small weekly sums under the prison earnings scheme. The mail bags were made for the General Post Office and for H.M. Stationery Office, but no payment was received from them for this work.
  Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend state the number of mailbags that are sold to the Post Office?
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot say, but they are not sold to the Post Office at all; the Post Office does not pay for them. I should think that the bulk of this number would be for the Post Office.

  HAND-BELLS (BAN)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the ban has been lifted on the ringing of the church bolls, he will now lift the ban on the ringing of hand-bells out of doors.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that this is not yet possible, since the hand-bell would be an essential signal if gas warfare began.
  Mr. Keeling: Surely we want less noise, not more?

  UNITED STATES FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (DISCIPLINE)
  Mr. Kendallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is aware of the situation that exists in Grantham and many other towns where it is unfit for a woman to walk unescorted through the town at night or in the daytime due to the in-effectiveness of the American military authorities to deal with the improper behaviour of the American Forces and the complete failure to prevent unconcealed immorality and to give proper protection to women; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this serious question;
  914
  (2) what steps does he propose to take to give adequate protection to the moral welfare of young girls of the town of Grantham and other districts who are being accosted by members of the American Forces, many of them being incited to alcoholic excesses which is tending to undermine the morality of a number of these young persons who, having been directed away from home, do not have the benefit of parental control.
  Mr. H. Morrison: In the time available since these Questions appeared on the Order Paper, I have not been able to make any special inquiries into the conditions at Grantham. I am, however, in constant touch with the general situation in the country, and my information does not suggest that these Questions give either a fair or an accurate picture of the position. In particular, the innuendo that the United States authorities are failing to assist to the utmost in disciplining their troops and checking misbehaviour is quite unjustified. They have, at all times, co-operated to the fullest possible extent with our police; they take prompt and severe disciplinary action in any case in which a breach of the law is established, and they have shown the greatest willingness to act on any suggestions made to them by the British authorities. A variety of measures have been taken by the Departments of State who are concerned with this social problem, including the provision of additional facilities for healthy recreation for the young of both sexes, the education of the public as to the dangers of venereal disease, and the employment of more women police.
  Mr. Kendall: Will the Home Secretary please bring to the notice of the American authorities that, whilst we are more than anxious to extend our hospitality to the United States troops, we would wish to see these troops extend to our womenfolk the same chivalry and courtesy that they extend to their own women-folk in their own country?
  Mr. Morrison: If any specific complaints are made, I will, of course, examine them, but I am bound to say that the American authorities have been most helpful and co-operative. I would venture to suggest that these matters are far better dealt with by correspondence, and I venture to add that I think these Questions put on the Order Paper are misconceived and rather mischievous.
  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Does not Question 17, which was asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) prove that the American military authorities are doing their best to deal with this situation?
  Mr. Morrison: That is so.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Apart from the Home Secretary's general answer, will he make specific inquiries into the circumstances at Grantham, having regard to the fact that the situation there is much graver than he appreciates?
  Mr. Morrison: I certainly will look into the allegations, but there was not time to do so between the Questions going on the Order Paper and now.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this state of things applies to many other towns besides Grantham? Is he also aware that the offences complained of in the Questions, if they are committed by the coloured troops, are subject to the death penalty, and that the white troops are allowed to do as they like?
  Mr. Morrison: That suggestion is a very mischievous one. I understand that American law on that subject applies to both coloured and white troops. Of course, it is true that in every Army serving abroad, difficulties and black patches will occur here and there, but I am bound to say, having kept closely in touch with the situation, that my belief is that, broadly speaking, the conduct of the American troops, both white and black, is exceedingly good.
  Mr. Kendall: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter, at the earliest opportunity, on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  JUSTICES' CLERKS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE)
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is proposing to take any action with a view to giving effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Justices' Clerks.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. There have been preliminary informal talks with representative clerks of the peace and clerks to justices, and I am hoping shortly
  916
  to bring to the notice of justices certain of the recommendations that can be brought into effect without legislation. I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to legislation on this subject.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend consider one of the recommendations, to the effect that rules of procedure should be laid clown for all benches of magistrates?
  Mr. Morrison: I forget whether that would require legislation or not. If it does not, I will certainly take it into early account.

  ORCHARD HEATERS (USE IN BLACK-OUT)
  Mr. Tom Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the present blackout regulations prevent the use of orchard heaters, with consequent damage to fruit crops by frost; and if he will consider relaxing this restriction until the fruit crop is safe.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Arrangements have been in force, since the early days of the war, by which, subject to suitable safeguards, growers may obtain permission to use orchard heaters, as required, during the period when fruit may be damaged by frost.
  Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there has been misunderstanding, owing to certain statements in the Press; and will he not put out a definite regulation on the subject?
  Mr. Morrison: I have stated the position. The "suitable safeguards" are that the heaters should not be used during air attacks, and that the police should be informed, so that no difficulty will arise, while it may not be possible to grant exemptions near vital points. There have been statements in the Press, based on inaccurate information; and I am sure that the newspaper, or newspapers, concerned will now put the matter right.

  MINERS' DISEASES, COMPENSATION (INCOME LIMIT)
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that men employed as

  917
  under-managers, and in similar grades, are being refused certificates of disablement by the Pneumoconiosis Board on the ground that their remuneration is above the income limit provided in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that some men disabled by these long diseases are unable to claim compensation; and if he will take steps to remove this limitation.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have no knowledge of the cases, mentioned by my hon. Friend, in which the Silicosis Medical Board have refused certificates. I have had one case brought to my notice, where an under-manager desired to be examined by the Silicosis Medical Board, but, as he agreed that he was not a "workman" as defined in the Act, by reason of the income limit for non-manual workmen, the Board intimated that they were not authorised to entertain an application. The income limit for non-manual workmen in the Act was raised to £420 by the National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1941, in conformity with the limit for Health and Unemployment Insurance. I am not in a position to forecast the details of future legislation.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter urgently? I know already of a number of men, who occupy this very important position in coalmining, who propose to retire from their present position because the risk of contracting silicosis is so high, and they cannot afford to run that risk. The loss to coalmining will be very serious.
  Mr. Morrison: I will take that into account in connection with any permanent legislation which it is proposed to introduce, but I do not think I can bring forward emergency legislation to deal with it.
  Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend then consider making the legislation retrospective, to cover these cases?
  Mr. Morrison: Retrospective legislation is always a difficult matter, but I will consider it.

  DARTMOOR PRISON
  Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent criticisms, he can make any statement as to the future of Dartmoor.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given, on 23rd May, by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne).
  Captain Plugge: Has the right hon. Gentleman any escapes during the current year to report?
  Mr. Morrison: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to protect the Governor and the authorities of this prison from criticisms, which are often unjustified? My impression, on a visit which I made to the prison, was that they were doing a magnificent job of work.
  Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for that statement.

  STREET COLLECTIONS, LONDON
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department from whom permission has to be obtained to hold flag days in London; and what organisations were allowed to appeal for funds upon the recent Animal Day.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Permission to make street collections in London must be obtained from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan or City Police, as the case may be. A permit was given to the Joint Animal Flag Day Committee for a street collection in the Metropolitan Police District on 16th instant. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the organisations on whose behalf the application was made.
  Wing-Commander James: Is it not a fact that most of these societies are extremely wealthy, and, in the case of anti-vivisection societies, anti-social; and will the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether, in future, these flag days should be limited to genuine and deserving charities?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think there can be any question that in general these bodies are genuine charities. As far as I know, most of them are fairly well placed financially, and I do not think that they would avail themselves of flag

  919
  days if they could avoid it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I do not think they would arrange flag days unnecessarily. I do not want to exercise any discrimination; I can only say that flag days are becoming rather numerous, and that a little restraint would be all to the good.
  Wing-Commander James: If I put down a Question, will the right hon. Gentleman publish the funds of the societies which were concerned in this flag day?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that I would know, but if I have got the information I will consider giving it.
  The organisations are as follow:

  The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

  The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor.

  The National Council for Animals Welfare.

  Our Dumb Friends' League.

  Ada Cole Memorial Stables.

  Animal Help Association.

  Animals' Help Society.

  Blue Cross Kennels and Animals' Hospital.

  The Camberwell Costers Benevolent Association.

  Hampstead Society for the Protection of Animals.

  International League for the Protection Horses.

  Woolwich Animals' Welfare Centre.

  EDUCATION

    Teachers, Nottinghamshire (Shortage)
    Mr. Shephardasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the serious shortage of teachers in the elementary schools of the Nottinghamshire local education authority; that this shortage is affecting the efficiency of the service; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this deficiency.
    The President of the Board of Education {Mr. Butler): Local shortages of teachers are admittedly more difficult to meet than they used to be, because a higher proportion of the teaching staff consists of married women and teachers staying on beyond retiring age, who can-
    920
    not be transferred away from their homes. My Department has sought, by a system of allocating newly-qualified teachers to the service of a particular authority, to secure a fair distribution of new mobile recruits. This procedure is continuing, and meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will see from Circular 1654, which I am sending him, I have acted on one recommendation of the McNair Committee's Report, which will have the effect, in due course, of widening the field of recruitment for teachers.
    Mr. Shephard: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of Labour, with a view to removing the age restriction on women who wish to enter the teaching profession; and will he persuade the Minister of Labour to desist from calling up women students once they have commenced their training?
    Mr. Butler: Everything that has been done by the Minister of Labour in this respect has been done in consultation with me and with my full agreement. Naturally, I would like to get more teachers but I must have regard to the national needs at the present time.

    Teacher, Loughborough {Release from Army)
    Major Kimballasked the President of the Board of Education why he will not support the application for the release from the Army of No. 10596110, Private R. L. Hallam, R.E.M.E., made by the Loughborough education authority, in view of the fact that this man is now medical category C 2 and that it has been impossible to find a substitute male teacher to fill his former position at the Limehurst senior school.
    Mr. Butler: The post to which Mr. Hallam desires to return is not a special one which could not be filled by someone else, and my evidence does not support the contention that the authority have tried unsuccessfully to find a substitute. In any case, Mr. Hallam is under the minimum age at which the Army authorities are normally prepared to entertain recommendations for deferment or release. The Army urgently needs men at the present time who can perform non-combatant service. If,, for medical reasons, the Army can make no further use of Mr. Hallam's services, it is for them to arrange his discharge.
    Major Kimball: In view of the admitted shortage of teachers, could not this man be more usefully employed in his civilian capacity, as a teacher, rather than on non-combatant duties in the Army?
    Mr. Butler: I have looked into the matter, and a great deal of information has been given to my hon. and gallant Friend. I have refused to make an exception in this case, because of the rules. I have indicated, as well as I can, the manner in which this case stands in regard to those rules.

    School Dinners
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Education how long it will take, at the present rate of progress, for provision of school dinners to be made for all schoolchildren.
    Mr. Butler: The scheme covering 75 per cent. of the children, which is about the proportion thought likely to wish to have dinner at school, was expected to be completed in rather more than three years from now; but I have good reason to hope that, as a result of various measures taken by this Department, this period will be considerably reduced.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steps he has taken will give considerable satisfaction?
    Sir H. Williams: But is my right hon. Friend aware that some mothers, curiously enough, desire to have their children at home for the mid-day meal?
    Mr. Butler: We make full allowance for that in all our arrangements, but we wish to see the dinners-in-school service used as widely as possible.
    Captain Plugge: Will my right hon. Friend give full consideration to the provision of adequate domestic help for this purpose and not throw all the work involved on the teaching staff?
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the right hon. Gentleman collect information from certain authorities which are more successful in this matter than others, and does he advise others as to the methods by which those authorities are able to make the scheme a success?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, we try to spread the good news; and, as a result, we have increased the service of meals from 300,000 three years ago to 1,500,000 now.

  EVACUEES (BILLETING ALLOWANCES, INCREASE)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health whether a decision has yet been reached as regard the scale of billeting allowances under the Government's evacuation scheme.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): Yes, Sir. Increases in the scale of billeting allowances will come into operation as from 1st July next. For children over five, the allowances throughout the scale will be increased by 1s. a week. In the case of children under five, the allowance will be 10s. 6d. a week, irrespective of the number of children received, and will not, as at present, be reduced to 8s. 6d. each if two or more are received.
  Sir J. Mellor: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for this improvement, might I ask whether he will continue to bear in mind that the major hardship for most of those concerned is the loss of their domestic privacy?
  Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, my appreciation of the service rendered by those who care for these children is so great that I have given my closest personal consideration to this matter, and have done my best about it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    River Bourne (Sewerage Works)
    Major John Morrisonasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the dangerous condition of sewage in the River Bourne, of which he has been informed, he can now make a statement as to what steps it is proposed to take to ensure that the pollution is stopped and the health of those living in the valley not endangered.
    Mr. Willink: The sewage works concerned are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, whose officers have been in touch with my Department, and now state that the bed of the River Bourne is being cleaned out as far as Newton Tony; that the excess flow over 800,000 gallons per day (for which the works were designed) is being irrigated over adjacent land; that it is intended to irrigate the whole of the effluent as soon as the necessary pumping plant can be obtained and meanwhile to secure a temporary pump if possible;

    923
    that the employment of expert supervisory staff is under consideration; and that fortnightly analyses will be forwarded to my Department. I have arranged for my technical officers to visit and report on the situation in a month's time.
    Major Morrison: Arising out of that reply, will my right hon. and learned Friend see if it is possible to expedite the matter?
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

    National Health Service
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health how many doctors he intends to make State-salaried officials on the initiation of the proposed National Health Scheme.
    Mr. Willink.: I cannot accept the implication of the Question. If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper, he will see that there is no intention of turning doctors into State-salaried officials, and that, even where—as in the health centres—remuneration by salary is mentioned, it is suggested as one among other possible alternatives.
    Dr. Thomas: But in view of the fact that the White Paper authorises the Minister to establish health centres and State-salaried doctors, if he considers the public interest demands it, does not that mean that this Government, or a future Government, can create a State-paid bureaucratic service?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. My hon. Friend's conception of the White Paper is very far from the mark.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health how many doctors will be required to undertake the proposed National Health Scheme.
    Mr. Willink: There is no reliable means of assessing this at present, but I have no reason to doubt that, when doctors return from the Forces, the number of doctors available will be sufficient to enable us to make a good start with the new Health Service.
    Dr. Thomas: As there are over 70,000 doctors on the British register, and not half of that number are required for this service, does the Minister remember the ruthless remark of his Parliamentary
    924
    Secretary in the health Debate, when the hon. Lady said that those who were unemployed could retire, or go to the Colonies?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.
    Mr. Gallacher: Could the Minister not consider abolishing the medical men and getting on with the health service?
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health if he can now say when he intends to introduce a Bill in regard to a National Health Scheme.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, if he should bring in his Bill, based on the proposals of the White Paper there are those of us in this House who are prepared to combine to fight the Bill, Clause by Clause?
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Health if he will consult with the representatives of workmen's medical aid societies before deciding upon the provisions of the legislation based on the White Paper on the health services.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Would the Minister also consult representatives of workmen's hospitals, such as the Manor House Hospital at Hampstead?
    Mr. Willink: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.

  HOUSING

    War-damaged houses, Birmingham (Tenancies)
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Birmingham Estates Committee considers it should have the right to nominate tenants to houses suitable for the working classes which have been bombed and made habitable by the committee; and, as he has already ruled that the owners of such houses have a right to let, will he ensure that it is possible for the landlord to regain control of his property as soon as it is available.
    Mr. Willink: I have made inquiries of the Birmingham Corporation, and I am informed that the Estates Committee make no claim to nominate tenants to war-

    925
    damaged houses which have been repaired by them, except in respect of Corporation houses, or houses which have been duly requisitioned by the Corporation. I understand, however, that the Corporation are considering making representations to me for the grant of increased powers. In the event of any such representations being received, I should of course give full consideration to the views expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that property owners have paid the war damage contribution, and that it has not been paid by the Corporation; and does he not consider that property-owners should retain control of their own property?
    Mr. Willink: When the question arises, I shall take such matters into account and consider both sides, but, of course, special measures in the present special circumstances do need to be taken in regard to housing problems.
    Sir William Davison: Is the Minister aware that often in London the only way a property-owner can get his bombed houses repaired is through the local authority, and that they ask for the privilege of nominating the tenants, when they do the repairs?

    Rural Workers
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Health if, taking any type of rural house built under his 3,000 schemes, he will analyse the costs under such building as labour, materials, etc.
    Mr. Willink: The councils by whom houses have been built under this scheme have invited their contractors to supply details of the cost of labour and materials. At present such information has been received for 32 parlour houses, and this indicates that, on average, labour represented 42 per cent. and materials 58 per cent. of the building costs of these houses.
    Mr. Linsteadasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes generally to adopt the recommendations in the Third Report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The report is being published to-day and I am issuing to local authorities a circular asking them to co-operate in establishing the joint
    926
    county committees on rural housing which are the subject of one of the principal recommendations in this report. I am also asking them to proceed as soon as circumstances permit with the thorough and comprehensive survey of rural housing conditions which is recommended as a basis for the long-term housing programme. The financial recommendations in the report are being considered in the consultations as to the nature and amount of Exchequer subsidies which are proceeding with the Associations of local authorities. I hope in due course to be submitting to Parliament the Government's proposals for the amendment of the Housing (Rural Workers') Acts on the lines recommended. The recommendations regarding extensions of rural water supplies are covered by proposals which are already before the House.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: Does that mean that we are going to get agricultural workers' cottages in the near future, at a rent the workers can afford?
    Mr. Willink: I hope that we shall get agricultural workers' cottages but I cannot commit myself to the near future.
    Mr. Granville: At a rent they can afford?

    Repairs (Materials)
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether, to check the rapid deterioration of many houses owing to lack of suitable material for current repair, he will, in the interests of adequate accommodation, consider the release of the necessary requirements at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Willink: General arrangements have been made in consultation with the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Supply to facilitate the release of essential materials and the possibilities of further assistance are now being examined. If my hon. Friend has any particular difficulties in mind, I shall be glad to look into them if he will let me have details.

    Local Authorities' Proposals (Approval)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health the number of authorities to which a rural district council in Kent has to apply first of all to obtain approval of, and then to proceed with the erection of, long needed housing work; and whether this same procedure is to continue after the war.
    Mr. Willink: I assume my hon. Friend has in mind the approval of proposals for building new houses. When I am in a position to authorise the general provision of such houses by Local Authorities I have it in mind that the instructions issued will ensure that the Local Authority, before submitting their proposals to me, has to consult only the planning authorities.

    Building By-Laws
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he will accept the recommendations of the committee now conducting investigations under another Ministry with the object of ascertaining the accurate strengths now attributable to steel and cement as soon as this committee's Report is complete; and whether he will issue model by-laws in accordance with their findings.
    Mr. Willink: In so far as any changes may be necessary in the model by-laws,
    I can assure my hon. Friend that they will be made after due consideration.
    Mr. Bossom: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend, may I ask him if he will make a point of doing this as quickly as possible, because engineers and architects cannot get on with their drafting, until they have information on this matter?
    Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Question asks whether I will accept the recommendation of a committee which has not yet reported, but, of course, I shall act with proper expedition.

  CIVIL AVIATION (EMPIRE POLICY)
  Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Prime Minister if, as the result of the meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make a statement on Commonwealth policy on the future of civil aviation; and whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of debating this before the International Conference takes place.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The question of civil aviation was discussed at the meeting with Dominion Prime Ministers in the light of developments since the British Commonwealth conversations last October. There
  928
  is, however, nothing which at present calls for a further statement of policy by His Majesty's Government.
  As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add at present to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 18 April arising out of Questions addressed to him by the hon. Members for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) and Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).
  Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that we have often been put off, while waiting for this conference on civil aviation plans, may I ask if it is intended to go to the international conference with Empire plans; and is it intended to organise these air lines on a Commonwealth basis, or are we going to leave it to American aircraft manufacturers to do it for us?
  Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Granville: On a point of Order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  TROOPS, MALTA (AWARDS)
  Mr. Liddallasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the issue of a ribbon to the troops who served throughout the siege of Malta.
  Mr. Attlee: Troops who served in Malta at any time between 10 July, 1940, and 12 May, 1943, are eligible for the award of the Africa Star.
  Mr. Liddall: Can my right hon. Friend say how it is that some soldiers, who served right through the siege of Malta and are now in Italy, have not yet received that medal?
  Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member has any particular case, perhaps he will put it to the Service Minister concerned.

  PRIVY COUNCIL MEETING (NAMES)
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Lord President of the Council why the names of the Privy Counsellors present at the meeting of the Privy Council on 4th May, 1944, are not stated in Statutory. Rule and Order, No. 536, of 1944; and if he will now furnish the names
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): It would have been contrary to established practice to state in the Order in Council to which my hon. Friend refers the names of those who attended the Council held on 4th May last, at which His Majesty approved the draft Proclamation under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1942, the text of which is annexed to that Order. The Privy Counsellors who were present, however, were the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Curtin.
  Sir H. Williams: If it was contrary to usual practice to include the names on this occasion, why was it the invariable practice to include them on the occasion of every other Privy Council?
  Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is incorrect. The names of those who attend the Councils appear only in Orders in Council approving Reports of the Judicial Committee, which form a class by themselves, and, as an historic survival, in a small and diminishing number of other Orders applying to the Colonies, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. Inclusion or omission of the names is based on Departmental practice of long standing.
  Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only Order, of all those I have perused in the last two years, which does not contain the names?
  Mr. Attlee: I must presume that the conditions concerning those Orders are as I have said and I suggest that the hon. Member should peruse them a little further.
  Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nine-tenths of them do not fall within the category described by him?

  AGRICULTURE

    Italian Prisoners of War
    Major John Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will allow Italian prisoners of war working on farms to remain on the same farms where desired as long as is possible, in order that the farmer should not have continually to train new men at a busy time when he is short of labour.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir. Prisoners billeted on farms, and, so far as possible, other prisoners working regularly for individual farmers, are not changed except where that cannot be avoided.

    Milk and Meat (Guaranteed Prices)
    Mr. David Ecclesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make any statement about the future prices of livestock and milk.
    Mr. Hudson: The Government have decided to guarantee to producers of milk, fat cattle, calves, sheep and lambs an assured market for their whole output of milk and meat during the four years up to the summer of 1948 at price levels riot less than those at present prevailing, but excluding the special milk bonus paid for the current year. These will be guaranteed minimum prices. The guarantee is given as an integral part of the four-year production plan for these commodities by reason of the long term nature of these forms of production. It is designed to encourage farmers to produce the increased quantity of milk that is likely to be required in the next four years and to stimulate a revival in the rearing of cattle and sheep for meat production.
    Actual prices, which may exceed these minima, will be settled year by year in the light of all relevant circumstances after consultation with representatives of the appropriate farmers' organisations. This annual review will include, in the case of milk, the question whether the special bonus or some other supplement to the guaranteed minimum price is to be continued after 31st March, 1945.
    For the year beginning in July next, actual prices of fat steers, heifers and cow-heifers will on the average be increased above the guaranteed minima by 2s. per live cwt. and of fat lambs and sheep (excluding ewes and rams) by approximately 1⅛d. per 1b. The prices for the 1944 wool clip will be the same as in 1943; a small part of the additional amount for sheep and lambs takes account of this decision. Methods of applying these price increases so as to give some incentive for quality, without sacrificing quantity of meat, have been discussed with representatives of the Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom. Full details of the actual adjustments and of the dates from which they will operate will be announced later.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health if he will place in the Library of the House the instruction sent out by the Assistance Board to each area as to how the Command Paper 6490, which deals with supplementary pensions, shall be carried out.
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 26th March, 1942, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. Tinker: Would it not be better, in matters of this kind, if Members were informed of what is happening, so that, if there were any difficulties, they could raise them by putting down questions; and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question again and see whether he can fall in with the wishes of a large number of us?
  Mr. Willink: I am very anxious, I think my hon. Friend knows, to be thoroughly helpful in this whole matter of supplementary pensions. The particular point he raises was answered thoroughly on the occasion to which I referred and was again dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service at the close of the Debate, which he and I well remember, in December last. If any particular point arises, I shall be most glad to try to help.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the payment for rent under the supplementary old age pension is, in the case of the single person living in lodgings, being calculated as being two-thirds for rent and one-third for heating, lighting and crockery; and will he state if this is in accordance with the Assistance Board's ruling; and whether there is a uniform basis for rent in each Assistance Board area.
  Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I am informed by the Assistance Board that where an applicant is paying an inclusive sum for rent, heating, lighting, etc., the amount attributed to rent depends on the circumstances of the individual case. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on 6th April, 1944.
  Mr. Tinker: As this is a very important point and cannot be dealt with by question and answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ELECTORAL REFORM (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE, REPORT)
  Mr. Pethick Lawrence(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to when the interim report of the Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats presided over by Mr. Speaker may be expected?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a letter from you, Mr. Speaker, giving the recommendations made by the Conference on three of their four terms of reference—namely, redistribution of seats; reform of franchise; and methods of election. The report will be presented to Parliament at once as a Command Paper, and prints will be made available as soon as possible.
  The House will not expect comment at this stage on the proposals made by the Conference, but the Prime Minister would like to say how much His Majesty's Government appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which the Conference has discharged so substantial a portion of its weighty task.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business to be taken on the resumption?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.
Tuesday, 6th June.—Supply: Committee (8th Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on Colonial Affairs.
Wednesday, 7th June.—Supply: Committee (9th Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on the Location of Industry.
Thursday, 8th June.—Committee, and, if agreeable to the House, remaining stages of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill. Motion to approve the Fish Sales {Charges) Order.
Friday, 9th June.—Supply: Committee (10th Allotted Day). The Ministry of Food Vote will be considered.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the White Paper on Full Employment will be out to-morrow, he will make arrangements for a full and adequate discussion of it as soon as possible?
Mr. Eden: Certainly the House might like a full and adequate discussion, but I think they would also like a bit of time to study the proposal. I was not proposing, anyhow, to put it down this week.
Sir Percy Harris: In the Debate on the Location of Industry, can my right hon. Friend indicate whether, in addition to the President of the Board of Trade, who, I understand, is to take part, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will also be present?
Mr. Eden: He will be present, but whether he will take part or not I cannot say.
Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has considered the request made by the Leader of the Labour Party a fortnight ago—and by the Leader of my party—for an early Debate on the issue of equal pay in the public service?
Mr. Eden: Since that event, the Government have announced their decision to set up a Royal Commission.
Mr. Brown: This request was made after that announcement was made to the House, and the Deputy Prime Minister, who was speaking for the right hon. Gentleman, on that date, undertook to give consideration to the matter. I wonder what was the upshot of that consideration.
Mr. Eden: I have not given the consideration to it that I should no doubt have given in the interval, but I should think, speaking without notice, that it would not be very useful to have a Debate of this kind now that we have set up a Royal Commission.
Mr. Muff: In view of the fact that the Town and Country Planning Bill was to have been put on the Paper to-day and given the First Reading and that that has not been done, can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect to see that Bill in print?
Mr. Eden: I did know that notice had been given of the First Reading of the Bill, to withdraw it. It may be that further improvements can be made—as the Government are always anxious to do, before they present work to the Ho use.
Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in considering the Supply Days for the period between Whitsun and the Summer Recess, he will allot one of those Supply days to the Vote of the Ministry of Pensions?
Mr. Eden: I will certainly bear that in mind.
Sir Irving Albery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will bear in mind a request which has been made by a number of hon. Members for a day to debate the detention of an hon. Member of this House? If he is unable to state now when such a Debate will take place, will he endeavour to fix a date as soon as possible?
Mr. Eden: I did say that I would bear that in mind but I am not in position to fix a date at the present time.
Captain Peter Macdonald: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Debate on Colonial Affairs, in view of the very wide field that has to be covered, and the importance of the subject, whether he will consider giving another day later on, for a discussion of special area Colonial Affairs, since one day is not enough?
Mr. Eden: I would rather see the way in which we discuss the matter first; we can always make subsequent arrangements.
Sir William Davison: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) as to fixing a day for a Debate on the detention of an hon. Member, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member in question has now been detained for over four years, and in particular bearing in mind the change of circumstances which has since occurred, is it not a matter of urgency that this matter should be discussed by the House without delay?
Mr. Eden: I have taken note of what my hon. Friends have said, and I have said that I will make arrangements. What I said I could not do was to give a date now.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Ordered:
That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Rennell to attend to be examined as a Witness before Sub-Committee D, appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure.—[Sir Ralph Glyn.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th May.]
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to Foreign Affairs and the foreign policy of this country and the Dominions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945:

  Class I., Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  £10

  Class II., Vote 1, Foreign Office

  £10

  Class II., Vote 3, League of Nations

  £10

  Class II, Vote 4, Dominions Office

  £10

  £40"

  Sir Richard Acland: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is not this Motion the same as that which was under discussion yesterday? I only want to finish what I was saying yesterday. You have put exactly the same Question as that which was before the Committee yesterday, which stood adjourned and was not voted upon. I had the attention of the Committee when we adjourned, no Question was put, and I submit we are resuming the Debate on the same Motion.
  The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is not correct. There is a new Question, which I have just proposed to the Committee, which may or may not be in identical terms with the one proposed yesterday. The Debate is not an Adjourned Debate, as the Committee reported Progress yesterday, and therefore a new Question is before the Committee to-day.
  Sir R. Acland: With all respect, is it not exactly the same Question? If you had put a different question, I would have seen the point, but this is exactly the same Question.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member must appreciate that we are in Committee of Supply, and, in Supply, we do, in fact, propose a fresh Question each day. That is the Rule.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday—to which the Committee listened with very deep interest—began to referring to the Dominions Conference of the Prime Ministers. I would like to say, speaking for myself and most of my hon. Friends, that we welcome that conference of Dominions Prime Ministers and hope that such conferences will continue, from time to time, as occasion requires. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who spoke yesterday, said, we yield to none in our admiration of the British Commonwealth and Empire. One does not wish to introduce a party political note into this Debate but, indeed, it is a matter of special pride to my hon. Friends and myself that two of the four great Dominions are now under the command of Labour Governments. Their efforts in the war are accepted as being efforts to the full, and we take pride in their achievements.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister devoted the greater part of his speech yesterday to the war situation, which he was quite entitled to do and which, indeed, he could not avoid. However, it shows the difficulty we have had in the House of Commons in the last few years in trying to fine a line of demarcation between the war situation and foreign affairs. I propose to devote the time that I have to-day to dealing with the question of foreign affairs, particularly from the point of view of the future. Our foreign policy in this country must rest on two foundations. The first foundation is that of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We may have had—as I took occasion to say a few weeks ago—a rather murky past which we are trying now to live down. I do not want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, but there are episodes in the history of the development of the Empire which reflect little credit on this country. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend has not read the history of the Empire, I am sorry. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has written it."] But it is all the more credit to us that we are becoming an example to the world in the development of the Commonwealth and the Empire. I wish we had an all-inclusive term, for it is an entity based partly on a predominant language, a predominant culture, and on common interests which have grown up as the years have gone by. I think so far as

  957
  one can understand the discussions that have taken place at the conference of Prime Ministers, the real strength of the Brittish Empire and Commonwealth is to be found in its unity of purpose. That unity of purpose is a firm intention to develop a community of free nations, and, as soon as we can, to lead the Colonies and Dependencies along the same path to full freedom and full democracy.
  We have another claim to consideration. Not only is this a far-flung Empire, knit more closely now because of the war and because of the development of air transport. We have another claim to the respect of the world—that we, alone of the Great Powers now in the struggle, declared war. There was no doubt as to the position of the Dominions. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has recorded that when the news reached them, within three minutes they were at war without question. The fact that we declared war has cast upon Britain and her sister nations a very great responsibility which we cannot farm out, a responsibility to care for those nations which, as a result of a deliberate act by the British Government, have been over-run, and have suffered all the worst effects of German tyranny.
  We stand, therefore, in a special relation to the European peoples, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will realise that those responsibilities have to be honourably fulfilled. In my view, there has been a disposition during the war to be a little less than frank with some of our great Allies, a disposition, I think, to funk vital issues; but it ought to be made perfectly clear to our great Allies that we have a place in the world and responsibilities in the world which entitle us to the full respect of all the nations in the world. Therefore, the sooner we can be perfectly frank with our Allies the better. It is no use denying that war, like adversity, makes strange bed fellows. You are perfectly clear about what you have to do with the enemy, but it is not always so clear how you are to treat your friends. The Prime Minister said yesterday that this war is not being conducted on ideological grounds, and that is true, but when the war is over you cannot expect national outlooks and national ideologies to be sunk permanently, because they will come again to the surface, and whilst one wants complete friendship with all nations it must be on the basis not of Britain's
  958
  rights but of Britain's authority and Britain's responsibilities.
  What I am saying is not directed against any of our Allies, but it is clear that we have a special point of view, a special history and tradition, a special knowledge of world affairs, such as no other great Power possesses. I said a moment ago that we have special responsibilities in Europe. I think that is so. There not only are they the victims of a particularly cruel and horrible form of Nazi aggression but they are very near neighbours, and although the strip of sea is still a formidable naval and military obstacle we are, in fact, now a European Power, and I do not see us ridding ourselves of the responsibilities of that position. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the United Nations would assist the restoration of democratic institutions and democratic life in the countries which have been over-run. I hope that will be so. I hope that, with advancing military victory, we may do it quickly in the case of Italy. We must do it, I think, in all countries. The Prime Minister declared, however, that this Government and other Allied Governments could not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. That is not a new principle, but there are elements and aspects of Fascism in the overrun countries to-day which ought to be destroyed if a free life is to be obtained when the war is over. I give as one example the treatment of the Jews. I would say that the United Nations of the world were not fulfilling their responsibilities, when the European Continent has been released, if they permitted the continuance of anti-Jewish legislation. I am not going to argue the question of Palestine and its future, but one essential element of democracy is the freedom of all citizens, of whatever race, before the law. I would hope, therefore, that a broad interpretation will be put upon this principle of non-interference in national affairs on the Continent.
  The second basis of our policy in the future must be that of international co-operation. If what I have said is interpreted as being unfriendly to our great Allies, it is only because I think that frankness, all the cards on the table, is the only way to a permanent understanding between the great nations of the world. And I would not say only the

  959
  great nations of the world, because the quality of a nation is not necessarily measured by its size. The Prime Minister yesterday made a very firm statement about international action from the military point of view after the war is over. With that, I think, the Committee would agree. I think the burden of that responsibility must rest primarily on the great Powers, but I should be sorry to think that the smaller Powers were to be excluded. I believe that neutrality is an outworn ideal. Should it unfortunately happen that there is another great war it will be a war of principles, and when principles arise those who are not for us are against us. Therefore, in considering the military control of the world I would like to see associated with it those smaller Powers who have stood by us, ill-equipped as they were, and those who hitherto have been neutral. I would also include in the greater Powers one which the Prime Minister did not mention yesterday, China. I was very sorry that the Prime Minister did not refer to the Eastern war or Eastern possibilities after the war. He also dealt with the question of a world assembly in very general terms—no details of any kind—and I think that was rather unfortunate.
  My own view, which I have expressed in the House before, is that one of the finest moral stimulants the Fighting Forces can have is a confident spirit that the future will be all right for them. The idea that we can leave over until after the war things on which the destinies of the world will depend for generations is a very unfortunate one. I would have liked the Government to be in a position to pursue rather further the general principle of international co-operation after the war. I appreciate, to the full, all the difficulties that there are in war-time, I can appreciate that there are a lot of snags and a lot of differences of outlook and policy and intention, but it is high time now, when the war is reaching its height, that we and the world should have something more precise about the future world organisation than we had from the Prime Minister yesterday. Admitting all the difficulties, I still cast upon His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United Nations the responsibility now, before it is too late, for getting a clear vision of what they want to build in the future and a clear idea of the ways in
  960
  which they intend to do it. We have not yet got very far along those lines.
  The Prime Minister referred to the Atlantic Charter as a signpost, a mere indication of direction. The Atlantic Charter is not a signpost. It ought to be a swiftly moving car, surging on to a defined destination with the approval of the peoples of the world. Within our limits and with a certain amount of hesitation we have begun in this country to work out the eight points of the Atlantic Charter so far as they apply to us, but I assure the Committee that if we leave the application of those general principles until after the war they will never be clothed with proper meaning, they will never be realised, at least for a very long time. We hope that before very long the Government, in association with our Allies, will be in a position to say something rather more precise as to the instrument which they mean to establish at the end of the war. It is important from the point of view of the smaller nations. I do not believe that the world can be run by the three or four big Powers hi the world. I think it is undesirable and that it would be tragic if we were to try to do it. Those nations on the Continent of Europe who trust us in this country, who look to us for moral leadership, are prepared enthusiastically to support any big forward move for international co-operation after the war, and during these coming months, when their hours of trial will be even more anxious than in the past, it would be an inspiring thought for them to know without any doubt that there is a future for them in the comity of nations.
  Very little was said by the Prime Minister yesterday about economic problems. My hon. Friends and I hold the view that economic problems are the major seeds of war, and unless we handle economic problems boldly we may find ourselves in a situation in which we are again heading for war. I remember a discussion which I once had with Rudolf Hess. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] He is a missing German. He talked about the economic problems of Germany. There they were, engaged upon war production on a great scale, unemployment had ceased to exist, and I said to him "When you have done all that what happens next?" He replied "Oh, well, then we are going for the great social developments, and so

  961
  on". I remarked "Yes, and then what happens after that?" He said "Ah, I knew you would put that question. We want room to breathe; we want Colonies". I explained to him that our Colonies were not sources of profit to the British people, but were a great responsibility to us, and that we had to wipe out some of the evil things we had done in the past. There was an urge in that man. He wanted physical possession of large territories for economic reasons, very largely—economic power giving the Germans the opportunity to secure their full political aims. Well, that seems to me to be all wrong, and it has been accepted now as being wrong. The Atlantic Charter, to which I attach very great importance, was the first statement of its kind which did recognise the important part which the solution of economic problems must play in We future progress and hapiness of the world.
  The Hot Springs Conference is another indication. There, we have had an agreed statement of principles, not as yet fully worked out, but an agreed statement of principles which will govern the world's economic life as regards the production and distribution of vital foodstuffs. One hopes that our foreign policy in the future will develop along those lines of economic co-operation. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, with an Imperial mind, has snatched from some other Departments and other branches of activity certain officers and certain people. That is all to the good. I think our diplomatists of the past have lived in too arid an atmosphere and have been, as the Americans would say, "socialites," rather than active persons understanding the life of the people, and, if my right hon. Friend proceeds to develop in the Foreign Office, a Department which views the economic problems of the world as being of equal importance with the political problems of the world, it will be all to the good. The question of economic development goes to the roots of future possibilities. I have said, on previous occasions, that we can attain freedom from want. There is no reason for five-sixths of mankind to live in dire poverty. The resources are there, and the vast majority of mankind, strange as it may seem to some people, prefer to work for a living. If they are provided with full employment and are given access to the available resources under properly organised con-
  962
  ditions, and free from the major profit motive, winch leads to such bad exploitation in the Colonies and elsewhere, then, I think, we are on We way to making a world really fit to live in.
  I hope that we may find opportunities this Session, at a later stage, for a discussion of the broad lay-out of foreign policy after the war, and I hope that as a result of this discussion we shall be told of advances which have been made and decisions which have been reached on some of these issues. I do not, myself, believe that either the political or the economic problems of the world are going to be solved on the assumption that the old organisation of life and society is to continue to exist unimpaired. I do not believe that. If we believe in the things which we declare, if this House of Commons, having applauded the Atlantic Charter, believes in it, then we must be prepared, at whatever cost it may be to outworn traditions, to face the world with an open mind. The greatest nation of the future will be the one which gathers the rich fruits of the experience of the last five years, is prepared to get rid of evil things, and is brave and bold enough to head for a future well worth the living.
  Sir Edward Grigg: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down has made a deeply interesting speech. I should have liked very much to have followed him on many of the points which he raised—not by any means by way of disagreement, because I think I agreed with most of what he said, but by way of strengthening and emphasising some of the points he made. A very large number of Members, however, want to address the Committee to-day, and I am going to confine myself rigidly to three topics with which I am anxious to deal. Two of these are, as a matter of fact, topics on which my right hon. Friend has also said something.
  Let me, in the first place, follow him in congratulating His Majesty's Government on the successful manner in which they conducted the meeting of Prime Ministers. I think it reflects great credit on the Prime Minister, on the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs—whom we still remember with affection in this House—and on the other Members of the Government who were concerned with its business. Everybody who has attended conferences knows that

  963
  they depend mainly on two things. The first is the mood in which people come to them. I do not think there is any question whatever about the mood in which the representatives of the Empire and Commonwealth came to the Conference which has just been held. All of them, whatever differences of method there might be between them, were out for securing the closest measure of co-operation, not only during the war, but after the war, throughout the British Empire. I do not think there is any question about that. In the second place—and I would like to lay emphasis on this—there is no question but that all of them felt that the Empire and Commonwealth must not be regarded as an exclusive clan. They were all anxious that it should play its part in the service of the world, and I emphasise that as a very important feature, much more marked, as a matter of fact, at this Conference than at any previous historical meeting of representatives of the Commonwealth. So far, then, as the mood in which the members of that gathering met is concerned, all was well. It reflects the living unity of the Commonwealth at the present time.
  As to the handling, I think it was equal to the mood in which the Conference met. We take the Prime Minister for granted, but there is no question that, as one of the three men who have been making history, day and night, for the last four years, his personal prestige is enormous and a great asset to the Empire at the present time. Not only that. We know, in this House, his extraordinary gift for bringing to light the real significance of current events, events that are sometimes so over-shadowing, so stunning in their effect, that one does not realise their full significance. The Prime Minister has that descriptive gift; he also has the gift, which I am sure he exercised on this occasion, of holding up a mirror to the people here and to the Commonwealth as a whole, and showing them the greatness and the strength of their lineaments.
  Apart from the Prime Minister whom, as I say, we generally now take for granted, I am convinced, from what I have heard from all who attended the Conference, that a special measure of thanks is due from hon. Members here to the Foreign Secretary for the part he played in it. That has been brought home
  964
  to me by many of the members who attended the meeting of Prime Ministers. He undoubtedly made, at that meeting, the impression which I think he generally makes in negotiations and in conference—the impression of candour, uprightness, sincerity and good will: I feel that, like Sir Edward Grey, he is becoming very representative of our national character, and I am grateful to him for having played that part in the meeting of Prime Ministers. I am one of the older runners in the historic relay-race of the Commonwealth and Empire, runners whose duty it is to make what progress is possible in their time, and to hand on the faith unimpaired. In that capacity, I naturally look to the future—all the time I look to the younger men—and I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me to say, as an older man, that his contribution to this meeting seems to me to have been exactly of the character which we all hope for the future, and to wish him success many years ahead, when older men like me have passed from the scene.
  I think that the Committee, in many of the speeches that have been made, has shown its appreciation of the great significance of that gathering. It is worth emphasising at the present time who attended the Conference apart from the representatives of our own Government. Next to the Prime Minister in world prestige, unquestionably, comes Field-Marshal Smuts, not only a statesman, but a scholar, a man of science, a philosopher, a man not of British descent but of Dutch and Huguenot descent, who played a great part in these proceedings, as he has in the life of the Commonwealth for many years past, though he was in arms against us at the beginning of this century. Then there was Mr. Mackenzie King. Mr. Mackenzie King also makes a special contribution to meetings of this kind, not only for his long service in public life in Canada, but because he was partly educated in the United States and also, I think, because he is, in part, descended from French Canadian ancestors. I think that Papineau, a man whom we used to call at one time a "rebel," was one of his ancestors.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does my hon. Friend suggest that William Lyon Mackenzie was a Frenchman? He was the ancestor.
  Sir E. Grigg: The Prime Minister of Canada. like all of us, has several ancestors. Mr. Curtin represents yet another race and another strain in the Empire. He is the son of a policeman of Irish extraction, who made his way as a journalist and a trade union leader, and has unquestionably expressed the resolve and virility of Australia in the last few years. Mr. Fraser represents yet another race and another line of life. He was born in Ross and Crornarty, brought up in the village school and worked in New Zealand as a general labourer and waterside worker before entering public life. Since the death of Mr. Savage, he has been at the head of affairs in New Zealand. And do not let us forget the representatives of India. One of them is one of the greatest Hindu Princes, the Maharaja of Kashmir, and one a prominent Moslem of well-known family, whose father rendered great services to India, and who has, himself, rendered great services, Sir Firozhkhan Noon. Finally, there is the representative of Rhodesia, a man of Kent, educated as a doctor at St. Thomas's Hospital, just across the Thames, and representing, I think, in that Conference, the new-born of self-government, the new life that is surging in the Empire everywhere.
  I think it is worth reflecting on the extraordinarily varied character of that gathering. What other political system in the world could have brought these men freely together, and enabled them to confer on their own affairs and the affairs of the world in the atmosphere of a family gathering? It is worth considering what that means in the world at the moment. Hon. Members will remember a night in the City of London, more than two years ago, when a vast area seemed to be given over to fire, when no one knew what would be found next morning to be still standing. Of the many ancient churches, venerable monuments and great halls no one knew what would be left when the fire had burnt itself out. When the morning came and the fires had died down, when the débris had to some extent been cleared, there stood out, for the first time, something that we saw with new eyes—the glory and the grandeur of St. Paul's, seen as we have never seen it before. St. Paul's, the classic expression of order, proportion and massive strength, rising in all its lines to the dome which is the architectural symbol of unity, to the lan-
  966
  tern which is the symbol of light, and to the Cross, which is the symbol of service, faith and sacrifice. Could there be a better metaphor to describe what has happened in the case of the British Empire and Commonwealth in this war? Amid all the disillusion, all the suffering that have occurred, we have seen this great structure, not our own work, but the work mainly of those who have gone before, firm in its foundations, free and just in its ideals, appreciated by millions in this country, in the Empire, and in the rest of the world, as it was never appreciated before.
  I am in complete agreemnt with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that the purpose of this Empire and Commonwealth must not be purely to serve itself. It cannot serve its own people unless, as it has in the past, it does its best to serve the rest of the world. That is, on one side, an idealistic policy but on the reverse side a policy of enlightened self-interest. I believe it is quite impossible for our system to thrive unless it works in co-operation with other nations throughout the world, and holds the good will of as many nations as possible.
  In this respect the Prime Minister's speech rather disturbed me in one or two points, particularly in what he said with regard to France. No one in this House will question for a moment that military necessities must come first. About that we are all agreed. But those who are conducting operations are sometimes quite naturally inclined to lose sight of the fact that all the time military operations are going on, and especially when they have just left an area behind them, impressions are being created and sentiment is being formed which will deeply influence the future of the world. It is quite impossible to isolate the wake of military operations from the future of the Europe with which we are to deal. In this respect I must say that I found some slight cause for anxiety in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about France.
  What is the case at the present time for not recognising the French Committee of National Liberation? This Committee represents not one man but, so far as one knows, every party in France. It contains a large number of men who have been part of the resistance movement in France; it is supported, as everybody knows, by resolutions passed by leaders

  967
  of the resistance movement now in France itself. So far as I understand it, the only reason given for not recognising the Committee was that it was a provisional Government. Well, every Government will be a provisional Government until 'elections can be held, and if you are not going to recognise a provisional Government it means you will recognise no French Government until any elections are held, which, presumably, means that you are to hold the elections yourself. That is an absolutely impossible attitude to adopt towards any great nation, least of all to one with a proud and sensitive nature like France. I felt that the consideration shown to France was inadequate in what the Prime Minister said. Let us remember this: I was reading the other day a very touching tribute to the young men of this country who fell in the last war by a previous Ambassador at the Court of St. James's, Monsieur de St Aulaire. Let us remember, on our side, that we should not have won the last war—I do not think we should have survived the submarine menace—unless France had been held in the early years. France was held in those years, to some important extent, by the help we sent her, but in the main by the sacrifice of 2,000,000 French lives. Do not let us forget that. Do not let us forget either that General de Gaulle—he may be difficult, but everybody is difficult at the moment—was fighting by our side and for the faith that is in us at the time when the United States were not belligerents. We should remember that. Let us also remember that General de Gaulle represents resistance and that resistance is France. There is no other France, except the France which is resisting now. Finally, let us remember that there can be no Europe, no resurrection of Western civilisation, no system built up such as that we want to build up, without the co-operation and wholehearted sympathy and support of France.
  This recognition ought not to be delayed, whatever other nations may say. Now is the time, because ineffaceable impressions are being made upon Frenchmen. They are suffering very cruelly at our hands. Surely we owe them something for the suffering which we are inflicting upon them against our will. I would remind the Committee of the declaration made by the Prime Minister
  968
  on 7th August, 1940. Addressing General de Gaulle, he said:
  "I declare that His Majesty's Government is determined, when the Allied Armies shall have won the victory, to ensure a complete restoration of the independence and greatness of France."
  I hope it is in that spirit that negotiations will be conducted when de Gaulle comes here, where I am sure he will have a warm welcome from us all. The Prime Minister's declaration then was a great act of faith, and we need a similar act of faith now.
  I have only one further point to make. Important as she is, we cannot think only of France. In different degrees we owe the same duty to all the historic nations of Europe, and they are looking to us. I believe that in the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary we are doing our best to carry out the duty which we have to undertake to restore the freedom and independence of other European nations, particularly of those who have been most closely associated with us in this war. I have only one anxiety about that, and it is an anxiety created by those nations themselves. I am beginning to be a little anxious about the narrow propaganda which some of them are carrying on. Like Paris, at the time of the Peace Conference, London is becoming a whispering gallery. Every hotel, every lobby, is full of people who tell you this and that and mention something as a fact which you may happen to know is not a fact or something else as a historical truth which you may know is a disputable historic truth. There is a widespread network of propaganda in this form. This propaganda springs from two motives, and it is quite natural. It springs in the first place from what the German philosopher Nietszche described as "historical insomnia," inability to forget the grievances of the past and refusal to look forward or even at the facts of the present time. That is disastrous for nations as for individuals, but it seems incurable in some. The other motive springs from domestic dissensions, which are not our affair, between classes which may have quarrelled with each other for generations and are striving to ensure their rights as they conceive them in the post-war world.
  The House of Commons has a great responsibility in this matter. Its task is to support the Government in taking an absolutely straight, candid and outspoken

  969
  line in co-operation with the United Nations to whom we are allied. I hope this House will never allow itself to be swayed by foreign propaganda of the kind I have described. It has a great part to play in enabling our Government to act as a harmonising, reconciling and stabilising factor in international affairs, and it can do that best in its own English way. The Commonwealth itself has survived great disasters because it has known how to learn from its disasters and start again. That, I think, is the best example we can give, the best moral we can point, to the rest of the world.
  Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), in his very interesting speech, made reference to the question of the recognition, provisionally, of the French Committee of National Liberation as the French Government, and feel that the Foreign Secretary must realise, after this Debate, that so far as the House of Commons is concerned it is quite definitely in favour of such recognition at as early a date as possible. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration that fact in any consultations he has with General de Gaulle. I thought that some hon. Members in yesterday's Debate rather went over the events of the last 10 or 20 years, proceeded to justify themselves and then raised the question as to whether the reason for the difficulties that arose, and which led to this war, rested on the shoulders of the League of Nations or the Governments that happened to be in power in this country during those years. I do not intend to go into that field; I have no doubt that history and the coming General Election will have something to say about that.
  We want to look not to the past—although we can learn lessons from it—but to the future organisation of the world. Reference has been made to the League of Nations and its alleged failure. There, I would range myself with the Prime Minister when he said that had it been better backed up things might have been very different. I am quite content to take that ground. I think the House has shown itself in favour of the general line taken by the Prime Minister yesterday. Certainly he has my wholehearted support, although I think some hon. Members on the other side showed themselves to be
  970
  still in a rather unrepentant isolationist mood. However, we are coming along. I would very much like to see in future a national foreign policy, about which all parties were agreed, which we could form from the basis of the general sketch put forward by the Prime Minister yesterday and then compete with each other in trying to make more perfect and more effective for the purpose of maintaining world peace.
  No doubt different parties would make different contributions. Conservatives would emphasise more the question of force, and the Left parties would more emphasise universality, but both must be woven together in order to make an effective machine. Something has been said about the surrender of sovereignty. It seems to me that absolute national sovereignty, externally, as regards other countries, is as much out of date as the divine right of Kings internally. Every Treaty, every alliance, every engagement you make with another country is a surrender of sovereignty to some extent. It is a question of degree—how much you may think it is right to do. It may be done by a Treaty or even by consultative arrangements between States, but do not let us think for a moment that we can have safety in the world and maintain complete absolute national sovereignty. The two things are quite incompatible. Let me refer in this connection to the work of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which settled without disagreement a large number of disputes. In every single case there was a surrender of national sovereignty. The States concerned submitted their sovereign rights to the decision of the court.
  The Prime Minister made clear the sort of world organisation that is to be set up after the war. It would be absolutely intolerable if we failed to achieve that purpose and, as a result, a third world: war came about, and it would be treachery to those who are now sacrificing their lives if we failed to do the job of preventing another war breaking out. That is the object we have before us, and we can achieve it if we will. The definition of the world organisation was very well set out in the terms of the Dominion Premiers' declaration, which will be on record. No doubt, the arrangement is for the "big three"—of course we have a "big four" in mind but China is not yet in a position to act, though she will

  971
  be before very long—to act, as regards force, on behalf of the community of nations. It is recognised that the great weakness of the League of Nations was that its police function was everybody's business, and therefore nobody's. In future we have to see exactly whose business it is and leave no doubt that the police truncheon will come down, at the first moment without any hesitation or doubt, on the offender. Let us call the new body that is to be set up, drawing on the experience of the old League, by some totally different name by all means, but do not let us imagine that there are not very good lessons to be drawn from the experience of those 20 years. Sometimes it is said that one reads too much in history books about force and battles, but battles make a tremendous lot of difference. The battle of Bannockburn settled the fate of Scotland for 300 years, and that is why it is so important to have force in the right hands, acting on behalf of mankind as a whole. I hope the new international organisation will have a little more colour about it than the old, that there will be a certain ceremonial, that it will have an emblem, a flag, a song, and things of that kind. Nothing can derogate from the Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes and the Red Flag, but let us have something symbolising the whole world.
  Let me ask how the "big three" are getting on in their relations with each other. All the United Nations, and any neutrals that may come in, must be fitted into the picture and play their part to the full. There is a feeling amongst the smaller nations that they are not being told enough or being consulted enough. It may not be practicable, but they certainly have that feeling and, as far as the Government can meet them, it would be wise to summon such a body as the St. James's Palace Conference, which has not met for a long time but which certainly served a very useful purpose. Great Britain was never stronger and never more united with her Dominions in the whole of her great history, and I hope she may be greater still in the sense of the idea put forward by Field-Marshal Smuts, that this will come to something, and that Greece, Norway, Holland and Belgium for instance may become closely associated with us.
  Then there is every sign that the United States are coming into co-operation for
  972
  their own sake and for the sake of the world. We are not concerned in what candidate gets in as President except in this sense, that we do not want to see an Isolationist returned, nor do they want to see an Isolationist returned in this country. Either of those things would be fatal to us and them. I note with interest the way election tendencies are going. There seems to be agreement over there, and both parties are in favour of cooperation in the world organisation.
  As regard Russia I feel that the Moscow and Teheran Conferences made a fundamental difference in our relations to each other. The old suspicions have not gone but they have begun to go. We can speak bluntly as friends can speak to each other and no doubt, while many things can happen which may seem odd and strange and inexplicable to people with our experience, in time we shall come to an understanding of each others technique and better fit in with each other. No doubt the second front will have a big say in resolving difficulties. We must remember that the co-operative record of the Soviet Union is a very good one. So long as she was a member of the League of Nations she was better than any other nation in her willingness to carry out her obligations. That is a hopeful sign for the future. The Prime Minister referred approvingly to the Soviet attitude with regard to Finland and Rumania—no change of regime required and moderate terms asked for.
  I should like to say a word, careful and cautious I hope, about the difficult question of Poland. Premier Stalin has made it clear on more than one occasion that he wants to see a free and independent Poland. Naturally, he wants a friendly Poland too. We have in this country a Polish Government, which I believe to be moderate, democratic and statesmanlike in its outlook. It has as its Prime Minister a statesman who is well worthy of confidence in this respect. At the same time it is fair to recognise that there are certain elements in military circles to whom the words I have just used could not be applied. There are certain elements which are authoritarian in outlook and anti-Soviet. That makes progress difficult. But, taking the attitude of the Polish Government, I feel that there is room for friendly accommodation and a settlement between the Polish Government and her great Eastern

  973
  neighbour. May I say parenthetically that I feel that with regard to the recent question of the Polish Jews, the Polish Government have done everything in their power to put things right and to prevent these occurrences and that it is through no unwillingness on their part that these soldiers are not in the British Army. It is essential that any agreement should be freely negotiated between the two States concerned, Russia and Poland. The appearance of pressure or force majeure would make progress impossible. I should have thought the Soviet Government fully capable of displaying a magnanimous outlook.
  After all, what do two towns, to which the Poles attach so much importance, matter to them compared with the good will, the friendship and the confidence not only of the Poles but of vast numbers of people all over the world? If agreement could be reached by a friendly gesture from the Soviet Government, it would make things easy for the Poles and they would be rendering an immense service to the whole world, and not least to themselves. It is said that East Prussia should be given to the Poles in compensation for adjustments with regard to the Curzon line. I do not think there is any connection between the two or that they should be related together. To my mind the word "compensation" is not the right word to use. I think East Prussia should go to Poland in any case on strategic grounds, because to have Germans there is a danger to world peace, and I hope that will be done. It may be said that would involve a transfer of population but, as the Russian armies advance through East Prussia, there will be a very rapid transfer of population. Any Germans who may be there at the time will move away at an extremely rapid pace. But when you think of what is happening in the world, the slaughter in cold blood of millions of civilians, men, women and children, by the Germans in that part of the world, and the transfer of whole populations, to talk of the sanctity of Germans living in a particular area is quite out of the picture. Some people say we must not do anything of that kind unless we get the consent of the German people, because of the Atlantic Charter. I never heard such nonsense—that we should go on our knees and ask the Germans for permission to carry out any changes which may be
  974
  necessary for world security. I am glad the Prime Minister has made it clear that, while the spirit of the Charter applies to Germany, we are certainly not bound to ask their permission for anything that may seem necessary.
  The Prime Minister said that this was not an ideological but a national war. I think it is both, mixed in different elements, because we are fighting for freedom and democracy—and there is more, than one form of democracy; it may be political, industrial or economic—and we are fighting for civilisation. It was well put in speeches broadcast by Mr. Cordell Hull, and in the Dominion Prime Ministers' statement when they said that we are going to see democratic government set up in enemy countries. I am glad that that has been said because there has been too much talk in the past about the form of government inside a country being no affair of ours. It is of profound importance to us whether the form of government is a war-like one or not. I think I am entitled in this connection to recall that I was the first Member of this House to advocate here that forcible action should be taken against the Germans. Hitler came into power on 30th January, 1933, and I introduced a Bill on 23rd May, 1933, to apply economic sanctions to Germany. That was the time to act.
  The Prime Minister said that we were not necessarily going to try and change the form of government in other States. Surely the test to apply in our relations with another country is not necessarily whether it is democratic in our sense, but whether it is peace-loving and co-operative. There can be dictatorships that are peace-loving. There are Turkey and Portugal, for instance. No one would say that they are aggressive. They are quite capable of coming into a world peace organisation because, whatever their internal organisation may be, their attitude towards the world is a co-operative and friendly one. Apart from that, I think that democracy is doing well at the present time. It is doing well in Greece; it is doing well in Italy; it is doing well in Yugoslavia; and I hope it will do well in Germany after the war. We have to beware of the danger that the Germans will undoubtedly attempt to use any and every means after the war to capitalise the pity, sympathy, tolerance and kindness of the people here. They will organise a pity campaign, trying to take advantage

  975
  of the situation, and we must watch carefully to see that we are not taken in by it, so placing the Germans in a position in which they can start arrangements for a third world war.
  A word on Ethiopia, which is an entirely different subject. We are negotiating a new treaty, but is not that a matter for the United Nations as a whole rather than for us? Help and finance should be given, but it is not solely a British concern, and both from our point of view and their point of view, it would surely be better put on a world basis.
  Sir E. Grigg: Is the hon. Gentleman quite convinced that the present ruler of Abyssinia desires that?
  Mr. Mander: I do not know, but one would have thought from his past record that he would prefer to deal with a world organisation rather than with one single State. My hon. Friend may be better informed. I should like to associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend about the Jews. We must see in the settlement after the war that they obtain their rights. The problem is now unfortunately easier because millions have been slaughtered. Discrimination against them must be stopped, and I hope that one of the results of the war will be to set up at long last the national home for Jews in Palestine. We must recognise that after the war we shall not be the greatest country in the world, physically or numerically, but there is no reason why we should not be the first and greatest in political leadership and spiritual influence. I hope that we shall try and hold high that ideal for our country, because, as Huskisson said:
  "England cannot afford to be little; she must be what she is or nothing."
  Captain De Chair: As I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister, I was reminded of the words of Emerson:
  "There is in the action of his mind a long Atlantic roll, not known except in deepest waters."
  Since then we have had a Debate with many thoughtful speeches, including the spirited and refreshing speech from the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity of hearing the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
  976
  Affairs, whom we all welcome to his new post, so that the Committee may have an opportunity of seeing how "the face which launched a thousand ships" at the Admiralty contemplates the dark currents of foreign policy from the windows of the Foreign Office. The Prime Minister put himself in the vanguard of European thought on these great affairs, but, as he said, it is easier to ask questions about the future of Europe and the world than to answer them. Although he gave some indications of the lines along which his mind was working, and, presumably, the mind of the Government, he did not go into too great detail about the specific arrangements he hopes to make for Europe. I hope, therefore, that it will not be indiscreet to look back over the past record of the Prime Minister in this matter of European affairs to see why he may claim, as he said yesterday, to be a good European. It is of interest to see what the Prime Minister has written in the past on the subject of a United States of Europe. So striking have been his words, and so portentous for the future of Europe, now that he is in a position to give effect to his former ideas if he wishes to do so, that I will quote him at some length:
  "The conception of a United States of Europe is right. Every step taken to that end which appeases the obsolete hatred and vanished oppressions, which makes easier the traffic and reciprocal services of Europe, which encourages its nations to day aside their precautionary panoply, is good in itself—is good for them and good for all. … But this idea of European unity, so novel to untutored ears, is no more, in fact, than a reversion to the old foundation of Europe. Why should it appear startling to its inhabitants? Europe has known the days when Rumanians lived on the Tyne and Spaniards on the Danube as equal citizens of a single State. She has rested her emaciated body upon the venerable structure of the Holy Roman Empire."
  Those words were first written by the Prime Minister' for the "Saturday Evening Post" of America of 15th February, 1930, and he re-published them as late as 1939. It was in this article and in connection with this conception of a United States of Europe that he used words which will have a familiar ring to hon. Members who listened to his broadcast speech on 21st March:
  "Imagine the ruin which would overtake the Army if there were nothing but battalions and brigades and divisions. … Imagine, on the hand, a supreme command which had nothing between itself and the numerous divisions, all marching and manoeuvring independently. Either method has but to be con-

  977
  sidered to be found manifestly absurd. Why cannot Europe in time of peace utilise a little of the wisdom she has bought so dearly in the crunch of war? Why cannot the civilian realise himself as French, German, Spanish or Dutch, and simultaneously as a European and, finally, as a citizen of the whole world?"
  Those words were first used by the Prime Minister in 1930, when he was only a back bencher. Yet we heard him use them again only a year ago with all the emphasis at the command of a Prime Minister. Yesterday he said on this subject:
  "for my part, hope to deserve to be called a good European—to try to raise the glorious Continent of Europe, the parent of many powerful States, from its present miserable condition as a kind of volcano of strife and tumult to its old glory of a family of nations and a vital expression of Christendom. I am sure these great entities which I have mentioned—the British Empire, the conception of a Europe truly united, the fraternal associations with the United States—will in no way disturb the general purposes of the world organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944; Vol. 400, C. 786.]
  I emphasise that phrase in the Prime Minister's speech—"conception of a Europe truly united."
  Nor is it as if the Prime Minister were alone in the present Government in the belief that the only possible future for Europe is a United States of Europe. Not long before the war, a Pan-Europe Committee was formed in this House and was addressed by Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, who has for more than 20 years championed the conception of a United Europe. The interesting thing about that meeting is that nearly all the back Benchers who were on the committee are or have been members, some of them prominent members, of the present Government. The chair was taken by the present Secretary of State for India, and among the members were the present Secretary of State for Air, the Minister accredited to the French National Committee, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham, the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. H. Guest), the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson), who made such an interesting speech yesterday, the late Colonel Victor Cazalet, and the humble Member who is now addressing the Committee. Among the latest recruits to this body of opinion is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), because, in a recent Debate, he came out on the side of a United Europe. All
  978
  these Parliamentarians, varying in distinction, headed by the Prime Minister, have for years held as their considered opinion that Europe must unite, and these are, with due respect to the House, among the Members who know Europe best. Their views were reinforced in a powerful speech by the late Lord Lothian when he was Ambassador to America. In a speech at St. Louis he said that the future of Europe after the war must take the form of a European Federation. Now General Smuts has brought his big guns to the assistance of idealists everywhere in the world. Less than a week ago, when receiving the freedom of the City of Birmingham, he said:
  "Europe must not be carved up, atomized and reduced to a helpless chaos of fragments. Rather should she receive a new stable structure as the United States or Commonwealth of Europe. … And in the making of this new structure this island with its unique position should play its proper leading part."
  In view of this array of authoritative opinion, who will dare to say any longer that the idea of a European Federation is utopian? The difficulty has always been to see how it could be brought about; but now, if ever, will be the opportunity. The war and the destructive power of Nazi Germany have levelled the familiar homes of European nations to a common heap of rubble called "The New Order." With the destruction of Germany, this will be swept away and the foundations of the new Europe will be bare. Are we to resurrect upon this open space a replica of the old mediæval jumble of houses, picturesque in their quaint gabling and tip-tilted roof-tops, or are we going to build for the new future to an ordered plan? There is nothing to stop us. All the difficulties which obstructed the construction of European unity before the war are now swept aside. All the nations upon the Continent of Europe—and I emphasise the phrase "upon the Continent of Europe"—will either have been defeated by us in battle or have owed their survival to our protecting force. The only great Powers in Europe after the war will be ourselves and Russia. I emphasise the word "in" because they are in Europe rather than of it, and their relationship to Europe will be of a special nature. Apart from Russia and ourselves there will be no great Powers in Europe for a long time to come. France, without a fleet and with the heavy disaster of 1940 to make good, will rise, undoubtedly,

  979
  with Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece and Czechoslovakia as a gallant nation. We must face the fact, however, that France will not be able to take her place among the leading Powers immediately after the war.
  Therefore, if Great Britain, Russia and the United States of America decide that the nations of Europe shall form a federation, a federation can be formed and the framework can be built. The cats, as it were, can all be put into the bag. There will be a good deal of yowling and scratching for a while, but I am hopeful that, under the powerful supervision of the three great Powers I have mentioned, the situation inside the bag will sort itself out in time.
  Mr. Mack: The hon. and gallant Member is letting the cat out of the bag.
  Captain De Chair: I hope not. If we lose control of the situation at the conclusion of hostilities, and lose the opportunity thereby of establishing that framework of a United States of Europe and if we allow the nations of Europe to reassert their conflicting claims, we might as well abandon, until after the third world war, the ideal of a United States of Europe. The ideal of a United Europe is no more utopian to-day than was the conception of a United States of America in 1786. It may very well be that the constitution of the new Europe will follow similar lines. We have to consider the special relationship to this new European unit of Great Britain and Russia. I may perhaps save myself a great deal of trouble and explanation if I fall back once more upon the pellucid prose of the Prime Minister, who said:
  "It is, however, imperative that, as Europe advances towards higher internal unity, there shall be a proportionate growth of solidarity throughout the British Empire and also a deepening self-knowledge and mutual recognition among the English-speaking peoples. Then, without misgiving and without detachment, we can watch and aid the assuagement of the European tragedy and, without envy, survey their sure and sound approach to mass wealth; being very conscious that every stride towards European cohesion which is beneficial to the general welfare will make us a partner in their good fortune, and that any sinister tendencies will be restrained or corrected by our united strength."
  A moment's reflection will show that it would be quite impossible for Australia or New Zealand to enter the United States
  980
  of Europe. The Commonwealth and Empire is not a unit which can be lightly broken up. Only in recent weeks it has given to the world one more demonstration that it is a solidifying influence and, but for its unity in DNA the world would now be a Hitlerite ball or globule. Yet Great Britain has, inevitably, a special interest in the preservation of peace on the Continent of Europe. Our geographical position, within three or four minutes' flying time from the European mainland, must give us a dominant place in the councils of Europe. The way I look at it is this: Great Britain and Russia will act together as joint trustees or guardians of the new young Europe during its minority, which may well coincide with the 20-year period of the Anglo-Russian Alliance. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), in his remarkable speech yesterday, said that he hoped our alliance with Russia would be based on realism. I hope so too. That alliance is a mariage de convenance, not a love match, but it may very well be that as the years go by intimacy and even affection may develop.
  Mr. Mander: Does not the hon. and gallant Member agree that there is very great enthusiasm for Russia in this country at present, and for the achievements of the Russian Army?
  Captain De Chair: I entirely agree, but I still hope that our relations will be based upon realism.
  Mr. Alexander Walkden: Does the hon. and gallant Member not take into account that many of us received great inspiration and spiritual aid from great Russians who lived here as refugees, such as Kropotkin and Stepniak? We loved them, and we love Russia.
  Captain De Chair: I accept that observation, and I hope that nothing I have said will contribute towards a lessening of that affection. In the past there has been much suspicion between the two countries, but we hope that those suspicions are now over.
  Although Europe is stricken down, she is still the cultural capital of mankind, and America and even Russia are only suburbs of it. It seemed to me that the Prime Minister yesterday was more specific about the world structure than he felt

  981
  able to be about European structure. By a process of simplification and elimination, we shall be left with five great world Powers after the war—the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the United States of Europe, the United States of America, and the East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere turned the right side up. The Central and South American Republics will I believe, go into a Pan-American union. There will remain the question of Arab Federation and the position of one or two other nations like Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan, which will have a special relationship to the world organisation envisaged by the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday. The five great Powers will be the ones that I have mentioned.
  When one has spoken at some length about a United States of Europe and one begins to speak about world unity, one senses a sort of scepticism in the House. It is as if hon. Members were saying: "All this is very fine, but human nature being what it is and the nations being what they are, these grandiose conceptions will never come to fruition," yet nobody has produced a workable alternative. Power politics have not prevented great wars, and mankind has been driven by its own failure relentlessly towards the ideal of world unity. Lord Palmerston, one of our greatest Foreign Secretaries, saw at once the simplicity and difficulty of foreign policy, when he said:
  "If, by a stroke of the wand, I could effect in the map of the world changes which I could wish, I am quite sure that I could make arrangements far more conducive than some of the present ones to the peace of nations, to the progress of civilisation, and to the happiness and welfare of mankind, but I am not so destitute of commonsense as not to be able to compare ends with means and to see that the former must be given up when the latter are wanting."
  The world has moved on since then. It has passed through the wars of German aggression against Denmark in 1864, against Austria in 1866, against France in 1870, against the rest of the world in 1914, and against humanity itself in 1939. Everywhere throughout the world to-day, the idea of a strong world administration, literally embracing the whole earth, is gaining ground, notably in the resolutions on world federation which have swept America since Mr. Humber persuaded the Legislature of North Carolina to adopt the idea. During the Debate in that Legislature one speaker expressed the im-
  982
  patience of the majority when, following someone who had shown himself unable to grasp the possibility of world union, he said:
  "The world cannot wait for the understanding of the last speaker to grasp the meaning of the Resolution,"
  and sat down, which I shall do very soon. It is a hopeful augury for the future of mankind that the idea of a strong world administration is beginning to be generally accepted. It is indeed an inevitable consequence of the recurrence of world wars. World wars are a symptom of the impending unification of the world. As the quickening of communications reduces the world more and more to a single unit, there is a corresponding quickening of the scramble to get control of the unit. A hundred years ago the unity of the world was an impossibility; now it is a necessity. The only question is who is to unify, and who is to control? Even if the Axis Powers could be successful in their joint bid for world mastery, a contest would inevitably break out after the victory to decide who was to be the final conqueror of all.
  The Axis attempt to dominate the world has forced Britain, the United States, Russia and China into a partnership which, at best, can lead only to joint trusteeship of the globe for a generation after the war. During that period of trusteeship, it will need all the wisdom of the nations to prevent dangerous cleavages being driven between their ideas as to the method of administering the world. Obviously, there are a great many difficulties, but the point to realise is that if we do not act quickly and resolutely when the world is in a state of flux immediately after the war, if we wait for the world to unify itself, we may wait for ever; or we may wait for its final disintegration in a third and larger world war. The time to act is immediately after the war, and the time to prepare to act is now.
  Where we have been wrong is possibly that we have looked rather at the units of which the world is composed and have waited for their self-improvement and mutual adjustment before we thought it possible to contemplate their organisation into a single world unit. The Prime Minister may even be in an enlightened minority in wishing to establish the world framework arbitrarily, as his speech implied, when the first chance of doing so arises after the war. This implies allow-

  983
  ing the various national and continental units to readjust themselves, within this world framework, to the new state of affairs. In the past, we have waited for compromise among nationalisms and sovereignties to prepare the way for world unity, while, in fact, these nationalisms and sovereignties had the strongest vested interests in maintaining their separate independence. If they were once confronted with the fait accompli of the World State they would come to terms with it, perhaps grudgingly at first, but then with a rush to get in on the ground floor. This applies to the economic as much as to the political future of man. In the search for economic stability we have all been searching for national plans or continental plans, which are doomed to failure because, although promising in themselves, they are only workable within the orbit of a rational world system, and no rational world system has existed up till now. If the world plan comes first, the national plans will solve themselves accordingly.
  Those who find the power to make peace unexpectedly in their hands at the end of the war must act like lightning. They must astonish the world, and pay small heed to the repercussions, until mankind, dazed by the brilliance of the stroke, will admit that this technique, which was once used to prosecute nationalist war for the aggrandisement of individual nations, is better employed in establishing a reign of peace. From the technique of preparation for a lightning war, we must learn the lesson of preparation for a lightning peace.
  Mr. Emmott: An hon. Friend of mine who is sitting on the opposite side of the Committee, remarked to me yesterday that this had been a remarkable Debate, in that it had gone very much upon general principles; and I agreed with him. I am glad that fundamental general principles have formed very much of the stuff of this Debate; and—a sentiment that I believe will commend itself to my young Tory Friends—there are moral principles which should underlie all our foreign policy. My concern to-day is to offer to the Committee during a few minutes some general observations on this note. I want to find, at this critical moment in our affairs, renewed assertion of the leadership of Britain in Europe.
  984
  I think that in the last two years or so there has come about a certain change in what I might describe as the political atmosphere of Europe. In 1940, and in the early months of 1941, when we still stood alone, and even long after those days, there was no doubt at all in the minds of the peoples of Europe what it was for which Britain stood; they had no doubt, nor had they any misgivings. Europe heard from this country no voices that need cause her disquiet. She heard no talk of irrelevant or unseasonable politics; she heard only words, notably from the Prime Minister himself, famous words which will live as long as English prose is read, and as long as English oratory is admired, words of which I need not now remind the Committee, which expressed the very spirit of courage itself; and the only fear, the only anxiety of Europe was lest Britain should lack the strength to translate her will into act. The nations of Europe had no doubt, and had no reason to doubt, that the cause of Britain was entirely their cause, for was not Britain resolved upon invincible resistance to Germany, the Power that was the enemy of their liberties? Alone Britain and the British Empire defied the enemy: and because she did so she was the acknowledged champion of the European peoples—aye, and of all peoples—who desired liberty. She was the moral leader of the nations. And, be it remembered, this leadership she had in the time of her greatest military weakness. Let her not lose it now in the time of her military strength.
  Since those days, as I say, I think there has been a certain change in Europe. I speak not of things military, because there is no doubt about our military intentions or our power to execute them. I speak of things political. I do not desire to say anything about the relationship of Britain with the greater Powers, not, of course, because that topic is not important, but because the time at my disposal is too short to permit it. I should like, however, in passing, to say a word or two on a passage in- the Prime Minister's speech yesterday relating to Italy. It was that passage in which the Prime Minister said that the people of Italy must decide whatever form of democratic government, whether monarchical or republican, they desired. He went on to say:
  "I emphasise, however, the word 'democratic,' because it is quite clear that we should

  985
  not allow any form of Fascism to be restored. …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 768.]
  The only comment I would make on that important passage is that I hope we shall remember in our treatment of this matter, that democracy has a vastly different meaning in Latin countries from the meaning that it has in British countries. It has certainly not the same connotations or significance in those countries, particularly in Italy, that it has for us. Let us not forget that the Parliament of United Italy, established only so recently as 1861, never had the spirit or character of the Parliament to which we have the honour to belong. It never really acquired strength or authority comparable with that of the English Parliament. The assemblies led, or rather managed, by Depretis, Crispi and Giolitti lacked some of the essential characteristics of the Parliament of Westminster. There are many things which are inconsistent with our ideas of democracy, but which are not therefore Fascism, and may be necessary features of government in Italy. I think we have to be very careful in our definition of the term "democracy." I would say that democracy in this context is the true expression of the instincts and opinions of a whole people: and whatever satisfies that condition, that is truly democratic.
  I go on now to the topic upon which I chiefly wish to speak to-day: that is, the lesser States of Europe. The lesser States of Europe, particularly those situated in the Eastern part of the continent, between Russia and Germany, are to-day concerned in a vital manner with a principle which lies at the very heart of this war, and is indeed one of the chief issues of it. I consider that the best expression of this principle is to be found in the message which Pope Pius XII broadcast to the world from the Vatican on Christmas Eve, 1941. In that message he said that the first condition of the establishment' of an international order which should guarantee to all peoples peace and well-being was this,
  "that within the limits of a new order founded on moral principles there is no room for the violation of the freedom, integrity or security of other States, no matter what may be their territorial extension or their capacity for defence."
  This is the elementary principle of justice in which the lesser States of Europe are concerned in the highest degree: this
  986
  right of States to exist; this right of nations not to be destroyed; this right of nations not to have their Governments determined for them or imposed upon them by other Powers or external influences; this right of nations to exercise a really free choice in the determination of their society and their government. We must compromise on that principle, and it is for us to assert at this moment our championship of this principle which is necessary to Europe, against any challenger.
  I would add one or two observations about Russia. She says she is concerned with her security against the West. It may be so; but the European States lying to the West of Russia are equally entitled to say that they are concerned with their security against the East. Russia demands security against the West; other States demand security rgainst the East. Further, Russia needs the trust and friendship of the nations on her Western frontier, and indeed of all the lesser States in the Eastern part of Europe, as much as she needs the trust and friendship of the Western Powers. When so much is said, as it is, about the coldness of the attitude of the Western Powers towards Russia, is that a matter for surprise? Russia complains of the cordon sanitaire, but the barrier was of Russia's making. For Russia, in 1917, established a system which was founded upon principles that were avowedly inconsistent with the fundamental principles upon which all the Western States of Europe are established. She founded a system which according to the repeated statements of its chief architect was calculated to undermine the foundations of the capitalist, Western States. Is it surprising that there has been this attitude of distance between the Western European States and Russia? That, however, belongs to the past, and I hope that we may now be entering on a new period in the relations between Europe and Russia.
  The general principle, and the only single principle which unites the separate national causes, is that to which the Prime Minister made reference yesterday when he spoke of the reign of law. Now, if Europe only had to have regard to official statements and declarations made by members of His Majesty's Government, there would be no need for those anxieties which do exist; but there are other indications of opinion which are available to the European peoples, and to the world. It

  987
  is not one of the least remarkable developments of to-day that in the Press, but especially in broadcasting, there is a means by which the people of one country can reach, as it were, over the head of its government or round its government, to the peoples of other countries; and what flows through these channels is taken quite as much for indications of national sentiment as are the official declarations of His Majesty's Government.
  There is much that has gone out from this country in recent years which causes great disquiet in Europe, because it is so obviously inspired by strong hostility to all established institutions and to traditional ways: and this is called Progress. The Prime Minister yesterday made reference to caricatures of General Franco. We are familiar with that type of caricature, which is neither clever nor funny: odious and characteristic caricatures by Low, and all that kind of thing, the whole tone and temper of which is inconsistent with the principle of the maintenance of law. I consider that it ought to be strongly condemned.
  I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) recognise to-day that we stand in a special relationship with the European peoples, and I believe that to be true and important. England stands in a unique relationship to Europe. We have had an immensely long experience of the diplomacy and politics of Europe; and moreover Europe has no fear of us. The United States evidently cannot have the same diplomatic experience; and it is unnecessary to prove to this Committee the strength of the tradition in the U.S.A. of detachment from European affairs. Therefore, this country is uniquely qualified to exercise the greatest influence upon the States of Europe. It was for good reason that the former Mayor of Narvik, broadcasting in December of last year, said that the people of Britain are the fixed point by which other peoples, whose lives have been more violently deranged by the German onslaught and occupation, will seek to regain their bearings. Let us remember those words, and the responsibilities which they imply.
  Mr. Shinwell: My hon.Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Emmott) has made, as usual, a most
  988
  interesting speech. He will forgive me if I fail to follow him into those somewhat academic observations, but turn to the speech of the Prime Minister, and make a more realistic approach to a solution of world problems. The Debate, subsequent to the opening speech, which we heard yesterday, has disclosed, apart from the universal desire to win the war as rapidly as possible, wide divergencies of view. It is clear that, while the essential unity of the nation remains unimpaired, as regards the utter destruction of the enemy, in relation to the pattern of the new world order and the measures which are to be taken to prevent a recurrence of international conflicts there is considerable disunity among hon. Members. Let us face this issue realistically, even if we must shatter some illusions. We had, as hon. Members are well aware, an international authority for about 20 years before the war, fortified by the endorsement, sometimes active and frequently passive, of many nations. Millions of people throughout the world placed their hopes and trust in that international authority. But, in spite of the best intentions, it must be admitted that, whatever the cause may be, that international organisation failed to prevent aggression and war. That is an inescapable fact, which conveys a lesson for every one of us.
  There can be no doubt that every hon. Member, without exception, in every quarter of the Committee, desires to promote an international authority capable of preventing war; but it must be effective, it must not be half-hearted in its approach, it must be ready to act; and its declarations, whatever they be, must be implemented by force. Of course, it is deplorable that, in this age, after long years of striving, we should have to rely on force—whether it be of a national or of an international character is beside the point; it still remains force. Not only must the declarations of such an organisation be fortified by force, but, whether they like it or not, the nations which subscribe to the principles and policy of that international authority must be prepared to renounce a large part of their independence. The nations of the world can have one or the other: they can have complete independence or an international authority armed with power; but they cannot have both. That does not apply to the smaller nations alone: it applies

  989
  to all. Not a singe nation now engaged in conflict could have dealt with the aggressor alone and unaided. Who would dispute that? That fact disposes—I say it with the utmost friendliness to the hon. Members opposite—of the contention that we can avoid aggression by seeking to promote our own security, on the basis of national arms. We can make our contribution—and we should be ready to make our contribution—but alone, a nation of 46,000,000 souls, with limited resources, in a situation, imposed upon us by events not of our making—we might have wished it to be otherwise—must seek the aid of other nations, not when the crisis emerges, but in advance.
  But let us be under no illusion about the differences that stand in the way of the promotion of effective international unity. Karl Marx—I hope hon. Members will forgive me for mentioning the deceased gentleman—said, about 80 years ago, "Workers of the world, unite." My hon. Friends behind me will detect the implication. In the course of yesterday's deliberations there was disclosed disunity on precisely these issues. What is the use of pretending that it is easy to achieve international unity in face of national disunity, here and elsewhere? If we find it difficult to resolve our own problems, by what right do we seek to resolve the problems of other nations? That conveys a lesson for all of us, not only for hon. Members on this side, but for hon. Members opposite. Nothing would delight me and my hon. Friends more than to be able to promote a complete and effective international unity on the basis of the idealistic assertions that are frequently made. But international unity cannot be achieved in that fashion: it must be worked for, organised for; and all the implications of international unity must be appreciated. So we must consider the immediate problem. May I observe that it is an immediate problem? There I agree whole-heartedly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who said that we cannot wait until the end of the conflict: we must make a beginning, here and now, in shaping, at any rate, the framework of the organisation which is requisite in order to reach a partial solution of world problems. If that be so, and if I have hon. Members with me so far, on the principle I have enunciated, we should seek in a prac-
  990
  tical fashion to adopt measures which in themselves can assist in the construction of a bridge that can take us from the present chaotic position throughout the world into an effective international world organisation. That is our task—the construction of the bridge.
  Let us consider what are the possibilities, whether our hopes can be fulfilled. Are the tools ready to our hands? I believe they are. Let us look at the situation merely for the purpose of argument and illustration in a regional fashion. Take a glance at Europe and, projecting ourselves into the future, we see Soviet Russia—a mighty nation. Let us discard all prejudices, whether of one side or the other. A mighty nation, mighty in arms, but potentially mighty in industry and in culture. Here are we, in Great Britain, once assuming, and rightly assuming, the moral leadership of the world, fortified by the Empire, and with a recognition of the high qualities of our people universally admitted. Then there is France—a France in the throes of international conflict, the victim of sabotage and treachery, but a France capable of a great upsurge—a national of 50,000,000 people—[HON. MEMBERS: "57,000,000."] Let us not quarrel about figures. Whether the figure was accurate or not, my meaning can be clearly understood. A great population, a people with remarkable intellectual and, may I add, revolutionary traditions, who have made their impact upon the civilised world, but a nation in dire distress—. a nation and a people waiting expectantly and hopefully for a friendly gesture.
  It is in our interest that we should make that gesture to France. Let it not be forgotten that, in the past, France served us well, as, indeed, we served France well. A friendly France is better for us and for civilisation than a hostile and embittered France. That brings me to the question of the position of the French Committee of National Liberation. I preface what I am about to say, with this observation—and here I agree wholeheartedly, if I may be permitted to say so, with the Prime Minister. Many hon. Members may not accept this, but I venture it, nevertheless, as did the Prime Minister. Any weapon is good enough in order to beat this enemy. I would even go so far as to say that I would avail myself of General Franco, or Marshal

  991
  Badoglio, and I ventured, on a previous occasion, before the decease of the gentleman concerned, to say that I would even accept the assistance of Darlan.
  When the desire is to frustrate the knavish tricks of the enemy, you do not concern yourself with what weapons you are going to employ, as long as they are effective. If it can be demonstrated that, either in the case of Spain or in the case of the French Committee of National Liberation, the course we have adopted will assist the most speedy ending of the war, that is agreeable to me. But we have to consider the future, and we have to ask ourselves whether our acceptance of General Franco and the peculiar political dispensation in Spain, or our attitude to the French Committee of National Liberation and General de Gaulle, is calculated to improve our prospects when the war is over, in the endeavour to promote the necessary organisation in order to resist aggression.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Would the hon. Member forgive me for a moment, as the point I want to make, I think, reinforces his argument? Would he not agree that we have to consider the fact that the only neutral country which, so far, has had any assurance from this Government that they will get a good time after the war, is the only neutral country which has consistently worked against British interests?
  Mr. Shinwell: That may, or may not, be a proper point to make in a speech, but I am bound to say that it seems slightly irrelevant to me. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, as I know he is possessed of great knowledge on foreign affairs, but it is not relevant to what I was saying. Concerning ourselves with the future, we must ask ourselves whether the steps we are taking now are calculated to fortify our position when the war is over. That is the whole point.
  Let me say a word first about the Spanish position. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gleefully said—and I was glad to see him in such a happy mood and also to detect the note of impending victory which heartened us all—in reply to an interjection, that you must make a distinction between the man who knocks you down and the man who leaves you
  992
  alone. It depends. If the man who leaves you alone has provided the man who knocks you down with a knuckle-duster, or has supplied him with the weapons of war over a long period, or, as an hon. Member opposite remarked to me yesterday, holds your opponent's coat, it is a quite different matter. Dare I say that that illustration seems to relate to the position of Spain and General Franco in the past four years? I do not put it higher than that. Demonstrate that your kindliness towards General Franco—I do not say the Spanish people, because they are divided; make no mistake about that—demonstrate that your kindliness to General Franco is going to help us to win the war more speedily, and I will accept him for the time being. But does anybody really think that you can promote a great international organisation with complete unity with such diverse elements as General Franco and Marshal Stalin, General de Gaulle, the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt? You cannot divorce yourselves from these ideological differences, these racial and cultural differences, these political and economic differences, in order to promote effective unity.
  So we must try to construct the bridge. As I see it, to begin with, so far as Europe is concerned—and it will make its contribution to the promotion of effective international unity in the long run—we must prevent anything in the nature of hostility towards Soviet Russia. We and the Soviet Union, so far as Europe is concerned, could prevent further aggression. That is a practical solution. We could bring in France, the Low Countries and the rest of them, on the basis of complete understanding that whatever aggressor dares to lift his sinister head will be bludgeoned. There would be no war in Europe for many a long day, and that is our resolve.
  So much for Europe, but what about the Pacific? Of course, we must promote the most friendly relations with the United States of America. We must do so in order to safeguard our interests in the Pacific—and we have interests in the Pacific which affect the standards of life of this country and Empire—but we must also promote these friendly relations in order to safeguard the interests of the people in the area, in China and elsewhere. That seems a feasible proposition

  993
  and it is a practical proposition. It does not go so far as the complete international organisation that some envisage, but it is a practical step. So here are two practical steps—in Europe, with Soviet Russia and other nations, and with the United States in the Pacific, and, indeed, elsewhere. Then there is the further bridge between Europe and the United States and any other nation that agrees to come in, for the purpose of dealing with aggression effectively. That is the kind of bridge that we must assist to construct.
  In the construction of that bridge, the British Commonwealth of Nations must he ready to make a great contribution. I do not envisage this country entering into relations with the United States on the basis of Great Britain, alone, in isolation. I think that would be disastrous, because, as I have already remarked, we are, comparatively speaking, a small country. We must speak to the United States and Soviet Russia on equal terms, and numbers count and prestige is frequently derived from one's economic position and the numbers of the population. Therefore, we must speak as an Empire.
  Some of my hon. Friends have been a trifle—but no more than a trifle, I hope —disturbed about various observations I have made on the subject of the British. Commonwealth of Nations. I am going to say to them, and to the Committee, that I refuse to withdraw a single word of what I have said on that subject. I shall tell them why. Incidentally, may I make this observation? I am not concerned whether my views are agreeable on one side or another, as long as they are agreeable to myself, because the essential thing is that you should first mean what you say and then have the courage to say it. Nor does it mean changing one's geographical position in this House. I refuse to withdraw anything that I have said, because, in the eyes of the world, the Empire counts for something. There is moral leadership involved and it is capable of high promise, because the Empire gave the whole world a lesson in heroism when Poland was attacked. That is the greatest achievement of all, The Empire did not wait for the United States of America or Soviet Russia or any other nation but stepped in. We went in, incurring a tremendous risk. It is probably a good job we
  994
  did not stay to count the risk, otherwise perhaps we should never have resisted aggression. That is probably due to the fact, as the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord, Dunglass) indicated or seemed to indicate in his speech yesterday, that we are always full of confidence, facing up to anybody however strong. You can take a risk once but do not risk it a second time.
  Lord Dunglass: The hon. Member misrepresents me completely. I said that I did not think the countries in the Near East, Turkey and Greece, could be defended for the very reason that I do not think that we can undertake unlimited commitments.
  Mr. Shinwell: If I misunderstood the hon. Member, all the better. Then he is on my side and at any rate I have achieved something. The Empire has democratic ideals and government, and that is something, and the Empire, combined as I have already remarked, is equal to any other great Power. Britain, alone, is not strong enough. Also the Empire can teach the world much in social advancement, and the conception of Empire has now been followed by Soviet Russia.
  Mr. Gallaeher: No, no.
  Mr. Shinwell: It is not the Imperialism of bygone days. This is a new conception—a conception of groups of civilised men and women who have come together for social, economic and cultural advancement and not for the purpose of exploitation or for the purpose of enabling the few to live at the expense of the many.
  That is all I want to say on that subject. I conclude—I understand that I have exceeded my time under the voluntary guillotine—by saying to the Committee that our first task is to win the war as speedily as possible. There we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. On the eve of great events, and facing a grim ordeal, the generosity and benevolence of our hearts go to the men on the battlefront and we wish them a safe return. Although we may require to take slow and gradual steps, let us all seek to promote world unity. Let that be the ideal. Let us seek to work towards it. Let us, equally, seek to make the best of the existing good feeling between ourselves, the

  995
  United States of America and Soviet Russia and, finally, in whatever way we can, promote good feeling among the nations of the world.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: After a speech as interesting as that to which we have just listened, I am sure that all the Committee, and particularly Members on this side, will welcome the opportunity for wider debate, which the Committee has taken after the very factual review by the Prime Minister. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who, I understand, is to reply, will find it possible to move in some of these wider aspects of foreign affairs discussed in the two days' Debate, and will not feel himself necessarily confined to a rigid review of his actions in regard to this or that foreign country. The limitations which the Prime Minister imposed upon himself, when he said he was like a man walking among heated ploughshares, are not necessarily applicable to the rest of us, whose gait is not by any means so closely scrutinised by the world outside.
  I was most interested in the approach to this problem taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I noticed what one might call a preliminary "bulldozing" of the track, and a clearing of rubble, with the object of building on it something broader and wider after he had cleared the debris as he said, or shattered the illusions and cleared them out of the way. He will forgive me if I say that his constitution was more fitted to the shattering of illusion than the subsequent construction of the building. I listened very carefully to hear what he had to say, as to the approach he proposed to offer, and I did not find such light and leading as I expected from him.
  He said that we ought to do everything in our power to make a friendly approach towards France. I am sure that the whole Committee would solidly agree with that proposal, but I would have said that the Prime Minister announced yesterday exactly the sort of gesture we should most have in mind, namely, an invitation to General de Gaulle, the man who is universally regarded as the head and symbol of the movement of resistance, to come here, as he said, to talk over these matters with him. I find, in travelling in
  996
  parts of the French Empire, now freed from Vichy, even among those who are by no means favourably disposed towards the Committee in Algiers, a universal feeling that General de Gaulle has established himself, in a most peculiar way, as the very symbol and soul of the French resistance, and of the hope of the men of the Maquis for the future. He is the man who has been invited here. He has not been cold-shouldered, but asked to come here and talk freely and frankly with the head of our Government, and that gesture has been taken by us and not by Marshal Stalin or President Roosevelt. It is to London that General de Gaulle has been asked to come. It is in England he will talk with our Prime Minister. He is to have conversations with our Foreign Secretary. They will talk things over. It is to him that we have made a gesture as the symbol of resistant France and of the men of the Maquis and we should recognise it as a step already taken by the Government and announced to the House.
  There was the further proposal of my hon. Friend that we should be friendly with Russia. Surely the Secretary of State has told us that he has signed a 20 years' Treaty of friendship with Russia. Surely, 20 years will see both the hon. Member for Seaham and myself far along the road of, let us say, political advancement. We have, of course, to be friendly with Russia, but I think the hon. Member rather slurred over some of the inevitable difficulties, which we shall encounter when we try, simultaneously, to follow out the other part of his advice, namely, to find a rallying ground for the smaller nations of Europe. We cannot shirk the fact that there are dangers. The smaller nations of Europe and of the world feel themselves equally overshadowed and overpowered, by the economic strength of the United States and the political strength of Russia. Both of these great Powers seem to them enormous Juggernauts moving irresistibly along, and quite likely to tread on and extinguish any smaller organism which lies in the track of their great feet.
  Earl Winterton: My right hon. and gallant Friend has misunderstood the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). He was putting the argument supported by many of us that smaller nations of Western Europe

  997
  should come into the ambit of the British Commonwealth in order to avoid these dangers.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may develop my argument—and I wish to put this point particularly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs —the point of view for the smaller Powers of Europe is whether the emphasis is on ourselves or our companions. There must be clear realisation in our minds that we shall have to undertake the very unpopular task, ourselves, of standing up both to America and to Russia. Let us not mistake the difficulties we shall be in either in this Committee or outside, if we take either of these steps. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham put forward an eloquent plea for the utmost cooperation with the United States of America. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir John Wardlaw-Milne) and myself brought forward only a few days ago a proposition for co-operation with the United States of America over monetary policy. [Interruption.] It is not difficult to see that, as soon as any practical steps are suggested, the hon. Member for Seaham finds himself in opposition to it.
  Mr. Shinwell: It was not a practical step.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am within the recollection of the Committee. The contention of the hon. Member for Seaham was that it was all too practical—he would have preferred something still more tenuous, more shadowy, less concrete and with more loopholes than the proposition we put forward. He was the only man who said that if it lay within his power he would reject the proposition. He is entitled to his view, but to come forward after that as a keen apostle of Anglo-American co-operation is a role in which he is perhaps a little unfamiliar to us in this Committee. We can, however, forgive him all that, because of the eloquent passage with which he ended, about the necessity of co-operating with the other nations of the Empire. He was pushing at a door which, happily, is wide open now, and rightly so. That attitude will involve a certain emphasis of our own position, our own point of view which it is necessary to take every opportunity of emphasising in a Debate such as this, which will be listened to all over the world.
  998
  I, also, am strongly in favour of cooperating with the United States of America, but we are not the only candidates for the moral leadership of the world. There is Mr. Cordell Hull. He is also a candidate, self-nominated, for that post. I would like the Committee to pay attention to what Mr. Cordell Hull said during Foreign Trade week, 21st and 22nd May. He said:
  "Above all, preparation must be made for the reduction, the revision or removal of unreasonable trade barriers, and for the removal of trade discrimination in all forms."
  I merely quote against that the words in the first leader in "The Times" of 26th January, 1944:
  "What is wholly incompatible with any constructive social policy is a return to the automatic processes of 'free trade' and the removal of trade barriers."
  I simply say that we who are inclined to be realists should put these two statements in juxtaposition and make it clear that neither this Parliament, nor any other Parliament, as far as I can see, that is going to be elected within the next few years in this country, will give up the right of selection, the right of choosing those friends which are so necessary for us, living in a constellation of sea communities, and not, like Russia and America, within a great armed ring-fence within which they can do exactly as they please. America, the paradise of hard-shell private enterprise. Russia, the paradise of hard-shell Communism. You might call them the Great Crustaceans, the great hard-shell countries. We are a vertebrate, we are a soft-skinned country, with our bones inside, but with a possibility of growth, which, I think, is denied to those who put on their armour first and then develop their flesh inside it. I think we are in fact the youngest of the three great Powers of Russia, America and Great Britain. We, the British Empire, Great Britain, are developing all the time in our constitution.
  The only attempt I have ever seen to reduce the Constitution of Great Britain to writing, in a form in which it could be understood by the foreigners, was in the original Constitution of the League of Nations where, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will remember, the name of the United Kingdom was set out on a line rather different from the other nations,

  999
  and the Dominions followed, inset by a quarter of an inch or so, as having the same powers, but not being exactly the same as ourselves. Even that was swept away by the Statute of Westminster, and they all appear now on exactly the same footing. The Statute of Westminster is more recent than the setting up of the Soviet Republic and far more recent than the Declaration of Independence. The recent Premiers' Conference is younger than either of them. Our group is evolving all the time, and it will be very necessary continually to bring that to the notice of the two powerful creatures with whom we find ourselves associated. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson), in a most interesting speech at the beginning of yesterday's Debate, said that the Prime Minister had yoked his plough on the one side to a young eagle, and, on the other side, to an enormous and very suspicious bear. It was a vigorous metaphor—he said he was trying to imitate the powerful imagery of the Prime Minister himself—but it illustrates the necessity of attracting the friendly attention of these great creatures as often as necessary.
  When Mr. Cordell Hull said he was opposed to any form of discrimination, he was saying something that is not true, or, at any rate, that does not hold in every circumstance in which it might be applied. Take immigration. Does anybody suppose for a moment that the United States President is going to the country in the autumn on the principle of throwing down all the barriers and making no discrimination whatever between any of the races who seek to immigrate into the great Republic of the United States of America? Not for a moment. Well, what are immigrants for him are goods for us. The private choice which he claims to exercise, and rightly claims to exercise, over these with whom he will be associated inside the boundaries of his country it is necessary for us to claim for those with whom we are about to trade and in which countries we have to invest money, for possible development outside the boundaries of our country. There, too, we shall have to make it clear that the circumstances under which we are developing are not the same as those of Soviet Russia, and are certainly not the same as those of the United States of America.
  1000
  The hon. Member for Seaham brought up the very delicate question, "With whom then should we be particularly associated?" He answered it—if I grasped his argument aright—by saying with the Western Powers of Europe more particularly. I think that is true, but there are difficulties and we must face them. I have been twice associated with negotiations which concerned the small States in the East of Europe, once as Minister of Agriculture, where we were engaged in economic negotiations and, for a time, the Foreign Office was transferred to a back room in the Ministry of Agriculture. Argument went forward, and we were able to come to agreements with those small, friendly, happy countries who were anxious to make progress, anxious to trade. Then, again, I remember a long and bitter set of negotiations when we were trying to come to an arrangement with Soviet Russia. There were bitter suspicions on both sides. One of the many difficulties was to what extent were we pledged—to what extent did we find ourselves bound—to insist on the absolute liberty to change their Governments, if they desired, of the small States on the Eastern side of Europe?
  As hon. Members will remember, these negotiations were unfruitful. We were not able to come to an agreement with Soviet Russia and, as everyone knows, one of the final difficulties was, how far were we willing to modify our attitude towards those small States? Well, whatever we desired to do for those small States, it was unsuccessful. They have been overrun, they have been steam-rollered, they have been cut up. The hopes that we had for keeping our word towards them —for they were also members of the League of Nations—of preserving their independence, their national entity, these hopes were lost. I should certainly think twice before attempting again to stretch a hand to the far side of Europe to take on such commitments, to put one's hand between the German hammer and the Russian anvil. These will be unpalatable decisions for the House of Commons to take, and grave responsibilities confront the Secretary of State when he enters into those negotiations. I trust he will be able to deal with them more satisfactorily than we were able to deal with them when we negotiated at that point, because, undoubtedly, there we

  1001
  came upon a head-on clash between the national sovereignty of those small countries, with their desire for self-determination, and the interests of the vast Powers on either side which ground them to powder in the past and may grind them to powder again if they insist on unlimited national sovereignty again.
  Mr. Boothby: May I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to clear up one point? I am sure he does not mean to imply that we should exclude the possibility of friendly commercial relations with some of those countries in Eastern Europe after the war.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, not for a moment. I had given a previous example of friendly commercial relations. I was talking of political relations. In passing, I would say I fear the result of an approach too exclusively by commercial and functional agreements because I find that, at the end, the political agreements override and roll these things out flat. However well you have done through functional agreements, you find, at the end of the day, that they are swept aside by the great political movements which concern the life and death of States, peace and war, and the other great issues which sovereign States have to consider.
  I only wish to say again that the Secretary of State is having placed before him considerations which hon. and right hon. Members desire him to bear in mind when framing the foreign policy of this country. I say again, that the two great Powers of Russia and the United States are not of our way of living. We, the third Power, have a way of living of our own quite as original and still newer in the political, though not in the economic, sense. I ventured to suggest it was the vertebrate structure as against the crustacean structure. Let me end by saying that the essence of a vertebrate is a backbone, and that the backbone which is shown by our collection of States, both individually in negotiation and collectively in subsequent assistance and leadership to the world, will be the test of whether it is really a vertebrate or merely a jellyfish.
  The Chairman: Mr. Hore-Belisha.
  Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order, Major Milner. My protest is not based on my own desire to speak but I
  1002
  would draw your attention to the fact that this seems to be a Debate between ex-Ministers rather than back benchers. On a subject like this, I think it ought to be better balanced.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be reflecting on the Chair.
  Mr. Tinker: It is about the only protest that can be lodged, and a protest has to be made to draw attention to what I think is wrong.
  The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to remember that the Chair is in a difficult position, and that yesterday a considerable number of back benchers took part in the Debate.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would say, Major Milner, that right hon. Gentlemen, in this Committee, have almost the same rights as hon. Members and I am glad that you have protected them. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has added to the wide range and interest of this Debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said in his practical speech, it has been a timely Debate. It takes place on the eve of what we all hope will be decisive events. If that be so, then military problems will be replaced by political problems of equal comprehensiveness and perplexity. Our purpose in these two days has not been to renovate the world; it is Europe which we are about to redeem and, in giving our attention to this subject, we may, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister yesterday, advance from vague generalities to more precise points.
  It is 25 years since the last Peace Conference at Versailles. Why was the settlement there made so unstable and impermanent? The statesmen there assembled made an heroic attempt. They had seen the world system under which they had been bred pulverised. It had been a system of alliances and of balance of power. They were great alliances, alliances of mighty Empires. Britain had been compelled to under-pin her strength by an entente with France and an alliance with Japan. To these Powers Russia had been joined. That was in one scale. In the other scale were the Empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy. This was a global balance of power. It was found wanting. As a substitute for

  1003
  it, as a successor to it, collective security was adopted. What was that method? It was a co-operative method by which completely sovereign States, enjoying self-determination and retaining their independence of judgment and their liberty of action unfettered, met together to decide upon common policies to the extent to which it suited their individual purposes. That system did not suffice to prevent a second world war. You may amend the Covenant of the League. You may add to its membership. But no change in the drafting, and no alteration in the strength, can remove its underlying defect. There is an incompatibility between independent sovereignty and international authority. The two principles are completely irreconcilable.
  What have we done so far? We have agreed to establish a world authority on the principle of the independence and sovereignty of nations and their equality —all nations, great and small. That is the principle of the League. We are to have an Assembly to which they are all to be invited. That is the principle of the League. We are to have a Council comprised of the great Powers. That is the principle of the League. We must hope that the Powers concerned—Britain, Russia and the United States—will live up to the height of the trust reposed in them, but the fact is that the essential irreconcilability remains.
  We do, however, start under much better auspices than last time. Britain is supported by the whole of her Empire. That is the result of the Conference of Prime Ministers which has so successfully concluded. The United States, on this occasion, is to belong to the international organisation. That is a great achievement. Russia is to belong to that organisation. Another great achievement. Both achievements are due to the patient and skilled diplomacy of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. We start under better auspices. There are no inter-Allied debts-on this occasion to cloud the relationships of the great Powers. The vision and imagination of President Roosevelt have substituted the method of Lend-Lease. We are not to have reparations on the same extravagant scale, but only restitution. The great Powers are not to concentrate on disarming one another; they are to preserve sufficient armed strength to maintain order in the world. All these are great
  1004
  improvements, and must be acknowledged. But the fact remains that there is this irreconcilability between the individual sovereignty of nations and an international authority.
  Mr. Lipson: Why does my right hon. Friend say it is irreconcilable?
  Mr. Hare-Belisha: It is quite obvious that there can be no executive power in an international body if it depends on States exercising their individual sovereignty and only co-operating to the limit of their desires. That is a mathematical proposition. To what practical conclusions does this lead? Does it not mean that we shall be deceiving ourselves if we place our hopes of peace solely on the creation of an international body so constituted? It does not mean that we should not create the international body. It is obvious, however, that no nations would be prepared to surrender their sovereignty to a global organisation composed of States of different degrees of culture and civilisation and different traditions. The world organisation, which is essential, can fulfil many useful purposes. It can bring about common standards, it can settle disputes, but in a crisis it is always liable to fail. That must be realised. If, then, we want peace, shall we not be more likely to get it if we restrict the scope of the problem within practical limits?
  Take the case of Europe. That is the seat of the microbe which has twice infected the world. We can isolate that problem and we can devise a satisfactory treatment. It is not unreasonable to require that in parts of Europe, at any rate, particularly in the parts closest to our shores, there should be some surrender of sovereignty to a central body. What is the characteristic of Europe differentiating it from the other Continents? Europe is the only Continent—I leave out Russia for this purpose—in which there is no form of unity. In Canada there is federation, in the United States there is federation, in South Africa there is federation, in Australia there is federation, in India there is federation—in every one of these cases the component States have surrendered certain powers to an executive authority. Even in the great inter-Continental and oceanic organisation of the British Empire, there is a surrender of authority, a compromise of sovereignty,

  1005
  an understanding of nationality without nationalism, although in a less formal manner. In Europe alone there is no unity.
  Have we the right, or the responsibility, to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate to-day, to try to bring about this unity, or should we stand aside? Should we say: "These are matters for the individual States. Our task will be fulfilled when we have won the war and recreated the old States out of the dust in the form which they bore after the Treaty of Versailles"? Should we stand aside, or have we the moral right to influence a decision? Russia is pursuing her policy in Eastern Europe, a policy directed to preserving her own security. It is a policy in which we are acquiescing but which we are not initiating. We are recognising the power of Russia to deal with matters on her Western frontier. On what grounds would our Ally resist an attempt by us to secure our own security, without interfering in any way with the democratic rights, in Western Europe?
  Would this be contrary to the wishes of the peoples concerned? Suppose we began with the federation or, to use General Smuts's phrase, a commonwealth, of Holland, Belgium and France, in whose strength we have a primary concern. Would that be offensive to those Powers? France, between the two wars, made repeated attempts to obtain a federation. There was M. Briand's plan, which was rejected for reasons which we need not now examine; there was M. Herriot's plan; and during this war M. Daladier advocated federation. He said that it would be necessary to envisage federal ties between the various States of Europe and M. Blum supported, from the opposition, the same proposal. General de Gaulle has advocated it in terms. Is it our interest to foster this, or is it not?
  We have had speeches about France. There is in this House a passionate devotion to France. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson), who has just returned from Algiers, made an appeal for the recognition of General de Gaulle, and he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Cary), in a significant speech. What we want to do is not only to recognise General de Gaulle—I do not attach much importance to technicalities—but to recognise a
  1006
  fact, and that fact is this: My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the population of France, and I would like to give the House two sets of figures, which are more conclusive than any argument, more indicative than any argument, of the steps which we must take if we are to preserve ourselves in the future and save ourselves from the exhaustion which a third war would involve. The figures are these: the French population, at the beginning of the 19th century, was 25,000,000. It was about equal to the population of the German Confederation. It was twice the population of Great Britain, and twice the population of Italy. In 1940, the French population was 41,000,000: it had become smaller than the population of either Great Britain or Italy, whereas in the early part of the previous century it had been twice as great. It had dropped to half of Germany's and a quarter of Russia's populations. More significant still, for every 10 French births there were 17 Italian, 27 German, and 80 Russian. Since then, 2,500,000 Frenchmen have been carried away. Does our security depend upon a strong Western Europe, or does it not?
  Holland was not strong enough to buttress France—and indeed refused to make complementary arrangements with her—and Belgium was not strong enough to buttress France. Is it not in the interests of all of us to promote this federation? That is what I argue before this House as a practical proposition. I make no criticism whatever of the successes which have been attained; I think it is remarkable that Russia, the United States and ourselves should have been brought into agreement about the establishment of an organisation. That is a triumph of the first magnitude, and differentiates the situation of to-day from the situation after the last war. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend the Foregn Secretary to make a declaration on this subject now, nor would I have thought it fitting that the Prime Minister should have made a declaration about it yesterday, but I press it on my right hon. Friend as a solution for his consideration.
  We are about to invade the fortress of Europe. It is not quite the same Europe that existed four years ago. Much has happened in these four years. Hitler has, for his own fell purposes, intergrated the

  1007
  economy of Europe. He has a unified transport system, a unified communications system, a unified broadcasting system, and a unified postal system. He has a Reichmark which determines the rate of exchange between all the occupied countries. He is not bound to take any account of frontiers. Apart from the suffering which he has caused, he has made changes on the surface of Europe. Cannot we use for good what this man has intended for evil? Cannot we take account of these facts? Hitler did not make a geological distribution of iron and coal over the borders of Germany and France; he did not arrange the resources of Europe in such a way that they were regionally inter-dependent. We go in with a clean sheet. It is by our Armies that the peoples of this Continent will regain their freedom, and it is by our Armies that they will retain it. Have we not the right to ask for something in return? The least we can ask is that there should be a constitution of Europe, or the parts of it in which we are principally interested, which will give us a guarantee, in so far as human devices can guarantee it, against a third world war.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister concluded his remarkable survey by claiming to be a good European. What a striking and paradoxical boast for the spokesman of an island Empire! He claimed to be a good European. What did he mean by that? Surely he was recognising that in Europe was the source of our secular, as it has been the vehicle of our religious, civilisation. He was recognising that in that Continent had been nourished peculiar values which have regard to human personality, that the people of that Continent have given a way of life to the world. Their preference was for craftsmanship, painting and individual endeavour. They did not set efficiency as the standard of all their judgments. They did not mistake wealth for happiness. Better ideals were deeply enshrined in Europe. It is these which we have 'the mission to revive. It is that Europe which we can, if we will, reconstitute.
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Though not having had the privilege of hearing the whole of the discussion, I feel justified in detaining the Committee for a few minutes. I should like to have heard more, but it was only
  1008
  on Tuesday morning that I left Italy, where I have been serving with the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces on the combined Anglo-American staff. The Allied Air Forces are devoting their main effort to the air offensive against Southern Europe and the Balkans. I felt, perhaps, that the Committee might be interested to have a few impressions which I have been able to gain at first-hand. It has proved a great encouragement to all of us in Italy, to see the great success which our French friends have been able to obtain in the field during the past few weeks. They are proving their worth, both in the field and in the air, in a way that delights us all. We wish them well and hope that their troops may go forward to victory and to the regeneration of France.
  The Prime Minister yesterday spoke of the great sufferings through which the Italian people have gone. Anyone who has been there cannot fail to realise how grievously the Italian people have suffered from the wrong-doing of Mussolini and the Fascist authorities. After years of oppression by the Fascists, they now see their country turned into one vast battlefield. It seemed to us when we went in that the people were war-weary. Once a gay and happy people, they have now lost their hearts, but they retain the old Italian desire for freedom, which was born in the days of Garibaldi, and indeed long before that. We feel that the people there need, above all, leadership and unity so that they can join with us in the struggle to eject the Huns from their country. It has, undoubtedly, been a good thing that Marshal Badoglio has been able to broaden the basis of his Government and include representatives of so many other parties. We in this country should do all we can to support such a broadening, not only in Italy but throughout the whole of the Balkans, in order to find some unity, some common ground for the oppressed people so that they may rise together and throw the oppressor from their country.
  As it is with Italy, so it is with the Greeks. I happened to be in Cairo at the time of the Greek mutiny. There is no doubt that regrettable incidents of this nature not only tend to weaken the Greek and the Allied cause in the Balkans but also divert the attention of many of our own soldiers, who might be engaged

  1009
  in offensive operations against the enemy. In Greece or anywhere else, brother cannot fight brother and expect at the same time to defeat the common foe. Hence it was, indeed, good that our Government and the Prime Minister should have devoted some time to try to heal those breaches among the Greek people. It may be that, with the new Government which has just been formed, we shall have common ground and unity from which the Greek nation may once again go forward. The Greeks undoubtedly have fine qualities. They have great fighting men. I have never seen their armies in the field, but only a few weeks ago I sailed in an American built ship. It was flying the Greek flag, and was manned by an all-Greek crew. Those men were quietly playing their part in the war. It was not until after considerable cross-examination that they confessed that in the few preceding months they had taken their ship into the Anzio beachhead no fewer than 24 times, with arms and supplies for us.
  Perhaps the most interesting thing of all to me was a visit that I was able to pay to Marshal Tito's partisans in Yugoslavia. I went there, not as a Member of this House but rather as an Air Force officer, and in that way, I was able to form a view based on practical achievement rather than one that might have been tinged with political bias had they known that I was a Member of this House. I did not meet Marshal Tito, I did not visit his headquarters, but I spent some little time with his men who were operating in a certain part of the country. I gained the impression that our British Mission was ably led by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean), who is doing a really outstanding job. I think, too, that it was a very good stroke when the Prime Minister allowed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Churchill) to go there as, well. It made a profound impression on the common people there that our Prime Minister should allow his own son to, share the trials and tribulations of the common people of Yugoslavia. There is, no doubt, very great friendship for us. I went in with two officers of the American Army Air Force. When the partisans saw our uniforms, British and American, they at once opened their hearts to us and were prepared to do
  1010
  everything they could to help us and to show us everything that they had. Our uniforms symbolised to them the help that they were getting, and expect to get, from the Allied Forces and it made us really proud of those uniforms.
  Never have I seen a war effort so completely "100 per cent." as among the partisans. It was an inspiring sight to see them all, men, women and children, fighting. That was their one view in life. During the three or four days I was there, I saw only two people who were not in the partisan army, and I believe they had come with a mission. The people were interested only in fighting and killing Germans and clearing their country of the invader. The women were fighting as well as the men. They carried guns and grenades and went out on nightly raids. Even the children were doing their bit. I remember two boys about 12 years old who went out to one of the islands, and they came back next morning with two German officers as their prisoners.
  The military discipline of these partisan soldiers of Tito is great. They have spirit and strength, and they have courage. Having seen these fighting men, I believe that our Government were right in their decision to send supplies to a body of men who are prepared to fight to the last man in order to get the Hun out of their country. If we send equipment to Tito and his men we know that it will be well and properly used. They have every reason to fight. I saw shiploads of refugees from oppression who were coming out of their country. It made one's heart bleed to see the sight. They looked poor and weak. They were oppressed and downtrodden. They were hungry. I saw a young fellow, who could not have been more than 22 years old, with both hands cut off. I saw two boys of about 12 each without an arm and two children of six each of whom had lost an eye. I saw old men, women and children who could hardly drag themselves along. The Prime Minister said that atrocities had indeed been great. He was right. With that background and that knowledge of what has happened to their own people, the partisans will use our arms with ruthless determination against our common enemy.
  I believe that in Tito they have a great leader. It would be a profound mistake for any of us to be prejudiced against him on account of the fact that he has a

  1011
  Communist background. Out of the war and out of adversity there grows a new spirit, and a new national allegiance inspired by patriotism is thrown up. I believe that Tito is a leader imbued with the greater patriotism that comes from adversity. Of course, many of his followers are Communists, but his cause is common with ours. He has with him people of all races and creeds who are working together for a common cause, and we must be with him. It is the same with Tito, as with Russia. Our cause is common. Let us work with them, but do not let us do it merely on the grounds of necessity. Let us do it because we admire their spirit, because we admire their endeavour, because we respect them, and, above all, because in our hearts we want them as our friends.
  Mr. Martin: The whole Committee has listened with great attention and interest to the moving personal experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), but if he will forgive me, I will not follow him into those interesting fields. At this stage of the Debate it is difficult to contribute anything very new, but I want to refer to some questions raised earlier in the Debate to which I hope the Foreign Secretary will reply. I would like, first, to say a word about France. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) and every subsequent speaker urgently pressed that the French National Committee of Liberation should be recognised as a Government. It seems to me that that is to put the matter rather extremely. The French Committee of National Liberation has not, and cannot have, an electoral mandate, and I think that many friends of France and many members of that Commitee will recognise that to ask under those conditions for full recognition is rather a difficult thing. None the less, the fact remains that if we are going into France in the near future we have to recognise a provisional Government there.
  The Secretary of State replied to a Question which I addressed to him some time ago by saying that we regarded the Committee of National Liberation as the trustee for France, and the authority with which we should negotiate when we landed in France. If that is so, I find it difficult to understand the position taken
  1012
  up by the Prime Minister yesterday. Some Government has got to be negotiated with. Important questions are to be decided urgently now, such as the question of the provisioning of the population of France when Allied troops get into possession, questions of requisitioning of property and of the administration of justice—all kinds of questions of a difficult nature, which cannot be improvised when the moment arrives. Unless those questions have been settled before the Allied Forces occupy France, it is difficult to hope or believe that a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at a little later. I hope that this question of recognition will be reconsidered when General de Gaulle comes here. We hear that he has accepted the invitation that has been extended to him. We hope that he will be here before very long and that these questions will be thoroughly discussed and a settlement arrived at before our invasion takes place.
  There is another country to which I would like to make a reference and about which the Prime Minister said something yesterday. He spoke about our relations with the Government of Spain. Everybody, including hon. Members on this side of the House, wishes to have friendly and cordial relations with the Spanish Government. Everybody will be glad if those relations can be speedily established. Everybody appreciates what the Prime Minister said about the obligations we are under to the Spanish Government for their behaviour towards us at various periods of the war. None the less, the fact remains that the Spanish Government were, until the war was far advanced, hostile to ourselves. They supported in every conceivable way the military action and policy of our enemy. They sent a division to fight against our Allies in Russia. These facts must be taken into account when the resettlement of Europe takes place. I speak with respect always of the Prime Minister, because every one of us owes him so vast and undischargeable a debt for the services he has rendered to this country during the past four years, and I am not one of those who would easily or lightly wish to say anything critical of his policy to-day after the burden that he has borne and the great services he has rendered. None the less, we are concerned now with the future and not with the past. I think that his analogy yesterday with

  1013
  regard to our relations with Spain and his distinction between a man who has knocked us down and a man who has not were false.
  The question, when you come to regard a man, is not only whether he is going to knock you down but whether he is associated with people who have knocked you down, and whether he is looking round the corner to see whether the policeman is coming or is finding them another bludgeon. There is no question that that was the attitude of the Spanish Government at that time. When Europe comes to be resettled I should certainly support the arguments put forward from various sides of the Committee that we have to find some machinery in the new world not only for taking action against the aggressor but against the would-be aggressor, the man who is preparing for aggression and whose policy is likely to lead to war. That is one of the problems of to-day.
  That brings me to the problem that we are discussing at the present time. Some weeks ago, when we last debated these great questions, and again yesterday and to-day, a large number of hon. Members have made their contributions to the symposium of what caused the present war. With modesty, I hope, I would like to add my contribution. From all the contributory reasons, and of course there were many, I would single out one. It is that, in the interval between the two wars, the great nations of the world were unable to make up their minds between the old system and the new. I would count us among the greater culprits in that respect. We were faced with a situation which was not really to be coped with by the old method of alliances and of national armaments used in an individual sense and, on the other hand, there was a new condition of affairs which required some basis of law to administer it.
  It is not my purpose to expound the virtues of the old League of Nations. We all know about its defects. It is inescapable that a choice has to be made when the war is over between a system based on law and extending not only to continents but to the whole of the world, and the old-fashioned system in which individual nations, retaining their sovereignty, made their awn particular arrangements for self-defence, either within a small group or by themselves alone. There is a great deal to be said for the old system of alliances.
  1014
  You knew exactly where you were, unless your alliance was so long-dated as to become otiose, as was the case with our own alliances before the war. Otherwise, you had a circumscribed time in which you knew that you could depend upon your alliance, and you could agree upon the amount of the contribution that you were going to make in ships, money, arms, etc. You could also measure the fluctuations which arose from the movements of your opponents.
  The great problem of alliance in the last 20 years has been that the tempo of life has been so much faster. Changes in human thought have been so much more rapid, and the facilities for producing new and terrific forms of armaments have become so much greater, that alliances have been increasingly of less value. That was at the bottom of the relationships that France had with us during the 20 years before the war. Increasingly the French found themselves having to face a burden of war alone, finding themselves in the position of front-line troops. Increasingly they found themselves facing the enormous weight of armament which Germany could bring against them, and they tried to compromise and equivocate in regard to the political situation. Exactly the same thing happened over here. We realised the terrific form that war was going to take, and we became less and less anxious to plunge into it. Although there is a great deal that can be rightly said about the Munich policy, the fundamental feeling of it was no doubt based upon a horror of the threat of war to the people of these islands.
  That makes nonsense of the whole system of alliances. It creates a world in which neutrals must increasingly desire to draw out of the responsibilities which alliances involve. It must increasingly mean, if an alliance is to be effective, that nations must be powerful and equipped with resources in men and arms. It increasingly calls up counter-alliances against them. Hon. Members yesterday spoke of an increasing alliance. I do not believe there is any such thing as alliances which may extend, and extend, and ultimately mean a world system. If hon. Members mean a world system, for goodness' sake let them set to work to lay the foundations of that system. Let us prepare to build it up. Do not let us hope that, by creating a small

  1015
  alliance, we can gradually draw more and more nations into it and escape the obvious consequence that a counter-alliance will rise up against it, and that an increasing number of small nations will desire to be neutral and escape the consequences of the coming clash between the two growing Powers.
  If that is true, we must look forward with more energy and detail than we have yet given to this question of building up a world order and establishing world peace. Admittedly it is going to be an extremely difficult task, not because there are any insuperable political or economic barriers but because there are profound and searching psychological barriers. Nothing is more difficult than to dispose of the idea in the minds of nations of their right to exercise unfettered sovereignty. We have all heard people say that such and such a reform could never come to pass because of the opposition of human nature. It is true that the idea of national sovereignty is deeply implanted in men's minds and is difficult to expel. That makes it all the more alarming that the American Government should believe that they can enter into the post-war world on the basis of a system of unfettered sovereignties from which alliances—as I understand the policy of the State Department—will be largely excluded. That seems to me to be asking for trouble.
  Before I sit down I should like to make an allusion to one problem which is much in hon. Members' minds at the moment, and which is bound up with this question of the post-war world order, the problem of the Polish boundaries. The Prime Minister has said words with which hon. Members will not seriously quarrel about the desirability of the Poles making surrenders on their Eastern frontier to Russia and receiving compensation from Germany for that surrender. The Poles are a great and gallant people, and everybody must desire that their position after the war shall be adequate to a nation which has a great contribution to make to the European scene. But if we are to assume that East Prussia or any considerable area of Germany is to be lopped off from the rest of that country we have to consider this question which I want to address to the Secretary of State. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will ask him whether he can say something about
  1016
  this problem. It is all very well to say that the Germans have no right to claim the application of the provisions of the Atlantic Charter to-day. I agree. I think they have no right. It is all very well to say that they should cede this territory for the sake of the Polish nation or Polish access to the sea, or European peace, but what is to be the end of this? Is there to be in the new order some facilities for peaceful change? If there is, at what point are the people who occupy East Prussia to be able to say that they want this arrangement to come to an end, and that they would like to go back to the German State? Are they to be refused indefinitely after the point at which German people have become decent members of society again?
  Quite possibly some hon. Members will say that the German nation will never become decent members of society again, but we must not proceed on that assumption. We must proceed on the assumption that at some time the world will settle down and we shall have some system of European society really working together for the benefit of mankind. If that assumption is to be made, we must look forward to see what the borders of this nation are to be. If it is assumed that East Prussia is to be handed over, are the population to be moved to the centre of Germany? If it is desirable for strategic or defence reasons that East Prussia should be handed over, then might it not be said that the Rhine frontier should be handed to France? Where are you going to stop? Where are you getting to? When you have transferred the population from the Eastern and Western frontiers into Germany there will be created a new economic unit entirely different from what existed before. Are there plans to see that it functions in a way that will not disturb the peace of Europe?
  Captain Alan Graham: May I remind the hon. Member that the German Rhineland on this side of the Rhine was handed over to Prussia in 1815 in order to counterbalance the preponderance of French population vis-à-vis Western Europe, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha) spoke about? It has not been an integral part of Prussia longer than since 1815, and as the population position has altered so much to the prejudice of France it is quite arguable that it

  1017
  would be advisable to remove that control of the Western Rhineland from Prussia and Germany.
  Mr. Martin: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. I am aware of that fact, but it does not seem to me to alter the fact that a large number of people who live on the Western side of the Rhine are German people by many generations of descent. Has the problem been envisaged of reducing the German leibensraum, which in justice is a perfectly desirable and defensible proposition? What will happen if you reduce the German leibensraum to such a state as to have a highly centralised population? It seems to me that that population will become highly industrialised. Either it will be a poor industrial population, which is a continual menace to the peace of Europe and the world, or it will be a very rich one, which will have tremendous effects on the future of this country and that of all the Allied nations in Western Europe. All I ask—I do not want to debate that problem now—is, Has it been considered by the Government? What is their answer to the decision to hand East Prussia over to Poland having regard to the consequential developments that that win probably have unless it is linked up with a general European settlement which we all desire to see? It is quite conceivable that East Prussia may become part of Poland, but it should at least be seen as part of the whole problem and not as an isolated instance.
  All I would say in conclusion is that I think we are deeply indebted to the. Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the part they played in bringing the Empire together—bringing the Commonwealth together—with us during the past few weeks. I think it is clear that not all members of the Commonwealth see eye to eye with regard to this question of a new world order. There are some members, important members, who think that the new world order must be of a more comprehensive nature than the British Empire. I believe they are right. For my part I set no great store on whether the Empire continues or whether it takes another form, but it should not change before the times are ripe for it to change, and when it does change, it should merge into something in which the English-speaking people, the British race, can make the contributions to human progress
  1018
  and happiness that they have done in the past.
  Mr. Burgin: If I understood the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) aright, he seemed to say in his last few words that he did not think it mattered very much whether the British Empire remained in its present form or whether it changed. I am one of those Members of this Committee who think it is extremely important that the British Empire should remain in its present form. I merely wish to make that observation in passing. We are drawing to the close of a memorable Debate, and I think I shall consult the convenience of the Committee if, instead of making any general survey of the points raised by the Prime Minister's. speech, I content myself with making one or two points quite shortly, and reserving other matters for some other occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that is all very well; but, subject to the safety of the realm or danger to the State, there is no topic of greater importance to all Members of this Committee and the country than foreign affairs. The Prime Minister, very naturally, spoke for the information of this Committee, the Empire, and the world, touching the principal topics upon which a world audience was awaiting guidance. Each of the matters to which he referred gives rise to a dozen or more problems, and many hon. Members have reasons for thinking that they have specialised knowledge on one or other of those major problems. Those of us who have, in the past, held offices in the State and have been delegates of this country to the League of Nations would claim to have, from experience alone, some contribution to make in regard to the shape, form, or character of any new world organisation; but time will allow contributions of that kind to 'be made in some other Debate.
  There have been many references to France. There is no more passionate lover of France in this House than the right hon. Member who is addressing the Committee at this moment, but I would beg hon. Members to realise that this question of giving recognition, or not, to the Committee of National Liberation is the most thorny one. There are many difficulties and dangers, and I believe that we shall be best served by not covering them at the moment, and by allowing the meeting of General de Gaulle and the leaders of

  1019
  this country to take place in the hope that free and frank discussion will blow away many misunderstandings, and that certain assurances and promises can be given, by which many things will be made less likely. But I rose for an entirely different purpose. Every waterfall is potential electricity, but it will never become electricity unless the force of the waterfall is directed along some conduit and the electricity generated led by some system to a point of light. No foreign policy will be of any effect upon this country, or the Empire, or the world, unless there are adequate instruments and adequate machinery to carry it through. Nothing is more appalling in ordinary household experience than to turn a tap and find that the water does not run; and, unless the pumping station is maintained at its proper efficiency, and the water taken by pipes to where the tap is, the water will not run.
  I have just returned from a four months' visit to Canada, the United States, and Central and South America; and it is my fervent wish that the reputation of the Foreign Office and the machinery of the Foreign Office, the powers at the disposal of the Foreign Office, should be increased, and made commensurate with the tasks which the Foreign Office is called upon to fulfil. If a ship of His Majesty's Navy appears, the entire world recognises the strength and force of His Majesty's Navy. If something from the Treasury is referred to, the whole commercial world, at al events, recognises the strength of His Majesty's Treasury. But the Foreign Office is not in the same category. The Foreign Office and its servants, men of most exemplary character, who work under the greatest difficulty, are not so recognised. That is very largely because this country, for a long time past, has adopted a most parsimonious attitude to its foreign servants. We had a Debate in Parliament not very long ago on a plan for the revision of the Foreign Service.
  I found it particularly interesting to be in Brazil when the first implementing of that scheme was taking place, when all the Consuls of Brazil were called together in order that the first steps in the new composite Diplomatic and Consular Service should be explained to them. I found it interesting to be able to watch
  1020
  at the circumference something which had been decided at the centre. But the British Foreign Office representatives, diplomats, senior members of Embassy staffs, and Consular officers, are not supported from our country in the same way as similar officers are supported by other countries with whom we are having day-to-day contacts. All these plans we are discussing, all these matters referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech, should be geared into a machinery capable of producing results at the points at which they are required. That is why I am making this request. The Prime Minister said that if we have a world organisation, we must see to it that it is given military power. If we are having a foreign policy, we must see to it that our Foreign Office is given power to implement the decisions and the recommendations that are sent back from abroad.
  This Committee would scareely believe that, in more than one of the countries of Latin America, the British Embassy is not either the owner or the sole tenant of the building that it occupies. The very idea of a British Embassy being in a building where there are many tenants, a building of which it does not occupy the ground floor, and to which a taxi cannot drive, strikes many Members of this Committee with horror. Yet that is a common occurrence. If you reside in an Embassy, you will be treated with every courtesy, and you will receive every hospitality; but you will find that the senior officials spend a considerable time every morning discussing which of them is entitled to ride in the inadequate number of cars which are provided. I am simply saying that, excellent as it is to discuss foreign policy, excellent as it is to have the Prime Minister making a chart of the journey which we are to pursue, it is only the engine power of the steamer which will enable it to follow the chart. The Foreign Office must have adequate backing, and adequate freedom from an out-of-date Treasury control. We must make its powers commensurate with the modern conception of representation, bearing in mind, if for no other reason, that trade follows the flag. I wanted only to make that one point: I do not want, on this occasion, to discuss all the attractive elements contained in the Prime Minister's speech, and I will leave the matter where I have taken it.
  Major Lloyd: There is very much that I would like to say, but there is so little time that I will confine myself to a few observations about matters on which I feel most deeply. I would have liked to have followed up some of the major themes of the Debate —to have said how much I agree with many of the statements of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), how much I agree with the idea of federation outlined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hare-Belisha), how much I agree with what the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said and how much I admire the courage of some of the remarks, both pertinent and impertinent, of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), although I do not agree with them all. But I want to say a word or two about particular subjects on which I feel strongly. None of us need be surprised—I think nearly all of us have exhibited pleasure and pride in the fact—that the Empire Prime Ministers were able to agree on the major principles of our foreign policy. We are pleased to know that that was so, but why should we be particularly surprised, when all of us in the Empire, having the same way of life, look at things so much from the same angle?
  We understand the language of democracy, and we mean practically the same thing when we talk about democracy, but, now that the Empire has agreed upon the major principles of foreign policy and upon the outlook after the war, the real job is about to begin, for we have, as has been rightly said, to convince and convert those others of our Allies who may not look at things from the same angle as we do, for not all are democracies, and are, therefore, not able so readily to speak the same language. One hon. Member has said that democracy in Europe is not the same thing as democracy in this country, but the acid test of democracy, when all is said and done, to my mind, is whether or not it can tolerate minorities, or whether it tries to stamp out and squash minorities and not allow them to exist.
  Another of the great difficulties which we have to face in the future, in consultation with other nations, in regard to the post-war world, is that our war aims and objectives are a bit mixed up and not, necessarily, by any means, the same.
  1022
  This war is not merely a defence against Germany. It is not merely a fight by Britain and her Empire, in accordance with her historic tradition, to protect the weak against the strong. It is for many an ideological war—to me, it is not. Quite frankly, it is to me and to many hundreds of thousands in this country, merely a repetition of the last war, in which we and the rest of our Empire took up arms to protect the weaker nations against a strong aggressor. But there are many in this country, and in this House, to whom that consideration is not, perhaps, so important as the fact of an ideological war against Nazism or Fascism. Therefore, their post-war outlook is coloured in that way and they will not feel that the war is won unless, in Europe and in other countries over which they can exercise some influence at the peace table, a Socialist regime exists. I am not interested in fighting this war for that at all. I feel that we have been fighting to protect the weaker nations, for whom, in the first place, we went to war.
  But to come down to some more immediate plans, not so far distant as some of the theories we have been discussing. We have never yet heard anything with regard to what is going to happen in some of the countries of Europe whom we are pledged to protect, and for whom in great measure we went to war, during the most difficult period while the conquering armies of the Allies march through those countries to Germany and Berlin. I can well imagine that, in the West, we are negotiating and bringing to a fruitful conclusion arrangements which will give those countries, through which we and the Americans will pass, a thoroughly satisfactory status, a collaboration with us in the administration of their territories until such times as they can take over themselves. It would seem as though almost final arrangements have been made, in the West, but are we satisfied that we know exactly what arrangements have been made, or are in contemplation, with regard to those Eastern countries, in which we are also interested, as conquering armies pass through on the way to Berlin? Are these arrangements to be entirely unilateral at the exclusive will of the conquering army, or are they to be made not only in co-operation with the countries, and the legitimate Govern-

  1023
  ments of those countries, but also in accordance with the mutual agreement of the United Nations who form the great alliance?
  I tried to get an answer to that pertinent, but, I do not think, impertinent, question some months ago in a foreign affairs Debate, but I never got an answer and scareely expected it. But now the time is ripe and opportune, surely, for those interested, both in Parliament and in other parts of the world, to have an answer. Is there to be any status whatever for emigre Governments, and are they to be allowed to collaborate in the occupation of their territory or are they to be excluded? What is right for the West should be right for the East. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is prepared to accept a completely unilaterial decision in the East, which he would not be able to justify in this House, if applicable to the West? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grasp the nettle and give some satisfaction to those of us who want to know what is going to happen in those Eastern countries when they are overrun by the conquering armies of our Allies.
  The Chairman: Mr. Parker.
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. Without questioning your action, Major Milner, in calling on the hon. Member, may I point out that the hon. Member will be the fifth Front Bench speaker from this party, four of whom speak for the Government?
  Mr. Parker: I want, in speaking to-day, to say a word or two about the subject of the Debate generally, but also to raise two points dealt with by the Prime Minister in his speech. First, in this interesting Debate, one thing which has been outstanding has been the very wide measure of agreement on all sides of the Committee on the need to create some kind of international authority after the war. There have been one or two hon. Members, notably the Noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), and the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who took rather a different view and I would like to take up their argument for a moment. The Noble Lord spoke as a Scotsman, and the hon. Member for Penryn as a Cornishman. They are, no doubt a good Scots-
  1024
  man and a good Cornishman respectively, as well as good supporters of this country as well. They have a loyalty, not only to Scotland and Cornwall, but to Great Britain. There may be times when they feel a conflict of the one loyalty with the other, but, on the whole, I think they manage to reconcile them, although, if they feel that Scotland or Cornwall is not getting a fair deal, they will rise up and make a fuss about it. The Noble Lord said that if this country formed part of an international organisation, we should find an irreconcilable difficulty between loyalty to this country and loyalty to the international organisation. I think he was overlooking this point that, if we can reconcile loyalties within this country, we can reconcile loyalty to this country with loyalty to an international authority. One cannot admit that loyalty to a part is greater than loyalty to the whole, and it should not be impossible to reconcile loyalties of this kind.
  The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said we wanted to build bridges to this international authority, and I agree with him, but I would like to make this practical suggestion—that we want one important bridge constructed first—a political bridge. We also want a good many bridges built in the economic field. If we try to have one big bridge, to deal with political and economic matters all at once, we shall make no progress. If we take the political factor first, we can get over the difficulty of securing collaboration between a Communist country like the Soviet Union, a highly capitalist country like America, and a country like our own. If we try to make our international body at first a political institution we may get agreement on certain narrow political issues such as the keeping the peace, which is just what we want an international authority to do. If we can have some such international authority, which necessarily means some surrender of political authority by this country, and by Russia, and America to another body, able to guarantee and keep the peace, that machinery might work. Alongside that political bridge, we want more specific bridges to deal with particular economic problems. We may get collaboration between great Powers, to deal with questions like the control of oil supplies, of water power in the Danube Basin and the more of these bridges we can build, the stronger it will make our

  1025
  political authority as well. We should do these two things separately, but at the same time, and in that way, we are more likely to get some workable international authority.
  I would like to deal with one point raised by the Prime Minister. He stated, with regard to the different Governments returning to their own countries after the war, that the Governments of King Haakon and Queen Wilhelmina are lawfully founded Governments, and we should recognise and co-operate with them fully. He went on to say:
  "Should our liberating Armies enter those countries we feel we should deal with them and also, as far as possible, with the Belgian and Danish Governments, although their Sovereigns are prisoners, but with whose countries we have the closest ties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944; Vol. 400, C. 780.]
  I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary what exactly is meant by "collaborating as far as possible with the Belgain and Danish Governments." Does he think that because King Leopold is in prison, and because Denmark is overrun, and the King of Denmark has no authority in Denmark, we should just put up a Government here in one case, and perhaps the Government that previously existed in Denmark in the other case, and collaborate with them, or that new Governments should be set up when the invasion takes place? In what way does the Belgian situation differ from the French situation? The policy of the Government ought to be made a little clearer for the benefit of our armies of invasion and of the peoples of those particular countries.
  The next point I would like to raise in rather more detail; it concerns what the Prime Minister said about Greece. Members on all sides of the Committee will welcome the agreement reached at Beirut in favour of creating a new United Greek Government, and we welcome also what the Prime Minister said about full British co-operation with that Government. The Government should however be a little more forthcoming than the Prime Minister was in what he said. I do not think that he was as generous or tactful as he might have been in what he said about the Greek situation. It must be recognised that it was only the pressure of opinion, not only in Greece itself, but among the Greek forces outside the country, even though it led to unfortunate things like the mutiny which took place,
  1026
  brought to bear on the Greek Government in Cairo, that ultimately led to the Beirut Conference and the setting-up of this new United Government. I think that we shall agree that as satisfactory a solution as possible has been found, with regard to the question of the King. There were this conference a majority of people who are Republican, but they accepted an agreement to collaborate with the King until Greece is free when the situation will be solved by the Greek people themselves. It must be recognised that there has been a surrender of principle both on the part of Republicans as well as Royalists in this matter.
  The important thing that should be made clear to the Greek people is that the British Government have no intention of dictating to the Greek people what form of government they will have after the war. I would like to know from the Foreign Secretary whether the recognition of the new. Government means that supplies of arms, medicines and foods will go into Greece, to be used by all sections of the Greek people, in the united army that is to be, in fighting the common enemy. It has been put to me by numerous Greeks who support the general war effort against Hitler, that, if we can only send adequate supplies of arms to Greece, and we do something similar in regard to Yugoslavia, when the time of invasion comes, the people of Yugoslavia and Greece will themselves be able, very largely, to deal with the German troops in that part of Europe. It would be a good thing to get the co-operation of the people in that fight.
  In regard to the conference at Beirut, I was interested to see the statement of the general secretary of the E.A.M. who said that the Greek people do not fall into two groups, of Russophils and Anglophils. They want to be friends of both countries. It would be very unfortunate if we gave an impression that we wanted our friends to dominate Greece, and were prepared to allow Russia's friends to dominate other countries in their part of the world. We want these people in Yugoslavia and Greece to be masters in their own home, and to run their own show in their own way. We should collaborate with Greece and give all assistance. We do riot want the partition of Europe into spheres of influence after the war. We want to see some kind of all-European organisation

  1027
  set up, in which the United States as well as Russia will co-operate. The peoples of Europe must be able to play their part in world organisation, and also to be masters in their own house, as far as their own affairs are concerned.
  I have had many complaints from Greek friends in this country with regard to the conduct of our Ambassador at Cairo. It is claimed that he is very much bitten with the anti-Bolshevik bug and that many of the unfortunate things that have happened in recent months and years have been due to very strong prejudice on his part. Now that the new Government have been set up, it would be a good opportunity to send an Ambassador to this Government who could collaborate with them and see that we have real friendship between Greeks and ourselves in the coming months.
  Captain De Chair: Is it in Order, Major Milner, for an hon. Member to attack an Ambassador who is performing his duties with singular ability in Cairo?
  The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has asked for a Ruling. I do not think that our Ambassadors are privileged persons in that sense, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will reply to the point.
  Mr. Parker: There are differences of opinion, but this opinion is very strongly held by many Greeks who are friends of this country.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Ambassador who is accredited to the Egyptian Government, as I understood, or to some other diplomat?
  Mr. Parker: The Ambassador to the Greek Government in Cairo.
  Mr. Hogg: Who is he?
  Mr. Parker: Mr. Leeper. The point I would like to go on to now is a question which was also dealt with by the conference at Beirut, and that is Greek claims on other territories after the war. I think we should see that this country, which is an ancient friend of ours, is given territories where there is an undoubted Greek population after the war, such as the Dodecanese, when they have rescued from enemy occupation,
  1028
  parts of the Northern Epirus which are definitely Greek, and the Island of Cyprus where the great, majority of the population is Greek and which is desirous of uniting with Greece—only 18 per cent. of the population there is Turkish and opposed to union with Greece at the present time. I would point out to the Committee that, in the past, Mr. Gladstone gave the Ionian Islands—formerly British possessions—to Greece to assist in the establishment of a new government there, and I think it would be a very good gesture on the part of this country, to make a similar gift to Greece at the present time. It may be that in handing over the island we should keep our military bases there and the right to them, as we have the right to military bases in Egypt at the present time as regards the Suez Canal and so on. Perhaps further bases in other parts of Greece might also be granted us for carrying out our general international obligations after the war.
  Some statement on that matter would help our friendship with Greece at the present time and I hope and trust we shall cease to interfere in Greek internal affairs and do our best to see that this new Government gets a fair start and can carry on a good job of work in driving the enemy out of South Eastern Europe and in building a new Greece that will play its part in helping to create the world community we want after this war is finished.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I have listened, as have many hon. Members, to the larger part of this interesting Debate during the last two days and the outstanding feature of it to me has been the fact that most hon. Members are agreed in principle as to what they want in our future policy but are groping in different directions as to how to carry out a common purpose. I think the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) was perhaps a little bolder than most speakers, even on his own side of the Committee, when he went the length of deciding what particular islands in the Mediterranean were to be handed over and to what Powers. I think it is a little early to get on to questions of that kind. The interesting thing is that, while we have had so many different views expressed in this Debate, the fundamental underlying principle has been the same

  1029
  in almost all the speeches. It has been a question of everybody trying in different ways to find a method by which this country can after the war make the utmost possible contribution in bringing about world peace and prosperity.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his very interesting survey declared that it was the policy of this country to build up an international system to restrict the power of aggressors in future, and to retain strong enough forces to play our part internationally. I think on that we all agree; that is clearly what we and we hope all our Allies want to do, but I think it is well we should remember that we have already given certain pledges and definite undertakings which are sometimes apt to be forgotten. We have definitely pledged ourselves, for example, to the restoration of France. I do not want to enter to-day into the controversy which has been going on in the Committee for two days, as to whether we should now recognise the National Committee of Liberation, or whether that recognition should be delayed. I cannot think myself there can be any better move than the one taken by His Majesty's Government in inviting General de Gaulle to come here and discuss the whole matter across the table. But it is true to say that even if it were decided—if there were no other difficulties now in the way—to give recognition at once, it would only be recognition of a provisional Government, and in the time to come—we hope very soon—it will be possible for the French people, in France, to decide their future Government for themselves. This seems a strong argument for early action.
  As I say, we are pledged to the restoration of France. We are also parties to the Atlantic Charter and we have concluded a mutual aid agreement with the United States and there is my right hon. Friend's great achievement in making a 20 years' treaty with Russia. I noticed to-day that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) asked for a clear definition of the Atlantic Charter. I must say I was a little surprised to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman because the Atlantic Charter is not a treaty at all; it is merely a statement of principles, and the interpretation of those principles may be very much a matter of discussion and argument and even of divergence of opinion in time to come. However, there is one point about the
  1030
  Atlantic Charter which is sometimes overlooked. There is one definite statement in it that cannot be argued and the details of which cannot lead to a difference of opinion. It definitely commits its adherents to unilateral disarmament of the enemy Powers. That is one thing defined clearly in it. When I say that, I do not in any way cast doubts upon the great advantage of laying down the great principles of the Atlantic Charter, I merely say that it is not a treaty, and that it can be interpreted in different ways and there may be differences of opinion about it.
  Unilateral disarmament of enemy Powers brings me at once to a question which has only been lightly touched upon in this Debate and that is: What is to be our definite policy in regard to the disarmament of Germany? I think everybody is agreed that Germany has to be disarmed, her military and air power destroyed. But there has been a great deal said in the Debate as to what the future of Germany is to be and it has been suggested that it would be a great advantage if Germany could be told now what her future is to be. In all these things I believe it is a great pity to try to move too fast; we cannot really do so with safety. We could not lay down with our Allies the future of the world at this moment even if we had won the war, far less before we have won it. One thing is perfectly clear: in the world we foresee Germany, or any other country, cannot be kept permanently in chains. The prosperity of nations is interdependent, and I would emphasise that by saying this: as I see it, there are only two courses before the world after this war. The world will rise to great heights of prosperity and security under international co-operation or, alternatively, it will fall back under a system of economic nationalism which will almost inevitably lead to another war in the early course of time.
  There is no doubt whatever that in time to come Germany must have her place in a world which will want her great scientific attainments and her energy but, before that time comes, clearly she must be purged of the brutal doctrines which have caused her to plunge Europe into war over and over again in the last century and which, in my view, have not altered in the German character for several hundred years past. That means, a real re-education of the German, people,

  1031
  and it probably means also a splitting up of Germany in some way or other. Above all things it means definitely the splitting of the Prussian influence from the rest of Germany. That is fundamental, if we are to have any success in bringing Germany back, eventually, into the comity of nations. I am afraid this will take a long time, and it means quite clearly local governments with local police forces in an endeavour to build up local feeling and local independence, whether some of the many States of the past eventually join together for common services or not. The same problem which faces us by the terms of the Atlantic Charter in regard to Germany will face us in regard to Japan when the time comes. I do not want to enter into that to-day, because we are looking ahead already and I do not want to look too far ahead all at once. But it is quite clear that we shall have to make definite arrangements when the day comes to deal with her naval and military power and the future of Japan.
  Consideration of the Far East position brings me to China, and I want to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can tell us something of the help and assistance which the Government have been able to give to that much tried country. China is the oldest belligerent in this war. She has really been in it since the seizure of Manchuria in 1931. If ever there was a case of a country being unprepared, China is that unfortunate country. If we realise the want of cohesion and the unpreparedness of China, we can appreciate that marvellous resistance she has offered. Despite her withdrawals, disasters and defeats she has engaged something like 1,000,000 men of the Japanese forces, and that fact alone must have been of very great moment to those who are now fighting the same enemy in the South Pacific. I do not suppose China's resistance has always been 100 per cent. effective. It would be futile to say so—after all, there have almost always been internal wars in China—but to-day she is united under Chiang Kai-shek and it is one of the misfortunes of this war that we have not been able to give her any real assistance in the way of arms during the last year or two. I am not making any criticism, because I realise the difficulties, but it is a real tragedy.
  The closing of the Burma Road was a blow for her and the loss of Burma, more
  1032
  recently, was a still greater misfortune. When one realises what has been done by the air squadrons working on the borders of Burma one realises what a difference a number of aeroplanes would have made to China a year ago, or even a few months ago. Without any exaggeration, so far as anybody can see, China will offer as great, or greater, possibilities for development after the war than any other country in the world. Do not let us forget our long friendship with China; let us look upon her and speak of her as one of the four great nations which will have a great part to play in the future.
  I now want to deal with a domestic matter but one which also affects our war effort in the Far East. Statements have been made during the last few days, in another place, in connection with the transfer of the Enemy Section of the Ministry of Economic Warfare to the Foreign Office and also, I understand, about the eventual closing, soon after the armistice with Germany, of the Ministry of Economic Warfare altogether. I do not want to suggest that I am not glad to see that the Government intend to take a lead in the closing of Ministries after the war—I hope that that process will go on at a rapid rate—but I think it desirable and I hope it will be possible for the Foreign Secretary to tell us something of the arrangements which have been made. One thing struck me as a little dangerous. I understand that the work of the Ministry, which has been hitherto carried on in the Far East, is now to be carried on by the United States on our behalf and not by us at all. If that is the case—and I would like the Foreign Secretary to let me know—I think it is rather dangerous. In saying that I do not in the least cast doubts on the abilities, good will or genuineness of the United States' efforts which might be made there on our behalf, but I do not think we ought to hand over our interests in the Far East, even to our greatest friends. I think we ought to look after them ourselves. I would like to know also whether the Foreign Office has the staff and the organisation with which to carry on that part of the Ministry of Economic Warfare's work and whether it will be able to carry on the work of the Ministry in Germany, when Germany is defeated. I am sure the House would

  1033
  like to know something more about this matter.
  The Prime Minister, yesterday, made some helpful references to the situation between Poland and Russia, and we all hope that these references will be proved to have been well-founded. I hope it may prove that he might have been even a little more optimistic than he was, because there can be no satisfactory solution of the problem of dealing with Germany after the war unless we have a strong Poland. Further, a strong Poland is the best possible Ally for the Russian people. I hope we shall have a strong Poland and a strong France. The United Kingdom and the United States have, I understand, made agreements with Belgium, Holland and Norway, but so far as I know no details of these have been published. I hope they provide for the early local administration of these countries by their own nationals when the time comes. I would like to know whether it is possible and intended to publish the details of these agreements.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister also outlined a new world organisation to secure peace but I hope that in considering this matter the House will not expect the Government or the Allied Powers, to move too fast. The United Nations to-day are fighting for power. Do not let us mince matters. They are fighting for power to enforce a permanent and enduring peace, and this power must be such as will secure it. We are not fighting to secure a permanent dictatorship. We are fighting for a peace which will enable us to build up a new international organisation and order after the war in which all nations can join. But it cannot all be done at once. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield in his request for a clear statement of the future world organisation. I think it would be the greatest pity to try to-day to outline fully what that organisation would he because it might do great harm after the war, when we eventually come to conference with all the Powers in the world, if our minds were made up as to the form which this world organisation should take. My right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha) made a statement bearing on that which I did not quite understand. He said the United States is to belong to the new authority. I understood him to mean
  1034
  that the United States had already agreed to join in some new form of world organisation.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was referring, of course, to the Moscow Agreement.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I have no doubt that the United States is anxious to join in such an organisation, and everything that we do must be in the closest collaboration with her, but I am a little concerned to see a report in the Press that Mr. Cordell Hull and a committee of eight Senators are likely soon to make a preliminary report on international cooperation after the war and on post-war problems. They are likely, it is said, to frame a peace plan which contemplates courts of justice for the settlement of international disputes backed by cooperative military action rather than by a world police force. Also the setting up of an international council as directing body, of which the United States, Great Britain, Russia and China would be the chief members, other United Nations to be invited to the conference table and the Axis Powers, when reconstituted, accorded a place. All this is quite interesting and perhaps helpful if it were not for what follows. I do not wish to raise an issue unnecessarily with our good friends in the United States, but I think attention should be drawn to this. One matter to be discussed apparently is the inclusion of an "escape" clause under which no member of the council would be forced into co-operative action without its consent. This is said to have been advanced as an answer to the demand said to have been made for the preservation of American freedom of action in any international organisation which the country joined. As I have said before, do not let us try to go too fast, but, above all, do not let us set up any kind of organisation however limited its scope which has an escape clause, because, if we are not prepared to cooperate without an escape clause it would be far better to enter into no agreement at all. It seems to me that that is one of the greatest dangers there could be.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said that independent sovereignty and international authority were almost impossible to reconcile. It may be so, but if we are to enter into any agreement even of a limited character let us do it wholeheartedly and not go

  1035
  further than we feel sure we can carry out. We cannot see at all what lies ahead but we know that the world all the time is moving on and it must unify or it must die. The old principle of disruption, nation working against nation, has gone. No new League or any similar organisation is possible until, outside Geneva, there is a spirit which promotes and sustains such an organisation. It is a new spirit, I fear, that is required in the human heart. Humanity has been caught up by forces for which no person and no class, capitalist, Socialist or anything else, is responsible. We have to get a different spirit if any agreement that we make is really going to succeed. In the old days a river separated two countries. Now, economically, the world is one. The forces that unite are in deadly struggle with the forces of disruption. To abolish war in the future we have to abolish the causes of war, and I believe that as the result of this struggle a new era of social security, health and happiness lies ahead. The past is finished. The future is in our own hands.
  Mr. Driberg: I shall make my few brief points without preamble and without peroration. First, France. I noted that many hon. Members supported the powerful plea of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) for full recognition of the National Committee in Algiers. The hon. Member has a particularly good title to speak on that matter, for he has lately returned from Algiers, where he was able actually to see the Committee at work and, no doubt, to engage in long discussions with the right hon. Gentleman whom I have the best of precedents for referring to as Mr. Duff Cooper. Incidentally, I am sure many hon. Members must have read with particular interest, in the hon. Member's admirable article in the "Spectator" a week or two ago, of the attempts now being made in Algiers to establish an institution comparable to Question Time in this House. I think the reason given by the Prime Minister for non-recognition of the National Committee is not really adequate. He said we should not be able to recognise it even as the provisional Government of France.
  "because we are not sure that it represents the French nation in the same way that the Governments of Britain, the United States and Soviet Russia represent the whole body of
  1036
  their people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 780.]
  I do not want to be provocative about any other Allied Governments, but surely it could be claimed that the French Committee represents the French nation at least as comprehensively as one or two of the other Allied Governments here in London represent their respective nations. It must be a matter of satisfaction to this House that no fewer than three hon. and gallant Members of it have lately been in direct personal contact with Marshal Tito, to whose gallantry the Prime Minister paid such welcome and eloquent tribute yesterday—the hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean) and Preston (Captain Randolph Churchill). They all come from Lancashire, you observe. It may be a case of what Lancashire thinks to-day of Marshal Tito, England will think to-morrow. Having myself had the privilege of talking with General Velebit, I should like to put in a plea not only for arms for Yugoslavia but also for medical supplies, which are most urgently and acutely needed.
  Like others who have spoken, I was rather disturbed by the Prime Minister's references to Spain and his somewhat puzzling analysis of the future of Europe. Enemy or ex-enemy countries are not going to be allowed to have Fascist forms of government; but neutral countries are. One can only suppose that this qualification or exemption applies also to Allied countries: it is not inconceivable that at any rate one or two of our Allies might choose afterwards to set up Fascist or quasi-Fascist forms of government. The situation would be rather awkward and ironical if Fascist or quasi-Fascist Governments were set up here and there, in one ex-Allied country after another, until eventually only the Axis or ex-Axis Powers were firmly and compulsorily wedded to democracy.
  There was one remark which the Prime Minister made in passing—it has so far, I think, aroused no comment—which I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would elucidate. If I am correct, and if the Prime Minister was not speaking lightly—and I can hardly believe he was —tnis represents a considerable change of policy, or, at any rate, an announcement of new policy on a specific point which many hon. Members on both sides have

  1037
  in the past asked about in vain. The Prime Minister said:
  "We have great hopes that the city of Rome may be preserved from the area of struggle of our armies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 767.]
  Does that represent a new policy, or was it merely a passing, casual remark thrown off by the Prime Minister? I can hardly believe that it was the latter. If it represents a change of policy I think the Committee is entitled to a slightly fuller explanation of it. I do not want to enter this controversy, but it would be from the historic, the aesthetic, and the religious points of view a disaster to humanity if the city of Rome were to be destroyed. It would also be a disaster to humanity if our armies in Italy were held up and delayed any longer. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether a way has been found of avoiding the one disaster without risking the other.
  That brings me to my final point, which is also one that may be a little contentious and which has not been raised before. I must be brief because I want, if possible, to leave a minute or two for the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who has been sitting here so patiently. I want very tentatively to raise the issue of the position of the Vatican in European and world politics. To my mind there are to-day two principal dynamic ideas in the world. One is the idea of Christianity, which finds its most highly organised and disiplined focus and expression in Rome. The other is the idea of what is roughly called Socialism or Marxism, which finds its most highly organised and disciplined focus and expression in Moscow. May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can say, from his knowledge of affairs in Rome and of the reports from our Minister there, if there is any chance of a reorientation of Vatican policy towards the democracies and towards the other countries? There have been some indications of this in recent months. It might well be of momentous importance to the future peace of the world—especially bearing in mind the tremendous influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland—if there could be something in the nature of a rapprochement between the Vatican and the Kremlin. I thank the Committee for listening with such patience.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The hon. Member for
  1038
  Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has asked me a question, to which I should like to reply at once, in respect to what the Prime Minister said about Rome yesterday. I thought that it was clear to the Committee at the time that what my right hon. Friend meant was peculiarly closely allied to what he said. It was that we hoped the city of Rome would be spared the destruction of its monuments or any other destruction, but he did not indicate any new approach in the sense of any new instruction to our military authorities. I hope that the Committee feels that it has had two days of pretty good Debate. I have certainly had the impression that the discussion has ranged far and wide and that hon. Members have taken the opportunity, not merely of following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his very conclusive review of our relations with various countries, but of going outside that and, as I think they should, of putting their own suggestions and ideas forward so that the Government may study them in their policy. At the conclusion of this Debate I would like to try to reply to the points that have been raised, and try, too, to carry matters perhaps a little further, as some of my hon. Friends have asked me to do, in one or two directions.
  As I listened to this two-day Debate, I had the impression that there was a growing note of confidence about ourselves in the speeches. No doubt there are reasons for that outside these walls. Military events at the moment and the good news from our armies would account for it. But I thought there was more to it than that. I think that there was also the increased sense of unity which the meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Empire has given us. I felt an echo when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that international unity was difficult to achieve. I could not agree with him more whole-heartedly. I happened to be reading in a history the other day about one of my illustrious predecessors who had one period of office of about 18 months. The history just noted the term of office of Lord — by saying, "No event of any international significance occurred." I thought that that was a time when I would have liked to be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We live in very different times.
  I would like at the beginning of my remarks to say something about the

  1039
  meeting of Empire Prime Ministers. Many comments have been made in this Debate about that meeting, and I think it is right to say that it was probably at once the most successful and the most significant meeting of that kind which has ever been held. Both the men and the moment served to bring that about. Here were gathered together five statesmen of widely different character and experience, but all united with the one purpose of trying to maintain, and strengthen this Empire and Commonwealth and to ensure that the world should have the benefit of the service we could render it together. Of course, that is the note, as I conceive it, of the British Commonwealth and Empire. We are not an exclusive organisation, but we do think—and I make no apology for saying this—that we are the one really successful experiment in international co-operation that there has ever been. Out of that, we may suggest with becoming modesty to others there may be something to be learnt.
  As I attended these proceedings, I reflected more than once what a strange, indefinable and, if you like, what an illogical thing, this British Empire is. Sometimes the links that hold it together seem so frail as to be almost non-existent, or so frail that they would snap at the first pressure. That is a mistake which foreigners often make. It is a mistake that Ribbentrop made, though God knows I and others tried hard enough to make him believe it was wrong. This demonstration of the reality of the strength of that relationship comes at a moment when it may be of real service to the world. Anyhow, it has so happened that, in two world struggles in one generation, the British Commonwealth has shown itself to have a unity which nothing can break. In the second of these struggles it stood alone for a year or more.
  How difficult it is to try to explain what brings these men together from these many corners of the world, and leads them to feel such deep loyalty towards the British Empire. I cannot pretend to describe it, but perhaps, like all really deep forces that move mankind, there is an element of mystery in it that cannot be put into words. I believe that to be true. Of this meeting I must say that it owed its special character more than anything else to the leadership given to it by
  1040
  our own Prime Minister. Sometimes, here within this island, with our vast controversies and frequent Debates, it is difficult to stand back and view matters as they are seen in perspective by other lands and other peoples. Certain it is, that the immense advantage of my right hon. Friend's position in the world was of quite invaluable aid in leadership in those discussions.
  There is another advantage. In the stress of war—and there is still a stress of war—nothing is more difficult than to avoid becoming immersed in the daily details of one's particular task, be it on foreign affairs, economic affairs, the Treasury or whatever it is, and the burden is such that when you have a moment in which you are not occupied with your own affairs, the Cabinet is discussing somebody else's affairs that are just a degree more tiresome than your own. When one is living like that, it is invaluable to be able to look at the problems which we have to face in company with a man like the Prime Minister. It is then that his experience is more valuable still. I can only say for myself that the experience was one that gave the greatest encouragement.
  There was, it seemed to me, a feature of our meetings this time which I had not perceived before. I was privileged to attend the Imperial Conference of 1937. Since then we have developed to a very large extent the practice of sending the greatest possible amount of information to the Governments of all the Dominions; so that to-day, it is not merely a question of consulting them from time to time and asking their advice on some particular problem that arises, but it is the practice to give them fully all the information that we have on the day-to-day developments of foreign policy. The growth of that practice was immeasurably helpful at these meetings, because the whole background of knowledge was present to an equal extent in the minds of all the men round the table. It may be that there is more we can do in that regard. If there is, we will gladly do it, for I am confident that this exchange of information is an indispensable element in true co-operation between the Dominions and ourselves. If, as a result of that, we get from time to time, when we give information about foreign affairs or whatever it may be, replies, questions, even criticism, we wel-

  1041
  come them, because they are all elements of strength to the British Commonwealth.
  Having made those remarks on that aspect of our work, I want to plunge into the details of some of the matters which were discussed. More than one hon. Member in the Debate, talking about foreign affairs, has said that in war-time, of course, foreign policy must take second place to the immediate military needs, and that is true. In war-time the Foreign Office has two duties: to help the military arm and, as part of that help, to maintain, as far as lies in our power, unity among those who are fighting the common enemy. Also, so far as we can during war-time, it is to lay the foundations for co-operation afterwards. Those are the tasks on which we are engaged now. In war-time it sometimes happens that military needs may even conflict with political needs. I will put it another way—you may have to take decisions for a short-term advantage which, in the light of long-term policy, you would prefer not to take—that does sometimes happen; but there is one aspect of the work we have done to which I would draw the attention of the Committee.
  Despite all those difficulties, and I may say temptations, in this respect in war-time, we have not on any occasion in these four years of conflict, entered into any secret engagement of any kind with anybody. I want the Committee to understand the importance of that. Hon. Members, like the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) who were present when the Treaty of Versailles was negotiated, will remember what embarrassment was caused when secret treaties were pulled out of pockets and engagements, often conflicting engagements, were all put on the table together. There is nothing of that kind on our part this time. To that extent, we shall have an advantage.
  I have said that one of our tasks is to try to help the Armed Forces. I will give briefly some examples of what I mean by that; for example, the negotiations with Portugal about the Azores, the negotiations with Spain over wolfram, the handling of our affairs with Turkey which led to the stoppage of chrome. I had, as one or two hon. Members have remarked in this Debate, the task of lending help to our Allies, among others, in trying to smooth out differences which arise, even between Allies. Those are our tasks.
  1042
  Here let me say one word about the neutral Powers. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester was, I think, rather hard on us about the neutrals. He was inclined to criticise us for our treatment of them. I know they may sometimes regard our methods as harsh and arbitrary, and think that we take too little account of the rights of small nations. If they do, I can say truly we regret it. I can also say that we have asked no nation to take any step which violates its neutrality and owe have asked no neutral who is also an Ally—of whom there are some—to take any step beyond that which is specifically within our rights according to the terms of our Alliance, and we must insist to the limit on what are our rights. It is our duty to do everything in our power to shorten this struggle. And therefore, to the neutrals themselves I say that if sometimes we have seemed outspoken and urgent in our demands, I regret it, but it is a fact that such action as we ask them to take is in their own interests, as anyone in this hour can see, if only it shortens the conflict, which they, as much as we, wish to see brought to an end.
  I must say that my sympathies and thoughts are more at the present time with the occupied countries. I felt that the Members of the Committee were many times right when they recalled the staunch Allies whom we have in Europe to-day. I think that at a time like this the Committee would like to send a message to those occupied countries—the smaller occupied countries of Europe—a message of encouragement and hope that their liberation may not be long delayed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would like to speak of one or two of these countries. We had a remarkable speech just now—there were not quite so many Members present—from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson), just back from first hand experience in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. He told us of his experiences in a Greek ship, and how its sailors had 24 or 25 times taken that ship back into the Anzio beachhead. We are greatly encouraged at the political unity which the Greek nation has, of last, achieved. We can neither forget the past of that country, nor its own amazing achievements in this conflict at an earlier stage. After all, the Greeks were the first to

  1043
  debunk Mussolini. It was not we who did that. They defeated him and repelled him from their land, and we of this Committee would like to tell the Greek people that we hope that they are now united, and that they will be able to work together and re-establish their reputation in the world.
  The hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) was a little critical of our Ambassador to the Greek Government. I think he said he had an anti-Bolshevik bogy. Quite honestly, I do not quite know what that means, or its particular relevance to the present situation, because people have different definitions of Bolshevism and bogys almost every week. However that may be, I can tell him that our Ambassador has, in fact, rendered the most loyal service in all this struggle. I happen to have known him for many years. Whether he has been right or wrong—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] He is Mr. Leeper.
  Mr. Woodburn: That is not the Ambassador to whom my hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Eden: Whether he has done right or wrong, everything he has done has been on instructions from His Majesty's Government here in London. [Interruption.]
  I wish to mention one or two other of these countries—Yugoslavia, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The suffering of all these countries has been great, and the prayer for liberation is there. In particular, I want to say a word about the North-Western countries, if I may so call them, which have been referred to in one or two speeche—Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. Within the last few days we have signed agreements with the Governments of all three of them. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) asked whether we could perhaps make them public. We considered that in conjunction with our Allies who have signed similar agreements, and we have found a difficulty in it because the agreements are not only political; they also contain military clauses affecting action which must be taken if and when these countries are liberated.
  Mr. Shinwell: No secret agreement?
  Mr. Eden: No, it is quite proper. A secret agreement disposing of somebody else's belongings would be most improper, but if it is a secret agreement arranging how by military means you are going to free a country I think that is not very shocking. That is what they are. I can tell the hon. Member, to relieve him from any strain of anxiety, that so far as the political clauses are concerned, what they are designed to do is to give the Governments of those countries the full control of their own affairs at the earliest possible moment.
  Now I come to a country which has been mentioned several times in this discussion—France. There is no part of our policy to which we attach more importance than the restoration of the independence and greatness of France. France is our nearest neighbour, for more than 1,000 years our histories have been interlocked, sometimes in conflict. Sometimes the French got help from our Northern neighbours, if I may speak as an Englishman for just one moment, But I think that as inhabitants of this island we would acknowledge that no country has contributed more to the civilisation of Europe in the best sense of that term. For the future we know that the French people will have their part to play in Europe, and we shall need them, as they will need us, if confidence and security are to live again in Europe. In the meanwhile, I would like, on behalf of the Government, and I hope of the Committee, to pay tribute to the spirit of resistance which the French people are showing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—showing all the more despite the necessary bombardments which we are unhappily compelled to inflict upon them. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) yesterday. He said we must hand over the full responsibility for the government of France to the French people as soon as is possible. I agree; there is no difference about that. There is not the least intention in our minds to inflict an A.M.G.O.T., as it is called, upon France, or indeed upon any Allied country whatever, though incidentally it is not in the least the kind of machine which the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) so eloquently imagined yesterday. But be A.M.G.O.T. good or ill, it has no connection with

  1045
  France or any Allied country when they are liberated.
  In the light of these observations, I come to the special problem of recognition, and I would like to try to put it in its true perspective. I regret that there is some misunderstanding as to the extent of recognition already accorded to the French Committee of National Liberation. For instance, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon asked why we did not recognise the Committee, as though there was no recognition at all. Of course, that is not the position at present. We welcomed the unity of the Committee last year at Algiers. We were happy to recognise them last August as the body qualified to conduct the French effort in the war. We have gone much further than that since. We have dealt with the Committee as if they were the legitimate Government of all French overseas territories. We have made agreements with them—financial agreements, economic agreements—on that basis. Our representative in Algiers has been given the rank of Ambassador, and the French representative here, Monsieur Vienot, who is doing such good work, has been given a similar rank. More than that, we have dealt with the French Committee not only as if they were the Government in the territory where their writ runs already, but we are also dealing with them in matters which concern the Metropolitan territory of France, and as the French authority which will exercise leadership in France as her liberation proceeds.
  Now I come to where I think the difficulty lies. In connection with these discussions certain conversations have been necessary, and these conversations, and the progress of them, have unhappily been interfered with by the restrictions which we felt compelled to institute over a wide area as a security measure on account of forthcoming operations. I say, frankly, that those restrictions are extremely troublesome to the conduct of foreign affairs, not in respect of one country alone. I would like to say at this Box how grateful the Government are for the spirit in which the Diplomatic Corps as a whole have taken these quite unprecedented measures. But the House will understand, as I am sure our French friends will understand, that, vexatious as these restrictions are, the needs of absolute military security must come first.
  1046
  That being so, we think that the best way to deal with the question of civil administration in France is to have direct conversations. It is for this purpose that the Prime Minister has invited General de Gaulle to come here and General de Gaulle has accepted. He will receive, I know, a warm welcome from all of us here. I feel confident that nothing but good will come out of that meeting, and that, when the whole situation can be surveyed, we shall be able to clear away all misunderstandings, however formidable they may seem now. At least, that is what we wish to do.
  I will turn for a moment to another matter, to which I want to refer because of one or two speeches which were made, about our attitude to Europe. I do not know whether hon. Members happened to see a two-column article, which appeared in "The Times" on 13th May, containing an analysis of German propaganda. If not, I commend it as quite good reading. That analysis showed that German propaganda had just two themes, One was that the Empire was breaking up. That is not working awfully well just now. The other was that we were disinteresting ourselves in certain parts of Europe: in other words, that, at some place or other, never specified—it may be Moscow, it may be Teheran—we had done a deal, it may be with the Soviet Government or it may be with somebody else, by which we would cease to interest ourselves in certain parts of Europe. That is absolutely and categorically untrue. I would like to go further. In the first place, no arrangement of such a kind has been come to. In the second place, no arrangement of such a kind was suggested to us. In the third place, if anybody had suggested such an arrangement to us, we would not have agreed to it. Otherwise, the report is approximately accurate.
  It is, of course, true that there are certain parts of Europe—Western Europe and the Mediterranean—where our interests are more directly concerned than others. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha) emphasised in his speech, we are, above all, Europeans, and our interest in Europe is not limited to any single part of Europe. What we seek is the security of a Continent which has suffered so much, but which has given so much light and leading to the world in the past, and

  1047
  could do it again, if only it could recover its unity and prosperity. I am confident that the Governments of the Dominions perfectly well understand our position in this respect, and that they endorse it. No great country should attempt to do more in its foreign policy than its strength will allow. But, having said that, I think I can add that, as a result of this meeting, and as a result of the events in the war, the British Commonwealth's authority and influence in the world is at least as high as it has ever been; and that influence we should use, can use, and will use, to promote the prosperity and unity of Europe.
  What do we want to achieve in our foreign policy? I would put it like this. We want, in our relations with other countries, to try to maintain a standard of honesty, of fair dealing, and of international good faith. Foreign affairs are really not so very different in those respects from domestic affairs. Human intercourse is based on good faith, on the. keeping of promises, on honouring the pledged word between man and man. I agree so much with what my noble Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) said yesterday—we are very glad, all of us, to welcome him back—about the consequences of a lowering of international standards. I remember myself venturing to make, some years ago, a speech in this House, in which I said that I thought that we were in the presence of the progressive deterioration of international standards. I say, frankly, that I think that that process was one of the main contributory causes of the outbreak of this war. Why did the war become inevitable? It was because Hitler and Mussolini refused to observe the ordinary standards of international conduct in the day-to-day conduct of international affairs. It was more than that, because they used the desire of other nations to maintain those standards to obtain concessions, to profit by those concessions, and then to proceed to their next demand. They were encouraged by the desire of the peace-loving countries to avoid war if ever they could.
  I remember an occasion, in a conversation with Hitler—I think it was 1933, or thereabouts—when he spoke to me of the Versailles Treaty, and he explained how that Treaty had been imposed upon
  1048
  Germany, and how, therefore, he could never accept it. I said, "What about the Treaty of Locarno? He said, "That is another thing. That was a freely negotiated Treaty. Germany signed that of her own free will. By that I stand "—or words to that effect. He said it with a fervour and an eloquence which, I confess, entirely convinced me. I came back thinking, "That is not such an unreasonable attitude," and so forth. Eighteen months after that, Locarno had gone the same way as the Treaty of Versailles. That was the method, that was the technique, of those men. If those methods and those techniques are practised, whoever practises them, there cannot be an enduring peace. So I say to the Committee: We cannot say to the world, "You have got to do this; you have got to do that." That is beyond the power of 45,000,000. But what we can do is, in our own conduct and by our own leadership, to try to establish and maintain those standards of international conduct without which there cannot be peace. That I conceive to be the duty of British foreign policy.
  May I, for a moment or two, look a little into the future? When the victory is won, the first task will be close collaboration between the British Commonwealth, the United States, the Soviet Union and China—but in the main, so far as Europe is concerned, between the first three—to ensure that Germany cannot start this business again. I want to speak for a moment about co-operation between the three in particular—ourselves, the United States and the Soviet Union. If I emphasise it, it is because I am convinced that, if we can establish real understanding, all else, though difficult, will be possible. But, if we cannot establish that understanding, then the future is very dark indeed. Having said that, I am not suggesting that these three Powers should seek to impose some three-Power dictatorship on the world. That would be bad, very bad. But what they should do is to serve the world in assuring, at least, for the outset, that these two particular aggressors, with whom we are now dealing, are not in a military position to repeat in a few years' time what they did before. I hope I shall carry the Committee with me in that. There is nothing exclusive in our desire to work together. It is indispensable that we should so work together. May

  1049
  I mention a suggestion about cooperation in Western Europe? I think it may be desirable that we should have close, intimate and friendly relations with other countries in Western Europe, but neither my hon. Friend or anyone else would suggest that on such a foundation alone such lasting security could be found. We have to stretch wider than that.
  I would like to say a word about our relations with these two Powers. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) spoke about our relative size—our 45 millions and these two countries, one with 140 millions and the other with 200 millions. That is true, but, on the other hand, I must tell the Committee that, though I have been in many negotiations with these two Powers alone, I have never felt any sense of inferiority, and I honestly do not believe that they felt any particular sense of superiority. I do not mean individually towards me, but towards this country. The reason is, of course, that, though we are only 45 millions, we have in this island a unique geographical position and a rather remarkable experience, because we are the centre of a great Empire. I would suggest that we need not over-stress the size of our partners or under-estimate our own significance. At any rate, of all our international troubles, that is the one that worries me least.
  About the United States, I think I can say that, at this time, our relations are as close and cordial as they have ever been. We had the other day the experience of a visit from Mr. Stettinius, the Under-Secretary of State, who, I think, spoke to hon. Members upstairs. That visit was remarkable, not only because of his own personality, but because he brought with him a large number of representatives of the State Department, and they worked together with our own representatives in the Foreign Office, with the result that, apart from the understanding at the higher level, there is now interlocked, at every stage, an understanding by each of the other's policy. That is something quite new in our experience with the United States, or, indeed, with any country, and I think it will be of great service, because, although decisions must be taken by Ministers, it is good that all those down the hierarchy should understand each other's point of
  1050
  view. Recently, we have had, both from the President and Mr. Hull, statements that American leaders are thinking on broad, courageous and good neighbourly lines.
  Now I turn to our relations with the other great Power—our Ally Russia. There is, in our minds, no reservation when we say that we wish to work with the Soviet Union in the fullest and closest collaboration, but it is also in the interests-of our two countries that we should accept that there are certain difficulties in this task, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) that we do not gain much by ignoring them. There is, first, the legacy of suspicion, difficult to describe and quite impossible to exaggerate. It is a suspicion which is not, as many think, of modern growth, but which dates back to, and existed in, the days of Tsarist Russia, and will be found many times in the records of the Congress of Vienna and so forth. Unhappily, it has always played its part in Anglo Russian relations, and it has a habit of accumulating suspicions on their side which produce counter-suspicions on ours, and, before we know where we are, a mountain of suspicion is the result. For that, there is only one cure—that, bit by bit, our peoples get to know each other better. We are ready, I say to our Soviet friends, to do anything in our power at any time to further that result.
  There are other things—differences in form of government, differences in the attitude to the individual, to the Press, and so on. These are all pretty wide divergencies, and I repeat that we do better to face them frankly, but, on the other side, there is something else to put in the scale. There is the fact that, in the three great world convulsions, in the Napoleonic war, in the last great war and in this war, we have found ourselves allied and fighting together for the same purpose—to stop one man or one Power dominating the whole of Europe. On each of the last occasions when we fought together, we fell aside quickly soon after, but this time we have got to do better. We have an absolute conviction here in this country that the Soviet Union means to see this struggle through to the end. We have the same intention.
  I have been asked about the extent of our collaboration now. For instance,

  1051
  are we consulted on such matters as the Soviet peace terms to Rumania and the negotiations with Finland? The answer is that we were consulted on both questions. In respect of Rumania, we thought M. Molotov's speech, and the offer made, fair and just to Rumania. In respect of Finland, we deplored the fact that the Finnish Government had turned down the peace terms. On both these matters, we were consulted. I do not want to belittle the extent of the effort which has got to be made in both these countries to make of this 20-year treaty a lasting reality of value to our two countries and to the world, but, surely, the Committee will feel that the stakes for the future in this matter are so huge that both of us must make every effort that we may succeed. Personally, I believe we shall succeed.
  I have been asked several questions about the situation in the Far East, particularly by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) and many others. I think we are all conscious of the heavy burdens that China carries just now. We in this country are in the fifth year of the war, and, looking back on it, it seems a pretty long period. China is, however you reckon it, at least in the eighth year of the war. Her people have suffered greatly, and many of her cities have been destroyed. We have been unable to carry to her all the help we would like to carry, and it is only by the remarkable efforts of the Air Force—quite unique efforts—in crossing the Himalayas, that any assistance has reached her at all. Her ordeals have been long and stern. We pledge ourselves anew that we will not rest until Japan is defeated and China has restored to her all those territories wrongly seized from her. An hon. Member asked me about supplies. In the main, of course, the supplies have to be for the United States Air Force which has been built up in China, and for the needs of the Chinese armies under General Stilwell's leadership; but, whatever space is left over, it is for the Chinese Government to say what priority they want for the goods that are sent to them. We all wish we could send more, but we are sending already to the limit of our capacity.
  While speaking of the Far East, I would like to make a statement upon the
  1052
  position of our prisoners in the hands of the Japanese. What I am now going to tell the Committee arose from the suggestion made, I think, by the hon. Member for Seaham on 28th January, when I spoke about Japanese treatment of our prisoners and it was suggested that the Soviet Government might be asked to make representations to the Japanese Government on behalf of these prisoners. I communicated later with His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, and he recently approached the Soviet Government and explained to them our anxiety. There were three points on which we particularly wanted satisfaction from the Japanese Government.
  They were, first of all, that the right should be recognised of the protecting Power, in this case Switzerland, and of the International Red Cross, to visit all the camps in which British subjects were held and to report freely and frankly on the conditions prevailing. [An HON. MEMBER: "And civilians."] Yes. Secondly, we should be given complete lists of our prisoners of war and internees in their hands, together with a list of those who had died; and thirdly, that the Japanese Government should agree to receive Red Cross supplies, which would be sent at regular intervals in neutral ships to Japanese ports, and facilities should be given to distribute those supplies. The Soviet Government replied that, while these matters fell directly within the competence of the Protecting Power, they were, nevertheless, prepared to approach the Japanese Government in regard to them, and they have now done so, and I want to thank them and to express the thanks of the Government for their action. I ought to add that this action does not in any way express any lack of confidence in Switzerland as the Protecting Power. We know that our Swiss friends have done everything in their power and we hope that this additional action may assist them in their work in this connection and in what they will do for us hereafter.
  My time is nearly up. I want to say a word on economic affairs. I want to tell my hon. Friends that it is true that the Foreign Office has taken over certain fresh activities in the economic field. We have not snatched them—as an hon. Gentleman suggested—the Foreign Office never snatches—but we have negotiated. We

  1053
  have these additional opportunities now. We shall need them, I am confident, and perhaps in a later Debate I may be able to describe the set-up for dealing with these activities to anybody else, either to the United States or anybody. We maintain our organisation in that respect. As a result of this arrangement, we shall receive at the Foreign Office now, the economic intelligence which used to go to the Ministry of Economic Warfare.
  That will be of great value to us in our political work, and also a new Department which I am setting up will be able to make use of the economic intelligence that we receive. There will be, as a result, a closer relation between our political and economic policies as a whole, and, I hasten to add, it does not mean that I am attempting to take any duties away from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it is the truth that foreign policy and economic policy are now more closely related, or perhaps, what is more probable, there is a better understanding now than there used to be of how closely they are related. But however we express it, there is no doubt of the need for an organisation such as I have described, and which I would like to describe more fully at a later time.
  In the six minutes that remain I want to take a look into the future—
  Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Eden: Please allow me to continue.
  Sir R. Acland: There was a speech made yesterday by me in which I made serious charges. I did not make them lightly, but on the authority of those in whose bona fides I have confidence. I wish these questions to be answered. It happens over and over again that a serious speech made against the Government is not answered.
  Mr. Eden: It is not so at all. I have been at pains to answer a wide range of questions. I referred to the charges of the hon. Member earlier in my speech.
  Sir R. Acland: The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with them.
  Mr. Eden: I dismissed them, because they were utterly unfounded. If the hon.
  1054
  Gentleman will give me any piece of evidence to justify his charges, I shall be only too glad to look into them.
  Sir R. Acland: They can be very easily answered.
  Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman can justify any of these charges I shall be only too glad to have them investigated, and if there is any foundation in them I am prepared to come to the House and say so.
  Sir R. Acland: My charge is that in the whole of your A.M.G.O.T. and G5 organisation, you have been careful to exclude any man who has any previous record of being opposed to Fascism before the war. You have carefully selected people who do not know anything about the job at all, and that can be answered.
  Mr. Eden: There is no basis whatever for those charges. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce evidence and I will examine it.
  Sir R. Acland: The right hon. Gentleman—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) cannot go on repeating himself in that way.
  Mr. Eden: I want for a few minutes—and I much regret if I have shown discourtesy to any hon. Member; it was quite unintentional—to look into the future, as some other hon. Members have done. There has been much said about the League of Nations, where it succeeded and where it failed. I am not going to argue that now. There is not time, and even if there were, it would take many hours of discussion and there would be many divergent opinions. The Prime Minister explained yesterday that we do not want to impose upon others in detail whatever our ideas may be; at the same time we are entitled to say what our general ideas are about the world organisation.
  I would like to leave with the Committee just a few principles on which we suggest this future organisation should be based. They are these: first, that the world organisation must be designed, in the first instance, to prevent a recurrence of aggression by Germany and Japan and must be fully equipped with forces to meet the purpose; secondly, that to ensure this there must be close political and mili-

  1055
  tary co-operation between the United States, the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth, and China—[An HON. MEMBER "And France"]—and other Powers; thirdly, that the responsibility in any future world organisation must be related to power, and consequently the world organisation should be constructed on and around the four great Powers I have mentioned, and all other peace-loving States should come in and play their part in the structure; fourthly, that the world organisation should be flexible and not rigid, that is to say, that it should grow by practice and not try straight away to work to a fixed and rigid code or rule; and, fifthly, that all the Powers, great and small, included in the world organisation, should strive for economic as well as for political collaboration.
  I understand only too well the difficulties in any attempt to translate into practical experience the principles I have outlined. What I can say is that we have already begun informal conversations with other Powers about these propositions and I hope that in the coming months we shall be able to make more progress with them. At least we are convinced that it is only by translating into the period of peace the confidence which we have built up and the machinery we have built up for collaboration as Allies in the war, that we can hope to save the world from a repetition of those conflicts, which, twice in our generation, have caused so much misery to mankind. I have tried to give the Committee some account of our policy, and I can only repeat, as I began, that, despite the difficulties to which hon. Members have referred, we shall persist in our course and do so with a greater measure of hope as a result of the meetings of Prime Ministers held in London in these last weeks.
  Ordered:
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)
  Resolved:
  "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."—[Sir P. Harris.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORA TION, FALMOUTH (CHARGES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. Petherick: The matter which I am raising is one which will, I am sure, not be of general interest to the House. It is largely a local matter, but there is a principle involved in it. I have raised it not only because it is of interest to a number of my constituents—and we are here, after all, to represent the interest of the people of our constituency—but also because of the question of principle to which I have referred, and because I fear there may be a number of other cases of a similar nature arising in some other parts of the country. The matter started last December when, in Falmouth, the local Electricity Supply Corporation raised its charges to the consumers and, in doing so, sent out a document to them saying that the charges were raised because of the cost of a refuse destructor which, for various reasons, placed a heavier burden upon the Electricity Supply Corporation. This 10 per cent. increase the electricity consumers thought to be entirely due to the increased cost of the refuse destructor, whereas I understand, as a matter of fact, part of the increased charge which the consumers had to bear was due to the ordinary increase in costs as a result of the war.
  The short history of the matter is this. In 1903 the Electricity Supply Corporation in Falmouth had an Order in their favour, and in 1904 an agreement was made with the Falmouth council, which was a part of the consideration on which the Electricity Supply Corporation was allowed to sell electricity in the borough of Falmouth. This agreement had a very curious clause in it, providing for the

  1057
  destruction by the Electricity Supply Corporation of all the refuse of the town of Falmouth sent to it by the borough council. The borough council were not obliged to send all the refuse to be destroyed; it was an optional clause, and it was designed obviously to benefit all the ratepayers and townspeople of Falmouth. In fact, it was a clause which was, I think, agreed to by the Electricity Corporation as a sort of quid pro quo. All this worked well until 1938 and then there were complaints, and when this 10 per cent increase was imposed last December, it was the subject of a serious complaint. My constituents have been extremely patient since then. They have not complained at all, although I have conducted many and arduous negotiations with the Minister of Fuel and Power.
  After the war had been going on for some time the Government decided to institute a salvage scheme, as we all know, and the borough of Falmouth was ordered by the Government not to send all its refuse to the destructor, as it had done before, but to collect it and sell it. This they did and they are now making £1,300 a year out of it. All the refuse did not go to the destructor, and owing to the lower fuel content of the remainder of the refuse costs went up, with the result that the company had to raise their charges to consumers. The Electricity Supply Corporation—and I have interviewed the chairman—recently claimed that their costs have gone up and that unless they were to go into bankruptcy they must, in some way, be recompensed. They asked the Minister of Fuel and Power for authority to raise their charges and he gave them that authority. But it will be seen from the little I have said that the bargain which was made by the Electricity Supply Corporation proved to have been a bad bargain.
  The consumers of electricity in Falmouth cannot go elsewhere; they are obliged to buy it from the Supply Corporation, and it is not their fault that owing to the bad bargain made 30 or 40 years ago they should now be charged more for their electricity. It may be said that the increased charges should be borne by the borough of Falmouth, acting on behalf of the ratepayers, but, on the other hand, the Falmouth Borough Council have said as they were perfectly entitled to say, "No, we made a con
  1058
  tract on behalf of the ratepayers 40 years ago and we propose to stick to it." The only people who are being ground between two millstones, as it were, are the consumers of electricity per se. As ratepayers they have another function. As consumers it was not their fault either that the Electricity Supply Corporation 40 years ago made a bad bargain or that 40 years later the Falmouth Borough Council decided to keep the Supply Corporation to that bargain. The party which was in no way responsible for the increased costs is being asked to pay, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that he can now order what I have been urging the Minister of Fuel and Power to order, the holding of a local inquiry.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry a Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Although the question of the electricity supply of Falmouth has been the subject of Question and answer in this House, and of a good deal of correspondence, we certainly welcome the opportunity which has been afforded to us to explain what is exactly the position. It is true that 4o years ago a contract was made between the Electricity Supply Corporation and the Falmouth Borough Council whereby the Corporation erected and equipped a destructor for consuming the refuse of Falmouth. This went on all right until the salvage campaign was started. Then it was found that the better part of the refuse was, rightly, being salvaged, and the quantity and quality of what was left for the Electricity Supply Corporation was almost negligible in heating value. The company, therefore, were not able to generate as much electricity as formerly and were incurring a loss. They then asked the council for a modification of the contract and, on this being refused, for an adjustment of prices. My right hon. and gallant Friend was advised that the circumstances warranted an increase of 10 per cent. in the tariff. The council were perfectly in order in refusing to modify the contract and my right hon. Friend had no power to intervene with regard to that. It was made 40 years ago when no one could have foreseen the exceptional circumstances that a war like this would bring about. The issue seems to be a very simple one. It was a matter entirely between the company and the Falmouth Corporation. It would appear that there

  1059
  was room in the exceptional circumstances for some revision because, in addition to the negligible heating value of the lesser amount of refuse, there were other costs involved, such as labour costs, and the fact that, for security reasons, the refuse could only be burned in daylight. On the whole, balancing one thing against the other, my right hon. Friend felt he was justified in granting the increase of 10 per cent. and he did it. I cannot promise the hon. Member that my right
  1060
  hon. Friend will sanction the removal of the increase. We have gone into the matter very thoroughly. There has been a great deal of correspondence and discussion, and I feel that my right hon. Friend was justified in what he did on the information and advice given him and, while it may not be satisfactory to the hon. Member, I regret that there is nothing that I can add.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn, put, and agreed to.

  ALLIED MILITARY PERSONNEL (POWERS)
  ALLIED MILITARY PERSONNEL (POWERS)
AGRICULTURE
  Post-War Agriculture (Ex-Service Men)
  Post-War Agriculture (Ex-Service Men)
  Marginal Land Cultivation
  Marginal Land Cultivation
  Pedigree Cattle and Sheep
  Pedigree Cattle and Sheep
  Unqualified Veterinary Practice
  Unqualified Veterinary Practice
  FUEL AND POWER (HEATING BAN)
  FUEL AND POWER (HEATING BAN)
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR
  REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR
BRITISH ARMY
  Transferred Polish Jewish Soldiers
  Transferred Polish Jewish Soldiers
  Convoy Vehicles (Avoidable Journeys)
  Convoy Vehicles (Avoidable Journeys)
  Cadet Force (Boots and Greatcoats)
  Cadet Force (Boots and Greatcoats)
  Education Authority Building (Military Occupation)
  Education Authority Building (Military Occupation)
  Military Exercises (Shooting Rights, Compensation)
  Military Exercises (Shooting Rights, Compensation)
  Palestine Volunteers
  Palestine Volunteers
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYEE (INJURY, COMPENSATION)
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYEE (INJURY, COMPENSATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  One-Legged Pensioners (Shoes)
  One-Legged Pensioners (Shoes)
  Alarm Clocks (Miners)
  Alarm Clocks (Miners)
  Cotton Mills (Amalgamations)
  Cotton Mills (Amalgamations)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  CIVIL SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS, EX-SERVICE MEN)
  CIVIL SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS, EX-SERVICE MEN)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Coinage (Pence, Northern Ireland)
  Coinage (Pence, Northern Ireland)
  Ploughing Subsidy
  Ploughing Subsidy
  War Damaged Properties (Northern Ireland)
  War Damaged Properties (Northern Ireland)
  National Debt (Management Costs)
  National Debt (Management Costs)
  National Debt Commissioners
  National Debt Commissioners
  CIVIL SERVICE CIRCULAR (SIR WILLIAM BEVERIDGE)
  CIVIL SERVICE CIRCULAR (SIR WILLIAM BEVERIDGE)
  LAND PURCHASES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  LAND PURCHASES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  UNCUSTOMED TOBACCO (UNITED STATES FORCES, GIFTS)
  UNCUSTOMED TOBACCO (UNITED STATES FORCES, GIFTS)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Allotted Motor Cars
  Allotted Motor Cars
  Chief Establishment Posts (Grading)
  Chief Establishment Posts (Grading)
  Loaned Official
  Loaned Official
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Agricultural Land (Acquisitions, Compensation)
  Agricultural Land (Acquisitions, Compensation)
  Regional Planning Officers (Duties)
  Regional Planning Officers (Duties)
  Planning Officer, Wales
  Planning Officer, Wales
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS, EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS, EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Smallpox Diagnosis (School Teacher)
  Smallpox Diagnosis (School Teacher)
  Respiratory Diseases
  Respiratory Diseases
  EMERGENCY MORTUARY SERVICE (UNIFORMS)
  EMERGENCY MORTUARY SERVICE (UNIFORMS)
  PIPED WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL DISTRICTS)
  PIPED WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL DISTRICTS)
HOUSING
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Building By-Laws (Interpretations)
  Building By-Laws (Interpretations)
  Accommodation (Ex-Service Men)
  Accommodation (Ex-Service Men)
  Prefabricated Houses
  Prefabricated Houses
  "COMMONWEALTH" (TERMINOLOGY)
  "COMMONWEALTH" (TERMINOLOGY)
  OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (SHOOTING)
  OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (SHOOTING)
  SCHOOLS (ENGINEERING COURSES, EXAMINATIONS)
  SCHOOLS (ENGINEERING COURSES, EXAMINATIONS)
  PARKS, LONDON (SEAT AND CHAIR REPAIRS)
  PARKS, LONDON (SEAT AND CHAIR REPAIRS)
  SURVEYING STAFFS (RECRUITMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND)
  SURVEYING STAFFS (RECRUITMENT, NORTHERN IRELAND)
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS, SUFFOLK
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS, SUFFOLK
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Airedale.—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to call attention to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is obvious that in the present situation three subjects are primary: first, the military effort on land, sea and in the air; secondly, the preparation of the postwar world and the methods by which we can avoid the recurrence of so great a tragedy; and thirdly—necessary for both of the others—the solidarity of the alliance and association of the United Nations. I might have added a fourth topic, the preparation of the post-war Britain, but on that I have had occasion to address your Lordships in many debates, and, no doubt, further occasions will offer in the future.
As for the military effort, Mr. Roosevelt said a few days ago that Great Britain is at this moment the mightiest military base in the history of the world. The battle for Europe is about to break in all its fullness—that "triangular battle," as Field-Marshal Smuts described it, in the East, the South and the West. The bow is bent, the arrow is aimed, and we are all waiting with bated breath, expectant. But this military effort would not be practicable, and this country could not be the base which it is, if it were not for something less dramatic but not less essential, and that is the industrial and financial effort which we have made. Little has been said in appreciation of those who, behind the scenes and also in the public eye, have been responsible for what is really a marvellous achievement. We are finding, and have long been finding, a sum in the neighbourhood of
946
£100,000,000 a week for the purposes of the war. That sum, in the year when I first stood for the House of Commons, now close upon fifty years ago, was just reached as the total revenue of Great Britain for a year; and yet within a single lifetime it is found to be the weekly expenditure which this nation has been obliged, and has found it possible, to provide. Too little has been said, I think, in tribute to those who have made this possible. In particular, I think that your Lordships would wish to express satisfaction that four members of this House have taken so prominent a part in this successful achievement—at the Treasury, Lord Keynes and Lord Catto; in the remarkable War Savings campaign, Lord Mottistone and Lord Kindersley.
To-day, however, we shall not be dwelling on the war effort, whether it be military or financial or industrial, but rather on the political aspect, and especially the developments of the future, on what is to happen after the war in Germany and Europe and how the peace of the world is to be safeguarded. To-day we have been reading the admirable speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday, one of the finest surveys which even he has delivered in a series of memorable and historic orations. That speech will have forestalled, no doubt, many questions which some of your Lordships would have been proposing to address to the Government, but there still remain various points on which some of us would desire to comment.
The Prime Minister, we were all glad to note, spoke in terms of special friendliness to the French. France was struck down suddenly and decisively. Someone—I forget who it was—gave the good maxim "If you fell down yesterday, stand up to-day." That is the maxim on which the French are now acting, and the brilliant achievement of their Forces in Italy at this moment shows how powerful are the forces of recuperation in that great nation. The Fourth Republic of France is now in embryo. The Prime Minister gave reasons why the French Committee of National Liberation could not at this moment be recognized by the Allies, to use his own words, "as the full, final, lawful embodiment of the French Republic," and certainly the present conditions do not allow its recogi-

947
tion in any such sense I think, however, that the French Committee itself asks for no more than that it should be recognized as the Provisional Government of France, and as subject to such action as the French nation may take when liberated, in full freedom and of their own motion and on their own responsibility.
The visit of General de Gaulle, who is, we are glad to know, about to come to this country, may help to clear the air; but if the time were not far distant when recognition could be given to the French Committee of National Liberation as the Provisional Government, I think that such a decision would be welcomed very widely in this country. Indeed, the opening of the campaign in Western Europe, wherever it may be, may soon make it essential for a decision of that kind to be reached, and perhaps the problem will be a case of being soluitur not indeed ambulando but pugnando.
Then the Prime Minister spoke of Greece, and of the better prospect of Greek unity which now exists. Disunity has always been the besetting vice of the Greek people. It was so, of course, in classical times, and brought about the downfall of Hellenic civilization; and when, after two thousand years, the spirit of Greek independence began to revive again during the war of liberation from Turkey, the disunion among the Greek people made that struggle last for years, while Byron was eating his heart out at Missolonghi, and before and after that time, and ended only after years of suffering and distress through the intervention of the Western Powers. Once again we have seen, during this war, most lamentable civil strife among the Greeks. We rejoice to think that this has for the present been brought to an end, and most sincerely in this country, where there are very many friends of Greece, we hope that this new unity will be staunchly maintained.
More difficult is the question of Poland, to which the Prime Minister gave much attention in his speech. The history of the last two hundred years has shown that Poland cannot live if she has enemies in both Russia and Germany. If she could make friends with both, that would, of course, be the best solution; but it is vital for Poland to be on terms of friendship
948
and good will with the one or the other. Since in present circumstances it is obvious that there can be no friendship and good will between Poland and Germany, it is essential for her to arrive at a friendly understanding with Russia, even at the cost of considerable sacrifices. After the Teheran Conference the Prime Minister used this language in speaking in another place:
"It was with great pleasure that I heard from Marshal Stalin that he too was resolved upon the creation of a strong integral independent Poland as one of the leading Powers in Europe. He has several times repeated these declarations in public and I am convinced that they represent the settled policy of the Soviet Union."
That being so, the atmosphere should be favourable to a friendly understanding and agreement between Poland and Russia.
How whole-heartedly the Poles are engaged in this war has been shown by the contribution they have already made at sea and in the air, and within the last few days in the victory at Cassino, where we are proud to think that when the Allied troops entered that ruined monastery flags both of Poland and of Britain were hoisted side by side. It is also excellent news that the underground movement in Poland has been instructed to co-operate in every way with the advancing Soviet troops and that that is now being done.
Perhaps I may be permitted to express the hope, with regard to conditions in Poland after the war as well as in other countries, that some relief may be given to the Jewish people who have been suffering in Poland and elsewhere under the Germans, under a unique crime, more terrible than any known in the modern history of the world, worse even than the massacres of the Tartar invasions in the Dark Ages, for now these cruelties are inflicted in cold blood and piecemeal and by a nation which till lately occupied a foremost place in Western civilization. I hope that when the time comes for the restoration of Europe the miseries that have been suffered by the Jewish people will not be forgotten, and that whatever remedy is possible in future may be applied.
In Poland the problem of frontiers is, of course, the one of chief difficulty, and it is so in many places, because we find frequently in Europe a conflict between two principles, one the principle that a

949
frontier should be placed along lines determined by race, language and tradition—the principle of national racial boundary, based upon self-determination; and the other the principle that nations are entitled to have good strategic frontiers against possible enemies. These two principles sometimes conflict. It is impossible in the present state of the world to ignore altogether the second, the strategic factor. That could only be done there wee an absolute assurance that there would be no future wars and that there would be a general disarmament, but no one can say that such an assurance is possible. We may hope that there may be a prevention of wars in the future. We may work towards it, it may be our intention to achieve it, we may even have faith that it will be done; but nobody can deny that there is a risk that it may not be accomplished, and that other wars may occur. That being so, the strategic factor must be taken into consideration.
There are two Articles of the Atlantic Charter—and I am very glad that after three years the Prime Minister yesterday reaffirmed the importance of the Atlantic Charter as a basic statement of policy for the world—which touch this point. The first is Article 2 which states:
"They—"
that is the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom—
"desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."
No territorial changes without the assent of the populations concerned: that is the principle of self-determination. The other is Article 6, which declares that the President and the Prime Minister sought a peace
"which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want—"
words that have become very famous. This second Article brings in the point of strategic frontiers, because by granting self-determination under Article 2 to one people and establishing ethnological frontiers you may rob some other people of their freedom from fear by depriving them of a proper strategic boundary. That is the fundamental difficulty. A conflict may arise between the aims of Article 2 and the aims of Article 6, both of which are perfectly sound but which may not in a particular case coincide. For example,
950
it may be that East Prussia is a case in point, or the Sudetenland, or again the frontiers of Finland or the Baltic States.
Then there is another complication. We are accustomed in the new military language to read of "hedgehogs," a tactical device by which a force remains behind and permits itself to be surrounded by the enemy, holds out as long as it can, curled like a bristly hedgehog, in the hope that later it may be rescued by some favourable turn in the tide of battle. But this idea of the military hedgehog has been anticipated by the Germans in establishing what one might describe as racial hedgehogs—sending considerable populations of Germans to other countries to live in the midst of another population and to remain there isolated and so far as possible self-dependent, but ready in case of necessity to join up with the main body if some military crisis were to arise. That was deliberately the policy of Germany with regard to the Ukraine where there are very large colonies of that sort. It was the policy of Bismarck in Western Poland. East Prussia in earlier days was founded to some extent on that principle, and the Baltic Knights were sent to the territories around the Baltic Sea; and even across the Atlantic in Brazil unquestionably there was a policy of that kind to establish a large homogeneous population to maintain German influence in South America. And since the advent of the Nazi régime in Germany, as we know, a special Department of that Government has been established in Berlin with the particular purpose of getting into close communication with these German racial hedgehogs in different parts of Europe and of the world and of maintaining their Teutonic spirit and their co-operation with they German motherland during the war.
That is a factor which has got to be taken into account when we are dealing with these questions of boundaries and of the right of the population concerned to determine what the future of a particular territory may be. Hitler withdrew a large number of German Balts from certain Baltic territories at the beginning of this war, or before the war, and provided them with homes in conquered territory in Poland, and the principle that he has himself adopted may have to be pursued in other cases in that part of Europe. I happen to have had occasion

951
to visit Greece not long after the transfer of population of Greeks from Asia Minor into continental Greece and of Turks from Greece into Asia Minor, and it was remarkable to see how effective that transfer had been and how successful it was practically in all particulars. It is possible that such transfers of population may have to be applied in certain territories in order to solve these extremely stubborn and difficult problems that have troubled Europe for so long.
In this connexion there is one phrase used by the Prime Minister in a previous speech which has given a number of people a good deal of concern. He was referring to the Teheran Conference, which had been held a short time earlier, and he used these words:
"Marshal Stalin and f also spoke and agreed upon the need for Poland to obtain compensation at the expense of Germany both in the North and in the West."
That phrase, "to obtain compensation," is one that does not seem to be quite in accordance with the spirit of the Atlantic Charter and similar declarations. It rather recalls the power politics of the early part of the nineteenth century and the eighteenth century, when the balance of power was regarded as the dominant principle in international politics—a balance of power which, pursued from the time when William III became King of this country until the end of the Napoleonic wars, kept this country at war in order to preserve peace for as many years as it did preserve peace; a policy which was one of continually shifting alliances and persistent war. That now is being superseded, we hope, by a policy embodying in some form or other the principle of collective security.
When the Prime Minister said that Poland is to be compensated for the loss of territory to Russia in the East by gains of territory at the expense of Germany in the North and West, he seems to be departing, as I say, from various articles of the Atlantic Charter. If, in the case of East Prussia or the Polish Corridor, a case can be made out on merits for transfer of territory, then by all means let it be done, but if no case can be made out on merits, it is difficult to justify giving compensation against the principle of self-determination and regardless of any question of strategical frontiers merely because
952
certain territories, hitherto possessed by Poland, may have to be transferred to Russia, particularly since it is the case that these territories are inhabited very largely by Ukrainians and White Russians and a case can be made out strictly on merits for the transfer of that territory to the Soviet Union. That is a matter on which the Leader of the House, when he comes to reply, may be able to give us some word of reassurance.
Next, the Prime Minister, at the end of his speech, spoke of the world organization which is to be set up after the war. He had previously spoken of the need for a Council of Europe and what he then called a world institution, and now he has elaborated that somewhat further. There will be very general rejoicing that this matter has been brought so prominently into the forefront and that assurances of that kind should have been given by the Prime Minister of this country. We on these Benches would most strongly endorse declarations of this character. It was a saying of Voltaire that "Such is the condition of human affairs that to wish for the greatness of one's own country is to wish for the harm of its neighbours." That was regarded since the time of Machiavelli as the normal doctrine inspiring international diplomacy. It certainly was the doctrine held by Fichte, Treitschke, Bernhardi, and all the German militarists. The Atlantic Charter adopts the opposite principle, and proclaims that if you wish for the greatness of your own country you should wish for the prosperity, greatness and well-being of your neighbours. To achieve that it is not sufficient to proclaim that doctrine; it is also necessary to provide the political and indeed military agencies in order to ensure it.
Possibly some of your Lordships may still be sceptical as to the need of establishing some world institution pursuing the purposes, though probably with a different constitution, of the League of Nations. One has often heard it said, "The League of Nations was a great failure and we may hope we shall not be led along that path again." No doubt there were many faults in the constitution, composition, membership, and powers of the League of Nations which one hopes will not be repeated; but some organization of the kind is surely indispensable. Those who advance that sceptical view—what

953
alternative have they in mind? Is there any alternative? Should we not be left merely to anarchy and incessant war, to a period to which Nietzschke looked forward—Niatzschke the great philosopher so highly esteemed by the Nazis and Fascists, who said, "Perhaps we may be on the eve of several centuries of great wars which will be regarded by later ages as the heroic period of mankind."? He looked forward to that with glee and satisfaction. In order to prevent that, you must have a world organization, and that world organization must be backed with sufficient force to prevent such calamities.
That force in the present situation and during the transition period, no doubt, must be mainly provided by the three great Powers—the British Commonwealth, the United States of America and Russia—but that cannot be the permanent pattern of the world organization. That must be transitory. It is true that these three great political units comprise one-half the population of the world; but only one-half, and there is the other half to be considered. We cannot adopt the principle that, in perpetuity, three countries should rule and sixty should be subservient and submit. The other countries would certainly not agree to such predominance. The scheme is not feasible even if it were desirable, but even if it were feasible it is certainly not desirable.
My last point refers to the third of the main aims of our time—namely, to preserve the solidarity of this great alliance and association of the United Nations, not only during the campaign but in the period of construction afterwards, for upon the maintenance of that solidarity and unity all else depends. For us, the nucleus of the alliance of the United Nations is, of course, the British Commonwealth. In several debates members of your Lordships' House urged in past years and months that there should be a meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions to concert a common policy. That meeting which was advocated with so much energy and enthusiasm has now been held, and we all rejoice that it should have been so truly successful. We may congratulate the Government on that, and especially the Leader of this House as Dominions Secretary, who did so much to conduce to its success. We were glad, too, as a House of Parliament to join with the House of Commons in giving a cordial
954
welcome to Mr. Mackenzie King, not only as Prime Minister of Canada but as representative of the Dominion Premiers. These fellow members of the Commonwealth are not conscripted Allies like the satellites of Germany. They all have come into the war of their own free will, and were at liberty to remain out of it if they had so desired. They were free to leave the ranks in the forward march of mankind and to fail in duty to the liberties of the world, as, unhappily, Eire has done. They chose the nobler part of sacrifice and determined to be what Wordsworth called "The bulwark in the cause of man."
Next closest in association with us is the United States of America. There we have all read with great interest Mr. Cordell Hull's admirable declarations of policy to which I think we would agree with cordiality and without qualification. It is remarkable perhaps that the best books about the present world situation have lately come from America, such as Commander Agar's A Time for Greatness, Mr. Wendell Willkie's One World, Mr. Walter Lippmann's United States Foreign Policy, and the book of Mr. Stettinius, whom we were so glad to welcome here, on Lend-Lease. They together form an admirable survey of the spiritual, political, military and economic factors which are involved in the present situation. Then, as part of this great alliance, we have our twenty years Treaty with Russia.
The point which I would wish especially to impress upon your Lordships, if I may, is that these great questions which are now in debate, and several of which will be raised in the House by various members during the present discussion, cannot be settled only by these great Powers. The occupied countries, the perimeter victims all round Germany, are surely entitled to the fullest voice in determining such questions as those of East Prussia or of Rumania (which is mentioned on the Order Paper to-day) or any questions of that character. For my own part I have never supported, and do not to-day support, any attempt to bring pressure upon the Government to make declarations of policy with regard to questions such as those at the present time. It is right, of course, that individual members should express their own opinions. It is all to the good that discussions are going on throughout the world on these and similar questions.

955
There is a flood of books, pamphlets and articles pouring out from the Press in spite of paper restrictions. All this helps to form opinion and gradually opinion will crystallize. The British people and members of the British Legislature surely are entitled to form and express their own opinions. The part that this country has played and the political good sense which we hope we possess entitle us to express our opinions, and no doubt here in this Legislature and in this House noble Lords will express their opinions freely and strongly.
I believe my noble friend Lord Vansittart will gird on his oratorical sword and buckler and lay about him with his accustomed vehemence and my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, perhaps not of such a bellicose temperament, will do his best to withstand the onslaught. All that is wholesome and healthy, but the House as a whole ought not to be pressed to declare itself upon such subjects as East Prussia or the frontiers of Rumania. If the American Senate, for example, were to put itself on record on questions such as those, or some branch of the Soviet Legislature at this stage should do so, we should have a feeling of some surprise, and if that is true of the House, it is true also of the Government and to an even greater extent. It should be after, and not before, inter-Allied agreement that the Government should make statements upon these matters. Any attempt to clarify one point, whether it be the Atlantic Charter or whatever it may be, might introduce confusion at another point. In satisfying some they would certainly alienate others and if the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to-day is reticent when pressed by some of my noble friends to make specific declarations I do not think that that will be a ground for criticism.
This House, during the war, has pursued a course not of indifference to great events but certainly one of prudence, and I believe that when the time comes in the future to take stock of the course of events in these critical years, men will say of both Houses of the British Parliament that, while ready to offer the stimulus of criticism, they did so in a spirit of responsibility and they had, at the same time, helped to give steadfast support on fundamentals to a Government in which they had confidence and to offer wise guidance to the nation.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government.—(Viscount Samuel.)
LORD NOEL-BUXTON,LORD NOEL-BUXTON, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the statement of M. Molotov, on the entry of the Russian Forces into Rumania, repudiating annexationist intentions, ask whether His Majesty's Government is in agreement with the statement as expressing a principle of general application, and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I have a separate Motion on the Paper but I have been advised that I should make my remarks at this stage and, with the leave of the House, I will venture to do so. In the recent statement of the Imperial Conference the emphasis was on a world organization to maintain peace, and that supreme achievement might be undermined at the start by the creation of conditions at variance with peace, such, for instance, as annexations contrary to the wishes of the people concerned. Therefore I make no apology for calling attention to the Russian declaration repudiating the acquisition of territory. My noble friend Lord Samuel touched on territorial questions in regard to Poland, but I felt the matter I am raising to be of such extreme importance that I put down a special Motion as appropriate to a matter of paramount urgency.
Let me first say that I realize the undesirability of debating questions of territorial settlement at this stage, but a change of policy in this respect having been announced, it could not pass, as my noble friend has already shown, without comment in the Press and in Parliament. I am well aware that at this period His Majesty's Government cannot be expected to go into any detail and none of us will expect a statement of any length upon the question I am raising. I would add that I do not wish to claim that I am speaking officially for the Labour Party. Various opinions are held in every Party. When the Russian Armies reached Rumania, M. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Commissar, declared that the Soviet Government did not pursue the aim of acquiring any part of Rumanian territory or of altering the social structure of Rumania as it exists at present. One is also reminded of M. Stalin's words of November 6, 1942, in which he proclaimed, as part of the programme of the

957
United Nations, the equality of nations and the inviolability of their territories. The Prime Minister, commenting in the House of Commons on April 4 on the Molotov declaration, said:
"It is, I am sure, likely to be a great help in the common war effort."
Those of us who know Rumania may feel satisfaction on account of that country but the importance of M. Molotov's words is evidently much greater than that. They were regarded as of course applying elsewhere, and I hope His Majesty's Government regard the declaration as one of general value. The Press suggests that it was so regarded by the public both here and in America. For instance, the Evening Standard of April 3 quoted its Washington correspondent as follows:
"Congress members to-day welcome the Soviet announcement that they have no territorial resigns on Rumania … A prominent member of the House Foreign Committee said: It strikes me that the Russian announcement conforms to the Atlantic Charter and the goals for which we are fighting …'"
Public disapproval of a policy of annexation was equally shown in regard to the proposal that Poland should be supported in annexing German lands to the North and to the West. The profound gravity of this unexpected policy was widely felt. It was naturally assumed to apply at all events to East Prussia and to Upper Silesia.
The widespread interest shown in regard to M. Molotov's announcement about Rumania proves that the public anxiety regarding annexations in Germany expressed after the Prime Minister's speech of February 22 was not prompted by the desire to be kind to Germany, as opponents put it. Those who make that suggestion are missing the mark. I myself indeed am probably moved by even stronger loathing of Hitlerite Germany than they, because I have been concerned with victims of Nazi atrocities for many years before the war. I have seen something of concentration camps and Nazi methods of education. They filled me with disgust. Nobody feels more strongly than I the necessity of the total extirpation of Hitlerism. The terms to Germany must be hard. There must be disarmament which is absolutely paralyzing. Germany must, of course, be helpless before the overwhelming predominance of the Allies. Among other things she must be compelled to accept responsibility for
958
economic restoration of the devastated regions and to supply labour on a great scale where she has perpetrated such atrocious destruction. Germany has moved great populations with every barbarity and of course she must wholly restore them. But if the avoidance of what I may call anti-national annexation sounds like being kind to Germany the answer is that the paramount aim is a durable peace and annexation as I see it would not contribute to that end.
The claim of Poland is of course overwhelming. There has always been keen sympathy with Poland because of her hard fate since 1772, when the first partition occurred. Sympathy has been vastly increased by the appalling sufferings of recent times. Quite apart from the question of compensating her for her territorial losses there is the utmost desire to compensate her for the atrocious methods used against her by Germany. The enormities perpetrated naturally aroused a universal wish to avenge her wrongs. But our business is to lake long views of Poland's interest and to remember that such views can be obscured by the emotions of war. Compensation by transfer of lands and populations to alien rule or the deportation of peoples from their homes is not the appropriate method. The German population concerned is solid. Germany would seek recovery at the first opportunity. Hostility would be ensured. We all feel the right of the Poles to the fullest life, but for the sake of that life their greatest interest is peace in the future.
Poles are divided on this annexation question. Some of them foresee the danger. British sympathy with Poland cannot be too great. We ought to be ready to make sacrifices for Poland. I suggest that the true form of compensation would be economic aid from the Allies and restitution by Germany in kind. We ourselves ought to take a full share, especially in financial help. The guarantee which we gave in 1939 adds greatly to our obligations.
I want to urge the extreme danger of disregarding the principle of self-determination on such a large scale as is anticipated. I submit that our support of annexation would be open to the gravest objections both from the point of view of war diplomacy and from that of a durable peace. In regard to war diplomacy our policy has been helping to

959
hasten the German collapse, by the Atlantic Charter and by the Prime Minister's own utterances. He has many times alluded to the distinction between Hitlerite Germany and the Germany which could earn our respect. Let us not hamper the policy till lately pursued by announcing a different view.
Most important of all is the effect of annexation on the future. We cannot too clearly distinguish between the interim period and the final settlement. Peace in the transition period is to be ensured by predominant force. The durable settlement will require acceptance by the members of what the Prime Minister called a "European partnership." We are profoundly indebted to him for keeping the prospect of such a settlement before the peoples of the world and insisting that it must be prepared for. The danger of annexations which defy the wishes of the population is amply proved by history. In reply it is now suggested by some that history will be disproved, that the fever of nationalism will die down, so that Germany will accept the loss of German lands. That is surely wishful thinking and a precarious hope to bank on. The history of Poland, where national sentiment only grew stronger as the result of partitions, shows the reverse to be true.
Can any precedent be advanced showing that loss of homeland is accepted by the nation which loses? I have heard the case of Sweden and her loss of lands south of the Baltic advanced as a notable case of a nation resigning itself to loss of territory, but that is not a parallel at all. The population was not solidly Swedish. The population of East Prussia is solidly German and that country has been German for a century and a half. The provocation to revenge in this case would be intense, especially as it would probably be followed by forcible deportation of the most galling kind. If we keep our eyes fixed on the day when a permanent settlement is to be planned, we know that it must go with the acceptance of the territorial settlement by each member of the partnership of nations of which the Prime Minister has spoken. I do not see how we can get away from that. Minor adjustments may of course have to be made in the interests of economy, of strategy and of good and defensible frontiers, but here we are
960
dealing with something much bigger than that.
I know of course that a case can be made for the annexation of German lands. It is said, for instance, that the separation of East Prussia and Upper Silesia from the Reich would be a guarantee that Germany would be powerless. The use of that argument shows that the question of lasting peace is being forgotten. The argument would be relevant to the interim period, if such a guarantee were needed, but peace in that period will be preserved by the great Allies. It is the permanent order that we are concerned with. The Prime Minister has foretold the day when Germany will be a partner in the European group. Control cannot then be directed against Germany any more than against other States. That moment of greatest importance, on which we must keep our eyes, may be many years hence, but we cannot be too much in earnest about it.
I may be asked what solution to the Corridor problem is to be hoped for with frontiers left as they are. There is an answer given by some authoritative experts which is, at least, very interesting. It is that if further deprivation of territory is not carried out Poland and Germany will see it to be in their interest to be on good terms, and an exchange between the Corridor and Posen on the one hand, and East Prussia on the other, may be voluntarily made. That is the ideal solution, if we can hope for it.
Another point made by supporters of annexation is that other incentives to revenge will, in any case, be present. My answer is that no incentive is so powerful as loss of territory. If we imagine ourselves in a similar position, we know that we should never settle down to the loss of any part of these islands. At the first opportunity, however distant it might be, we should organize recovery as a matter of course and honour. The humiliation of defeat, or even of disarmament and control, might in time be forgotten, but no nation can forget deprivation of part of its homeland.
It is urged also that Germany is fixedly aggressive, like an individual person who has a malignant mania which nothing can change. The analogy is wrong. Every nation is divided. The advent of aggressive actions is a question of the degree of support. It depends for its chance of

961
success on the greater or lesser support of masses of people. Hitler's aggression depended on the success of a movement. He might have failed to get power if incentives to revenge had not greatly aided him. The men who devised the 1919 settlement were very clever, but they were not far-sighted enough. They thought that Germany would settle down under its provisions, but in fact that settlement lee on to the Hitler movement and, indirectly, to the present war.
In the treatment of Germany, the Allies will have a profoundly difficult problem to deal with. Risks are involved, whatever course they adopt. They will be tempted to resort to a policy of permanent subordination. Is it conceivably a sound plan to throw over the teaching of history, and to defy the principle of government by consent? Victorious States have often been tempted that way. They have thought that what was morally wrong could be politically expedient, and they have suffered for it in the end. It is the great Powers who are specially responsible for the application of long views. Such views are less easy for smaller States which have suffered cruel wrongs. Such views are difficult for all of us. Feelings of wartime are not easily harmonized with cool deliberation. It is inevitable that there should be strong feelings. But about lasting peace we ought to be deliberate because strong feeling is apt to cloud cool thought.
The need of compensation has been given as the ground for annexation proposals. A better guide is the most expert opinion obtainable on the probable effect in the future of each particular territorial change. The utmost deliberation must be devoted, if we are to make worth while the incredible heroism and sacrifice and loss of life of the Forces.
In view of the real danger that short-sightedness may prevail against wisdom, it is very good to know that the Prime Minister sees the situation in the light of history and with a view to posterity. In March of last year he spoke of the time when the true greatness of Europe would be restored, of a Europe in which all the main branches of the European family would be partners. He led us to think of a Council of Europe under a world institution. We were to look, after a period of control, to international machinery which would bring peace through integration. We were
962
to work for a world in which not only Hitlerism, but recurrent war, would have vanished from the earth. Yesterday the Prime Minister reaffirmed this forecast in even more emphatic language. He spoke of restoring the glory of Europe as family of nations and a vital expression of Christendom. He said that there must be room in this new great structure of the world for the happiness and prosperity of all, even the guilty, vanquished nations. That clay when the nations can live in peace, co-operating with their diverse gifts and characteristics in the common task, may be far remote; but it is now that the foundations of the future world are being laid. Let us hope and pray that the commitments made to-day will not vitiate the new order.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to say briefly but decidedly that I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken on the question of Poland and the possibility of giving German territory to her after this war. It does seem to me that to do so would be to sow the seeds of further conflict. I would also like, if I might, to congratulate the noble Viscount who opened the debate, and say how much I share his sentiments with regard to considering a more lasting peace and not only the temporary period which must ensue after this war.
However, I should chiefly like to draw the attention of this House to-day to an equally important question, that of Greece, which I think is now in an extremely critical condition. I should like, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches—who I believe are with me in this—and I hope on behalf of members of this House, to welcome the unanimous resolution by which the Congress in Lebanon has declared for a united Greek Government. That is a great step forward in the affairs of that unhappy country. I also think that we should congratulate Mr. Papandreou on his extremely able handling of this Conference, and the representatives of the various Parties in Greece, on having subordinated their various opinions and feelings to the one most important need, the need for national unity against the common enemy. I must remind your Lordships, however, that the fact remains that there is only a resolution. We have not yet seen the Government formed and we have not yet seen

963
how the newly-formed Government will work in practice. If I feel that I must voice some misgivings and doubts on this question, it is only in the hope that by discussion to-day, we may perhaps realize our mistakes in the past and avoid mistakes and perhaps disaster in the future; because if this national unity should be broken up it would indeed be a disaster, not only for the Greek people but also for ourselves.
My first doubt arises from the conviction that something is wrong in Cairo. Something must be very wrong. We find that a smoke-screen of censorship has smothered all reports on the Greek situation, and all that comes through are a few communiqués which, far from being reassuring, are very much the reverse. So drastic is this censorship that twenty-three accredited war correspondents have recently signed a letter of protest which they have sent to the British Commander-in-Chief, the British Resident Minister, the American Commanding General and the American Minister. In this letter they claim—to quote their words—that on Greek affairs
"no comment is allowed unless it reflects official policy; no facts can be presented which happened before the recent troubles or the latest change of Government."
They further claim that
"correspondents are in danger of being used just as mouthpieces for official views and propaganda."
Officially accredited war correspondents are responsible, sensible, decent people; they would never object to any censorship based on valid security grounds. For them to take this extreme step means that the situation must be very bad. Indeed, an American correspondent with an international reputation, Edgar Mowrer, managed to get a message through, which was published in the New York Post, in which he says:
"Don't believe anything of the news which we are allowed to cable from Cairo regarding Greek affairs and mutinies in Greek Army and Navy."
That is very strong.
The first question that one naturally asks is: What is it that the Cairo authorities are trying to hide? What is the state of affairs in Greece or in the Middle East which they do not want the world to know? It cannot be security reasons, I feel convinced, which have led to this
964
position. What has really happened which has caused these terrible mutinies, this revolt in the Greek Armed Forces about which the Prime Minister told us in another place, and revolts not of a few sailors but of officers as well as men? What is it that has induced even Admirals to write letters of protest? Even the famous First Brigade revolted, the flower of the Greek Army, who fought with us at E1 Alamein and of whom General Montgomery said:
"They did magnificently. They are first-class troops and I never want better men."
Such men would not revolt unless provoked beyond measure.
The American broadcaster Moorad, speaking on the Columbia Broadcasting System from Cairo, bears this out. He says:
"The heroic Greek soldiers and sailors could not revolt for no cause. There is big history behind these mutinies. The American public is entitled to be truthfully informed what is hidden behind all these troubles."
Furthermore, we are hardly reassured when it appears that so many advisers on Greek affairs have, whatever may be the reason, gone away from their posts and taken up other work. I refer to such men as Mr. Bowman, the Vice-Consul in Athens, who did such magnificent work during the German attack on Greece, Mr. Sebastian, the former British Consul-General in Athens, and so on. What has happened to the famous Brigadier Eddie, who originally organized the guerrilla movement in Greece, and to other advisers on Greek affairs such as Professor Wace, Lord Glenconnor and Captain Noel Baker, to mention a few? It seems that there must be something very wrong.
I suggest to your Lordships that the real trouble may lie in this—and I advance this theory in order to help in dealing with the future situation. I think that the real trouble lies in the chasm dividing the Greeks in Greece from the exiled Government, who must inevitably be out of touch with the situation in their own country and with what is going on in Greece to-day. I am afraid that it is only too natural that this exiled Government should be terrified lest, when Greece is liberated with the aid of the resistance movement, the E.A.M., there may not be any great demand on the part of the people of Greece that they should return. The Greeks in Greece remember bitterly the Metaxas dictatorship, which in many

965
ways was second only in ruthlessness to that of Hitler or Mussolini. The Royalists in Greece have been reckoned by Mr. Tsouderos at 10 per cent. The Times, Cairo correspondent puts them at only 5 per cent. In any case I feel sure that these recent mutinies have been caused by the genuine fear among the officers and men of the Greek Army that by fighting for this exiled Government they would be, in effect, restoring a Fascist dictatorship to Greece, and that by their efforts the Greek people would be taken out of the frying-pan of German Nazism into the fire of a national Fascist dictatorship. To those who have suffered from such a dictatorship, this fear is an overwhelming one.
If you accept this view, the reason for all the difficulties and strange happenings becomes plain. We see why all the reports of the many victories which the E.L.A.S., which is the Army of the National Liberation Movement, have been suppressed by the Greek Government in Cairo. We see why there has been no mention by the B.B.C. of Greek victories for so long, although we hear of the magnificent fighting of Marshal Tito every other day. I am very glad that we do, but it is lamentable that we hear so little of Greek achievements. All that we do hear is of drastic reprisals taken by the Germans on the wretched population. It explains why the Army of the E.A.M. is always referred to as a small band, when in fact the E.L.A.S. forces must number nearly 50,000 men and probably there would be many times more if arms were available.
It also explains why the propaganda of Goebbels, that the E.A.M. is run entirely by Communists and financed by Jews, is so often repeated and believed. Actually, when we examine the constitution of the Political Committee of the E.A.M. we find that out of nine members one, and one only, is a Communist, Mr. Santos, Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Greece. The others are mostly ex.-politicians or university professors, such as Professor Svolos, who was professor of law at Athens University, and Professor Angelopoulos, who was also a professor at Athens University. Cooperating with the Committee are such men as Professor Kouzis, an ex-member of the Monarchist Government of 1935. In the same way, if you examine the names of the Army commanders you find that they are all reputable soldiers of
966
very high standing who have served in the old Greek Army, such as Colonel Saráfis, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the E.L.A.S., and Colonel Mantákas and various other people. Again, I think there is only one Army commander who has Communist leanings. I particularly emphasize that because this has been used as very strong propaganda. Of the other guerrilla organizations the one under Colonel Psaros, of about one thousand men, has already mostly gone over to the National Liberation Movement, and that under Colonel Zervas, of about three thousand men, already last February made an armistice with the E.A.M., and the first condition of the armistice was that all those in his band who had been collaborating with the Germans should be expelled. It is interesting to see that Colonel Dertilis, who was Colonel Zervas's right hand man, is now in command of the Quisling security battalions which the Germans have organized to fight against this resistance movement.
Some of your Lordships may think that it has been unnecessary and out of place to go into these facts and into the errors of the past, but I submit that at this critical juncture of Greek affairs we must know how we stand, and we must know the facts. All along the National Liberation Movement, the E.A.M., has pressed for a united National Government. Your Lordships will remember the delegation which arrived in Cairo last summer and was expelled from there—they pressed firmly for it. Unfortunately we have always backed up King George of Greece and his Ministers, both in this refusal and in all other matters. If we go on doing so, it is bound to prejudice national unity. If the exiled Government will work with all other elements in Greece so much the better for everyone; but if by any chance they will not do so, then I do beg His Majesty's Government to give their support on the side of the democratic movement, the side where our interests as well as the interests of the Greek people really reside.
As a start I would earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to press for an amnesty for those soldiers and sailors who have revolted. I do not want for a moment to minimize mutiny or revolt in time of war: it is a terrible thing, which cannot be countenanced. But this is no ordinary revolt; this embraces the whole forces,

967
including commanders, Admirals and other officers, and is even supposed to have the approval of certain of the King's Ministers. It is a reaction of the whole Greek force urging a greater unity and a greater drive against the common enemy, the Germans. And I think it would be indeed a sad start to this new Government if they began by killing off a large number of these soldiers, leaving bitterness and anger, instead of enthusiasm and hope. The fate of Greece, and I think perhaps of ourselves, is in the balance; so I do earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to effect a change of policy and give every help they can to these most gallant people.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to attempt to follow my noble friend who has just sat down in the interesting speech he has just made about the Greek situation. One can, however, agree very heartily with his last sentence. The Greeks deserve very well of this country. Of the many deeds of heroism that have been recorded in this war there are scarcely any finer actions than those which have taken place in Greece in defence of the common principle of freedom. This debate is, very naturally and essentially, governed by the speech which the. Prime Minister made yesterday, and I must say that I think we once again owe a great debt of gratitude to my right honourable friend for the broad lines on which he put that speech. He emphasized right through, and very eloquently in the peroration, that whatever we do after the war must be governed by the necessity of preserving peace, if we can possibly do so. I think that is the most essential thing that we should keep in mind when we have to test any of the various proposals of policy or administration that are put before us in the course of the next few weeks or months.
Therefore I personally desire to express my great gratification for what he said in his summing up of his whole position. He really laid it down that this was a great opportunity for building a new world, and that that world must be built upon peace. He had just described before that the kind of world organization which he recommended. I need not go into it, but he recommended a Council
968
and Assembly of the Nations, the Council to contain—possibly to contain nobody else—the three great Powers, but at any rate to contain the three great Powers, and the Assembly to contain all the other Powers. They were to work together for peace, though of course the great responsibility for peace must rest primarily on those who had the power to prevent war, and therefore primarily on the three great Powers, or, if you add China as far as Asia is concerned, the four great Powers. The formation of this organization, which seems to me, if I may say so with respect, the right thing to do, is to be buttressed by an alliance with Russia, which has already been concluded, and by some not very clearly defined understanding with the United States. I do not mean that as a criticism, because it is obvious that you cannot define it very clearly.
I note that in describing all these separate items the Prime Minister explained, very rightly, that it was impossible to go into detail until the other Powers had been consulted, and that nothing could be worse than any appearance of an attempt by this country to dictate to other Powers as to what the world organization should be. But I notice with great agreement the phrase that he used to this effect, that we must undoubtedly in our world structure embody a great part of all that was gained to the world by the structure and formation of the League of Nations. That is a sentiment with which I am in hearty agreement. Indeed, I may say I found myself in complete agreement with all that he said in that peroration.
I recognize that the work that the world organization will have to do may be of a very far-reaching character. As the Prime Minister said, its primary duty will be to preserve peace, but it will have a great many other things to do as well. We all know that there are a certain number of people who think that if we establish some form of social reform in the world that would put an end to war altogether, and that we need not bother about any machinery for keeping the peace. I am afraid I do not share that view in the least. I see no ground for thinking that social reform by itself will preserve peace—no ground in principle, no ground in history. But I do say—we all say—that there are many things that ought to be done and some of

969
these things can only be done by international effort. Therefore you ought to create a very strong world organization which will be useful in the first instance to preserve peace, and in that it will have the support of the vast mass of opinion throughout the world; and having secured that, and established the position of authority, its advice al other social and economic questions is much more likely to be heeded. We have had debates in this House on a number of these social reforms. I need not even mention them, as they are well in your Lordships' minds; but I do believe hat though social reform may not be the cause of peace it ought to be among tae fruits of peace. That is all we can ask in general principles in this connexion.
I observe that in dealing with other questions in detail the Prime Minister always put it on the ground of what would He the best way of preserving peace. He spoke of territorial changes, and very wisely declined to go into any detail as to what territorial changes would be recommended at the peace conference. I say "wisely" because it is impossible to know, until you see the exact situation of the world, what territorial changes, if any, ought to be made. May I say for myself that I hope there will be as few territorial changes as possible? It seems to me that very seldom in history have they done any good, and often they have done a great deal of harm. For that reason I hope there will be as few. as possible.:1 therefore welcome all the more the Prime Minister's endorsement of the principles of the Atlantic Charter, which he declared to be a signpost directing us as to the road we should pursue in our search for peace. A great deal has been said in debates here and outside about whether the Atlantic Charter really represents the policy of the Government. I confess that as I read the Prime Minister's speech I can have no doubt that it does represent the policy of the Government. One must recognize—it is an observation frequently made, but it requires to be frequently made—what the Atlantic Charter is. It is not a treaty, it is not an agreement with anyone. It is a declaration, a unilateral declaration, if you like, made originally by America and this country, and afterwards assented to by the United Nations, indicating the principles on which they
970
are proceeding and the principles on which they hope to make peace.
The particular Article read by Lord Samuel which governs the case in regard to the charge that the Government have not adhered to the Charter, is very carefully worded. It is this:
"They desire to see no territorial changes that (lo not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned."
It is worth noting the extreme care with which that is worded. The accounts which we have read outside as to the methods by which the Atlantic Charter was drawn up show that it was a subject of very great care by those who signed it in the first instance. Therefore we are right in seeking to know exactly what it. says. It does not say that there must not be any territorial changes, but that they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the wishes of the people concerned. I take it that that is the general line we wish to pursue, that there should be no territorial changes except with the consent of the governed. It does not mean that in no circumstances and under no conditions can any territorial changes be made, if there are other grounds for making them, such as those indicated by my noble friend Lord Samuel, which will conduce to the peace of the world.
In that connexion I would draw attention to the language used by the Prime Minister yesterday. He was dealing with the proposal to give compensation, which I quite agree with Lord Samuel is a very unfortunate phrase to have used He put it this way. He said there is no question of Germany enjoying any guarantee—that is under the Atlantic Charter—that she will not undergo territorial changes if it should seem that the making of such changes would render more secure and more lasting the peace of Europe. I submit that that is all which a responsible statesman can say, but that does not alter the fact that, generally, the principle that changes of territorial sovereignty should not be made without the consent of the inhabitants is sound. It is sound not as a matter of justice or anything of that kind, but sound because it is the foundation on which a durable peace is most likely to be based. Therefore I personally hope that the Government, when they come to reply, will be able to give us a very definite assurance that that still is the policy

971
of the Government, and that if any modification is made in it in connexion with East Prussia, that can only be because there is a clear proof that it is desirable on the grounds mentioned by Lord Samuel.
The Prime Minister also assured us that there was no desire to interfere in the internal government of other States, and that it was a fantastic aspiration that we should induce all other countries to adopt a form of democracy similar to, and as successful as, our own. But he did say that Nazi and Fascist countries should not be allowed to retain in any degree their Nazi or Fascist Government, not because it was undemocratic, but because it had proved to be a danger to their neighbours in the world. That seems to me a sound ground on which to put it. I notice that the Prime Minister did say that he thought other countries should not be allowed to adopt Governments that were not democratic. I confess to being a little nervous about that, because I should find it very difficult to define exactly what was and what was not a democratic Government. Certainly you can find instances of what was not a democratic Government and you can find some instances, no doubt, though not so many, of what certainly was a democratic Government, but the great majority of the Governments appear to be a kind of compromise between the democratic form of Government and the non-democratic form of Government. Nowadays there is scarcely any country which is so retrograde that it has not got at any rate a tinge of democracy. Therefore I would prefer to see some phrase like "Governments which have the consent of the governed," rather than the question-begging phrase "democratic Government."
Lastly, for I do not wish to detain the House at any length, I do welcome very heartily and very convincingly the peroration of the Prime Minister's speech. There, it seemed to me, he put the case for a new world based on peace and the prevention of aggression as the thing at which we ought to aim. He gave a very splendid description of the advantages which he hoped would flow from such a course. He said that peace can only be based on justice or, as he put it more accurately I think, the rule of law, and that it must be backed by force. I
972
believe that is a perfectly admirable statement of the policy that we ought to pursue, and the reason why I welcome this statement of the Prime Minister so much is that I think that conception, the rule of law backed by force, is the one that we ought to establish as far as we can in the minds of the people of the whole world. It is a want of appreciation of that truth that has brought us into our present disastrous position. After all, whatever happens to the war it is in itself a terrific disaster. Therefore I welcome very much what the Prime Minister said.
If you are to carry through a really effective system of education of public opinion, and I think you must do that, you want two things. You want, first, a clear, definite policy which anyone can understand. The Prime Minister's speech goes a certain distance in that direction. I quite recognize the difficulty of going farther or faster, but the more clear and the more definite you are the more likely you are to obtain the assent, or at any rate the understanding, of the people you are addressing. The second thing is that it must be put forward as a very definite part of the policy of this country and, if possible, the policy of the Allies. I believe that on the success of that education really depends the peace of the world far more than on anything else. I do not think the exact form of the world organization matters so very much. There are some things which, it seems to me, would be very wrong and some things that would be better still, but I do not think it matters so very much. The thing that really matters is that the world should understand that peace is attainable but it is only attainable by effort and in the last resort only attainable by force. If those propositions get really hammered into the sense of the people of this country in the first instance, and the people of the world in the second, then I think we have a real chance of a permanent, or at any rate a very lasting peace, with all the advantages which the Prime Minister so eloquently described.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, it was said of old that he who gives quickly, gives twice. That is not quite accurate else we would all have acquired a deeper sense of virtue. What is accurate is that sometimes in diplomacy he who gives slowly gives not at all, and that I think is partly applicable to some of our recent dealings with France. To the uninitiated

973
like myself the dividing line between the Committee and the Provisional Government is a rather technical one. In any case the claim to be a Provisional Government is not very alarming because the word "provisional" covers practically every contingency. But it is something more than a claim. It is in fact a jait accompli, and as such the French have proclaimed it. I think therefore we may get little credit when we, in turn, as I hope, recognize the Committee. Speaking of Turkey yesterday, the Prime Minister said the Turks had been rather over-cautious. It seems to me that in our own whimsical way we have been a little over-cautious too. In any case we seem to be in rather a curious relationship with a country which the Prime Minister rightly described yesterday as being fourth in the Grand Alliance, and I venture to hope that in our future dealings we may perhaps persuade our American Allies to be a little more forthcoming in these matters.
I did hope, indeed I confidently expected that it would not have been necessary to mention Greek affairs in today's debate seeing that formulæ of agreement have already been found in the Lebanon. However, since the subject has been introduced by two speakers, that drives me into saying a few words on the subject which may put it perhaps in its proper perspective. Greece was bathed and clothed in imperishable glory when she was overwhelmed by the powers of darkness and after that various groups of resistance were formed, some of them round professional officers, those the most competent men, trained, disciplined, disinterested. But other groups were formed also, not necessarily military. They did well at the beginning and indeed later also, but in time political tendencies began to prevail somewhat, and then these political tendencies developed a curious affinity with that aristocratic autocrat Sir Anthony Absolute, who, as your Lordships will remember was, as he said, compliance itself when he was in authority. "Nobody," said Sir Anthony, "is more easily led when I have my own way." Therefore it seems to me that situation led to terrorism and the injection of political virulence and violence into the Armed Forces, and that in turn led to this deplorable mutiny. The noble Viscount who opened this debate referred
974
to Byron and while he was speaking there came back to my mind two lines of his:
"For what is left the poet here?
For Greeks a blush, for Greece a tear."
And if the poet had been living a fortnight ago he would have re-written those lines. But not now, for I hope that tear is wiped away and that we shall hear no more of these unhappy features now that we are at the beginning of a new era.
I have been a little critical of our policy towards France but I should like to say at once how very greatly I welcome the Prime Minister's declaration of yesterday in regard to the Atlantic Charter. I welcomed it so warmly that when I first heard it I thought it would be unnecessary for me to make any further comment on the subject at all, but on thinking it over I would like to take the matter rather further than the Prime Minister had time for yesterday, for I have an impression that possibly even the Government do not recognize how strong their case is. I am perfectly certain the public do not and therefore perhaps I may render some service and make some people feel happier if I demonstrate in a little detail that the Government's case is not only strong but impregnable. I must ask your Lordships to cast your minds back to the 8th January, 1918, when the fourteen points were first promulgated. They were mocked and rejected by all Germany from right to left. They did riot shorten the war by one day and they were only remembered in the autumnal hour of defeat. It would have been quite open to the Allies to say that those terms were no longer available. They would have been wiser still not to have agreed at all. At long last they have learnt wisdom, for unconditional surrender in itself stultifies any notion that the Charter can have been integrally applicable to our enemies. That is probably one of the reasons why so many Germans and pro-Germans have been working steadily against unconditional surrender. I hope we shall soon hear the last of these activities.
I said the Charter was not "integrally applicable." As a matter of fact only one Article is applicable to our enemies and that is Article 4. But Article 4 is a platitude. The Germans have always had

975
access to raw materials. Their trouble was that they did not want to pay for them. As a matter of fact they have had far too much access to war material, and many of us intend very firmly that they shall never have that access again. The Charter goes back not nine months but three years—three years in which the Germans have converted Europe from a continent into a blood swamp. It is not open, never has been open, to German and Japanese savages to say, "Let us wait and see for three years, during which we will kill another thirty million people, and then say, 'Kamerad, the Charter.'"
It is not open, and if it ever had been open either directly or by implication it has long ago been nullified by the holocaust, but there never was any direct or indirect indication that the Charter was applicable to our enemies. If it had ever been suggested that under Article 3 the Germans were entitled to re-elect this Führer or any other führer dear to their hearts, I would have been here in five minutes to protest, or anyhow as quickly as was permitted by our procedure. But there never was any question of that. Article 3 was not applicable to Germany. Though I feared some misuse of its loose wording, I always understood the Charter as an honourable understanding between Allies, not an insane and unauthorized commitment to our enemies. Similarly as regards Articles 1 and 2 the Charter constitutes a self-denying ordinance on the part of the major Allies renouncing territorial aggrandisement and the imposition of any territorial changes undesired by Allied but occupied countries. Therefore the declaration of the Prime Minister yesterday is doubly welcome—doubly because it is a glimpse of the obvious. The Charter does not preclude change at the expense of the felon Reich.
The Prime Minister said Germany would have to submit to any changes considered necessary to the security of Europe. I hope that when he said that he had in mind what I had in mind. It so happens that the detachment of East Prussia from the Reich is the only conceivable way in which you can ensure to Poland free and safe access to the sea, unless you are going to revert to the timorous absurdity of the Corridor. It happens, moreover, that to detach East Prussia from the Reich is the only way to ensure against future war. I would
976
remind your Lordships that that was the nest in which were hatched and fledged the first and worst illegal armies after the last war. East Prussia in German hands is further a guarantee that the Poles can never in any circumstances defend themselves successfully. Article 6 of the Charter promises the peoples that they shall dwell "in safety within their own boundaries" and "can live out their lives in freedom from fear." If anyone desires to argue I am quite prepared to argue that failure to detach East Prussia from Germany would render both these promises incapable of fulfilment and would in fact be a breach of the spirit of the Charter.
Here comes a point in which I am not in agreement with the Prime Minister and perhaps the disagreement may ease the mind of the noble Viscount who opened this debate. I do not regard this as being in any sense a question of compensation for Poland, compensation for the loss of some 50 per cent. of her territory. East Prussia is a vital necessity to Poland and I hope she will be treated generously in this matter. Our Russian Allies have shown great generosity and magnanimity in the terms offered to Finland and in the declaration to Rumania to which Lord Noel-Buxton referred, and I say that it is unthinkable that greater magnanimity should be displayed towards two of our enemies than towards the first of the Allies to resist Germany. As to Article 7 I say nothing because I do not understand what it means, and I do not believe anybody else can, but in regard to Article 8 that again is proof I think that there is no contract or bargain with our enemies. It is the most valuable article in the Charter and it imposes in a very statesmanlike way a unilateral obligation on the aggressor and the vanquished.
Now, my Lords, I would like to take this topic to a little higher ground than the misty lowlands of expediency. Why is it that in this country and in the United States there are so many people ever ready to fly to the help of strength? There is a religious body which is called the Little Sisters of the Poor. There is in politics a body which might well be called the Little Brothers of the Strong. Their creed consists in the literal interpretation of the text "Whosoever bath, to him shall be given, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

977
How could that be more crudely exhibited than in the attempt to interpret the Charter in favour of the strong and against the weak? I would like to take the matter a little higher still. I have often noticed in the course of my life that when the necessities of the strong conflict with those of the weak moral courage is apt to wander and the weak fall out of favour. Honest criticism gets out of hand and goes beyond bound or reason. Men are very frequently inclined to be the most critical of those whom they have wronged and that seems to be so in the case of oft-partitioned Poland.
During the past year I have hardly heard a good word for Poland. On the contrary there has been some pretty steady sneering. I think it is about time that stopped. I feel that we should think more frequently of the Poland who, out of her thirty-four million original inhabitants, has already lost nine million by deportation and massacre, and we should think also more frequently of the Poland who has played such a glorious part in Southern Italy and earned the thanks of General Alexander. I submit that it will be a poor prospect for a brave new world if gratitude and sympathy are to become a drug on a political market.
"Be to her virtues ever kind;
Be to her faults a little blind."
will not make a bad motto for all the Allies, in their dealings with each other both during aid after the war, and I recommend it most specifically to some among our Allies, both great and small, who are already a little bit inclined to be critical of us. There is too much ill-informed criticism which often tends to degenerate to mere crabbing; and on that I would only say that there is no decoration more ignominious than the Iron Cross of a Whispering Campaign.
In this great matter and in all the other great matters that lie ahead of us, we are confronted with a perfectly clear choice, and we have got to make the choice. We have got to choose between murderers and the murdered. That was quite clearly put by the Czecho-Slovakian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jan Masaryk, at the meeting of the I.L.O. at Philadelphia, in a speech which showed up like a good deed in a naughty world compared with the new appeasement of the American delegate, Mr. Watts. Mr. Masaryk said, and I am quoting his words:
978
"The peoples of the occupied countries will not understand unless their cause is given priority, definite and lasting priority, over the aggressors."
I hope that we shall all reflect on that stark sentence, and then upon the consequences of two generations of appeasement. I make full allowances for the intoxication of good intentions.
"But men at whiles are sober,
And think by fits and starts,
And if they think, they fasten
Their hands upon their hearts."
If we fasten our hands upon our hearts we shall hear little more of the notions and emotions arising from the idea that good can ever come from considering one's enemies before one's Allies.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister for what he said in regard to Turkey. I was particularly gratified to learn that those who have borne no part in the struggle will find no place at the peace table. As a personal matter, I would like to put in a plea to him now, when we are moving towards the end of the fifth year of this war, to abandon the use of the term "Hitlerite." It means just nothing, and I am afraid that he has caught it from the Russians. It is not the strongest gambit in Russian propaganda and it leads to endless confusion. No one talked about "Kaiserite" in the last war, and I think you will find that no one in Germany now talks about "Hitlerite" except Hitler himself, and perhaps not he.
I confess that I was a little perturbed to learn that the suggestion was put forward yesterday in another place that Goering would be a suitable person to sign an armistice. His proper place is not at the end of a pen but at the end of a rope, and that is where we mean to have him, and many many others like him. That brings me to the Motion that stands in my name to-day—["to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the slaughter of forty-seven British officers at Stalag Luft 3"]. As it affects policy and propaganda I ask leave of the House to speak very briefly now in order to economize your Lordships' valuable time. I need hardly say that I am referring to the murder of forty-seven British officers at Stalag Luft 3. Firstly, I say it is murder, and nothing else, many reasons. We all know the old German pretext and cliché "shot while attempting flight." That formula was in use for

979
many years before the war. It is the hoariest, the most brazen and the most flimsy pretext for massacre. We used to jeer at it in pre-war days. It is time that we execrated it now.
Secondly, it is possible but improbable that forty-seven officers tried to break camp at once for the very simple reason that mass exit affords the least, and not the best, chance of flight. Thirdly, it is in any case quite impossible that forty-seven men, if they were attempting flight, should have been shot dead without one of them being wounded. These men were obviously not moving or at a distance. I think they were lined up and mown down. The executioner fired at close quarters and made no mistakes. Fourthly, nothing on earth would persuade me, or millions of others, that, even if these officers were attempting to escape, the Germans could have found no other means of preventing the escape of men who had nothing but bare hands and brave hearts. Fifthly, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact, that, so far as I am aware, all these men belong—or at any rate the majority belong—to Bomber Command, and we know that such men have been frequently threatened in the German Press before.
Sixthly, the butcher birds knew well enough that this was butchery and that is why they tried to conceal it for so long. I am President of the Prisoners of War Relatives Association. I have not had time to consult my organization but I know that some of my colleagues at least will be in agreement with me when I say, in advance, that I will not accept any explanation or extenuation put forward by the Huns through the Protecting Power. That will be merely a collection of lies. The Germans are incapable of the truth in these matters. By all means let the Government exhaust the formalities of diplomacy and call for a report. But do not accept it. I know these people too well. I was head of the Prisoners of War Department for some time during the last war. I have a vivid recollection of German cruelties and I now have a different course to propose. I feel strongly that His Majesty's Government should conduct their own inquiry into this matter, and that for that purpose it will be necessary to put on trial, after this war, the entire German personnel of Stalag Luft 3. I should like to see His Majesty's Government
980
give instructions that that should be broadcast and broadcast freely to Germany in German, and that we should add that the same level and impartial justice will be meted out to the personnel of any other camp where British prisoners come to harm. Further, since I see, in yesterday's Press, that the Germans are again threatening to try any shot-down officer by a Peoples' Court and we know what a German People's Court means, we should include in these announcements another to the effect that any German who sits in trial on a shot-down British aviator will himself be brought to trial after the war.
We are not dealing with rational or civilized human beings; we are dealing with something far more savage, and I venture to say that nothing milder than the deterrent which I have here suggested will have any effect. I know well that what I have suggested involves a change of tone and content in the propaganda policy of His Majesty's Government towards Germany; but this House and the Government know well enough—I have said this in the House many times—that I do not think very highly of our propaganda to Germany. I think it has been far too weak throughout. It is not too late, even now, to turn the new page, which I have so often in this House requested should be done. I hope that it will be turned, and forthwith; and I ask that to-day.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long, because at this stage of the debate there is perhaps not much left that can usefully be said before the Leader of the House speaks on behalf of the Government, and I am sure that all of you, after the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, are in no mood to think of far-forward-looking acts which might be interpreted as appeasement in the settlement of Europe. We have now got from the Prime Minister, as was so clearly indicated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, a clear definition of what we want, and that is that the peace of the world must be founded upon force, and that force must be interpreted through justice. Those are the points for which we have been waiting, and I am certain that in our propaganda the emphasis on those points has been lacking. To-day, therefore, I welcome what

981
has been said—I am not going to repeat it—by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, in emphasis of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I should like to support what has been said by Lord Vansittart about the need for the most careful investigation of this horror in Stalag Luft 3.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to say a few words on the subject of Poland. This question has already been referred to, at greater length than I had expected it would be, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and what he said has been endorsed with great emphasis by Lord Vansittart. We all of us take particular interest in countries with which we are specially familiar. It so happens that in the twenty-two years of the life of the Polish Republic I have visited Poland more often, and have had more relations with Poles, than probably any other member of this House. It is because I have had so much contact with Poland, and because I have had business and personal relations of great intimacy with almost every succeeding Polish Government during the life of the Republic, that I wish to endorse the generous terms in which Lord Vansittart gave expression to the feeling which we have in this country for Poland, the country which alone among our Allies has produced no co-operator at all with the enemy.
It is on those grounds, and on the grounds of the gallantry of the Polish aviators and soldiers in every sphere where it has been possible for them to oppose the enemy that Poland calls for special consideration. The Prime Minister emphasized in his speech yesterday the difficulty of the position, and made the appeal that no words should be said which might lead to delay in the settlement for which we all hope. However, when voices are permitted in this country which are critical of Poland, there is no reason why voices should be suppressed, above all in this House, which express sympathy with Poland.
Let me take one illustration. With regard to the United States, it has been with propriety urged by the Prime Minister that during these past two years, because of the help which we have had, we should refrain from anything which might involve the risk of discord arising in the relations of the United States and Great
982
Britain. It has been said that our trade should to some extent be sacrificed if necessary for that purpose. I know the United States well, and have spent a large part of my life there. I do not believe that it is necessary for us to suppress our feelings with regard to the United States; it is better for us to say frankly what we think, and they will not think any the less of us for doing so.
It is on those grounds that I make the appeal that, in this crisis in the relations between Poland and one of our Allies, there is no reason why we should fail to emphasize that magnanimity is the quality most called for at the moment. There is no reason why, when we see the danger of unilateral decisions with regard to territory in advance of the peace settlement, and in disregard of the principles which have been enunciated by this country and by the other Allies, we should suppress our views. We hope that just w one great Ally, the United States, will expect us to speak frankly, so another great Ally will not take offence if emphasis is laid on the fact that we hope for adherence to those principles, and that we think that on the part of both sides in this dispute—and no less in the case of Poland—there should be an elastic yielding towards the speedy bringing about of a solution, the lack of which is causing such anxiety to the friends of Poland and such hazards to the whole cause of the Allies.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think that it is very natural that your Lordships should have wished to hold a debate upon foreign policy, for, after all, it is a great many months since foreign affairs were last specifically discussed here, though, of course, we have very often reverted to them in the course of our debates on the conduct of the war. Since foreign policy was last discussed, many events have occurred in various parts of the world, and the vast war efforts of the Allies, as I think my noble friend Lord Samuel said in his opening speech, have been increased and further coordinated. From time to time in the past there has been, I know, pressure both in this House and outside for a declaration on the part of the Government of their foreign policy. There has even been in some quarters a suggestion from time to time that the Government

983
have no foreign policy. That may have been true at some periods in our past history; I really do not think that that is true now. To-day the aims of British foreign policy are very clear and very simple.
First of all, there is the immediate object—to bring about victory in the present war at the earliest possible moment. And, closely allied to it, there is a second object, to ensure a just and enduring peace when the present struggle is over. It is the achievement of these two aims which dictates every action of the Prime Minister, of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and of the Government as a whole. They are equally important objects, but of course they do not always entirely coincide. For after all, the short term aim, the winning of the war, might easily tempt a nation to enter into binding commitments which might easily prejudice their long-term policy, which is to find a peace settlement that will endure. That has happened in the past. I think it happened to a certain extent during the last war, and it is absolutely essential that we should not fall into that error this time. It is for that reason—if I may say so with satisfaction which I think will be shared by other noble Lords—that in this war we have not entered into any secret engagements of any kind. Anything that we have signed is known to your Lordships and to the rest of the country.
I would emphasize this danger of allowing our war-time policy to conflict with our peace-time policy. I would emphasize it in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, who in an extremely interesting speech this afternoon pressed very strongly for immediate undertakings which conform with his own personal views, views which he is entirely entitled to hold. A few weeks ago the noble Lord asked, in a Motion that he put down, for certain assurances with regard to the application of the Atlantic Charter to Germany, and at my earnest request—and I think I represented the views of a great majority of your Lordships—he agreed to postpone that Motion. I am extremely grateful to him. But he has in effect returned to-clay to the attack, if I may say so, from a different angle; his approach is different but his objective is the same. I am bound to tell him
984
clearly and unequivocally that His Majesty's Government cannot give him the assurances for which he asks. It would be, I suggest, madness for a Government to do such a thing at the present juncture.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, very wisely pointed out the immense and conflicting problems which are raised in the course of fixing frontiers, ethnographical problems, strategic problems, and I personally would add economic considerations. All these have to be taken into account in weighing the merits of the decision that has to be taken in each particular case. A general, vague unilateral declaration by one country in the middle of a war on questions of that delicate nature would, I believe, be absolutely reckless, and extremely embarrassing to our Allies. If we want an enduring peace settlement—and of course we all of us do—we and our Allies must keep our hands free so that we may reach whatever conclusions the situation demands when the time comes. That is the view of His Majesty's Government, and it is, I believe, the view of our Allies. To quote one example, Mr. Cordell Hull, the United States Secretary of State, in a recent speech, said this:
"There has been discussion recently of the Atlantic Charter and of its application to various situations. The Charter is an expression of fundamental objectives, towards which we and our Allies are directing our policies. It points the direction in which solutions are to be sought. It does not give solutions. It charts the course upon which we are embarked and shall continue. That course includes the prevention of aggression and the establishment of world security. The Charter certainly does not prevent any step, including those relating to enemy States, necessary to achieve these objectives."
Those are extremely wise words from a most experienced statesman.
As my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood said in the very thoughtful speech which he delivered to your Lordships this afternoon, no one wants territorial changes for themselves; they are not an objective of policy; but nobody could absolutely rule out the necessity for territorial changes if there are preponderant reasons for them. As Lord Noel-Buxton said this afternoon, the fact that the Russian Government, with the full assent of His Majesty's Government, made certain propositions to the Rumanian Government in a particular situation, does not

985
nullify that general principle of policy which was enunciated by Mr. Hull. Lord Noel-Buxton himself in a a recent letter which he wrote to The Times said:
"No tragedy could be greater than that the coming settlement "—
by which I understand he meant the peace settlement—
"should not be durable. The supreme danger is that it will contain needless incentives to war."
I think we should all accept that as a guiding precept for the Allied Powers at the peace conference. But for that very reason do not let us tie ourselves up at the present stage to rigid obligations towards our enemies, whether territorial obligations or other obligations. The only result of that would be to prejudice the achievement of the objectives which both the noble Lord and the Government and all of us alike have in view.
Now I would like to return, if I may, and apply those two main principles of foreign policy, which I defined earlier, to the situation in the various countries which have been mentioned in the debate and the policy which His Majesty's Government are adopting towards those countries. Clearly—I think this will be generally agreed—what matters most both for the present and the future is that our relations with the two great Powers that have emerged as giants from the present struggle, the United States and Russia, should be preserved intact, friendly, confident and close. At the present time, happily, we can say that these relations remain really excellent. They were cemented by the Moscow Agreement and by the Teheran talks, and both as to the broad strategy of the war and the character of the world organization which is to be set up when the war is won, we have established a harmony of outlook which is an extremely good augury for the future. The European Advisory Committee set up under the Moscow Agreement is getting down to work and has already studied a number of problems relating both to the armistice period and the post-armistice period, with a view to recommendations to Governments.
The importance of a good understanding—what the Prime Minister called a fraternal association—between ourselves and the United States needs no stressing by me in this House. It is probably far the most important factor both in
986
winning the war and in preserving the peace after the war. The fact that the United States was not a member of the League of Nations was undoubtedly the greatest weakness of that organization, and if the United States had failed to come into the present conflict the doom of civilization would almost certainly have been sealed. But she has come in—she has come in horse, foot, and artillery, with all the vast weight of her productive and military machine. With unerring judgment, she has recognized the vast issues involved and, happily, there is increasing evidence that when our enemies, are defeated, she intends to continue to play her full part in preventing a recurrence of this catastrophe. On that, so far as I can see, the leaders of all Parties in the United States are at present united.
Already a joint examination of our post-war problems, our political problems and our economic problems, is beginning, and in addition the British and American Governments are working hand in hand for a solution of all the short-term problems which are constantly boiling up as a result of the war. In connexion with this exploration of the present and particularly the future, I should like to pay tribute to the recent visit of Mr. Stettinius. It was of untold value in clarifying our minds—both, I hope, his mind and certainly our minds on this side of the Atlantic. In addition, of course, apart altogether from our diplomatic relations and contacts, we are—and perhaps this is the most important factor in cementing relations—fighting side by side. We are fighting in Italy, and in this connexion I understand the news has just arrived on the tape that the Fifth Army and the Forces on the Anzio Bridge-head have joined up. Soon we shall be engaged side by side in even greater operations in another theatre of war. This very close companionship, which is based on common interests and which is cemented by common suffering, I truly believe will not easily be dissolved.
The same, I feel confident, is true of our relations with Russia. Her great victories of the last months have been greatly assisted by our land operations in Italy and by our air operations over Germany, which contained over the whole of that period so large a proportion of the German Air Force. Moreover, we are at the present time in daily communication and consultation with the Russian Government

987
over innumerable issues affecting both countries, and these consultations have almost invariably been fruitful in their results. I do not say that there are not occasionally different angles of outlook on certain individual questions, both between ourselves and the United States and between ourselves and Russia. That is inevitable even between firm friends, and I believe it is right that it should be so. A cotton wool association, in which it would be impossible for either partner to speak his real mind to the other partner, would be both unreal and fundamentally dangerous. What is important and extremely encouraging for the future is that there has been no problem yet where it has not proved possible to exchange views quite frankly and freely without any deterioration in our relations—that applies both to the United States and to Russia—and there have been very few problems on which agreement has not been reached.
If I might give one instance of the satisfactory collaboration which has taken place, I would point your Lordships' attention to the agreement signed on May 16, just over a week ago, in identic terms, concerning the arrangements to be made for civil administration and jurisdiction in Holland, Norway, and Belgium when they are liberated from the enemy. The agreements with regard to Belgium and Holland were signed by Great Britain and the United States on behalf of the United Nations and were concurred in by Russia. In the case of Norway an identic agreement was concluded between all three Powers. That is a very good example of the close collaboration which exists between the signatories to the Moscow agreement. Examples of the same kind could be multiplied in other fields.
Perhaps at this point I might address myself very briefly to the difficulty between Russia and Poland of which mention has been made by a good many speakers in this debate. This, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is one of those questions for which a solution has not yet been found. We should all of us be very wise to use great discretion in speaking of it at the present juncture. Indeed all those noble Lords who have spoken to-day have shown that discretion in a marked degree. But may I at least say this? It has been suggested—not this afternoon, but it has often been suggested that it would have been wiser if His
988
Majesty's Government had kept aloof from this problem altogether. I really do not think that would have been a practical course for us. After all, we are an Ally of both countries, each of which has had so glorious a record in the war, and at a time when it seemed possible that there would be a serious clash between our two Allies, it was natural, nay, almost inevitable that we should offer our good offices to resolve the differences between them. Indeed, we have every reason to believe that our attempt was welcomed by both the Governments concerned. Unhappily that attempt failed, and all we can do at present is to make it clear, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that we
"would welcome any arrangement between Russia and Poland, however it was brought about, whether directly between the Powers concerned or with the help of His Majesty's Government or any other Government."
We are not proud about this matter; we are only anxious to help in any way we can.
Exception was taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to the word "compensation" used by certain members of His Majesty's Government in connexion with the Polish-Russian negotiations. I do not think myself it is necessary or right to quibble too much about words. One man will use one word, another man will use another word. It is perfectly clear from the Prime Minister's speech yesterday that it was not his intention in any way to undermine the Atlantic Charter. In fact, he expressed very firmly his adherence to that document. What I suggest is important in any settlement that may eventually be reached is that if Poland is to survive—and I have no doubt we all wish the Polish nation to survive—she should be given "an ample seaboard and a good, adequate, and reasonable homeland in which the Polish nation may safely dwell." That is very important, and anything less than that, in my opinion, is likely to sow the seeds of future trouble. I could not help thinking, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, that he almost seemed more concerned about the future of Germany than he was about the future of Poland. Let us not forget that we owe a great deal to Poland—more than we can ever repay. I hope we shall never neglect her interests or abandon her in order to appease our enemies.

989
I should now like to turn for a moment to the situation of our other Allies in Europe. First I would say a word about France. Almost exactly four years ago, France suffered, I suppose, the most terrible military and political catastrophe that has ever afflicted any great nation in modern times. To-day we rejoice to see her recovering from that blow. She is very much back in the war. Her troops have fought with indomitable courage in Italy. Their record is as fine as that of any troops in that campaign, and her powerful Navy, including the "Richelieu," which, as your Lordships know, is one of the most modern battleships afloat, is taking her full part with the Allies in the war at sea. Moreover, the widespread underground forces in Metropolitan France are risking their lives daily to promote the cause of freedom and may, we may hope, have a yet more important part to play sometime not too far ahead. Finally, the great productive areas of French Africa are providing us and our Allies with the sinews of war. In fact, the Committee of National Liberation, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, has become the fourth partner in what the Prime Minister called the Grand Alliance.
If we are not yet able to recognize that Committee as the Provisional Government of France, I hope it will never be thought anywhere that it is because we do not appreciate the great part she is playing but because, as has been said I think to-day, and certainly was said yesterday in another place, they have not yet had a chance of proving that they represent the French nation. In the case of other countries which have been occupied by the enemy, countries like Norway, Holland and Belgium, the constitutional Governments, which have been chosen by the whole body of the people, are still with us. They are the constitutionally chosen Governments. That, unhappily, is not the case with France, and until circumstances allow the French people to choose their own Government I am afraid it is inevitable that the difficulties of the present position will not be entirely resolved. There must be what one may call a twilight period. The real remedy, and the only final remedy, is to free France of the enemy and enable the people of France to decide what Government they want. It must be to that object that all our efforts must be directed.
990
We wish to see her restored to her former greatness as soon as possible. France has an essential part to play in Europe and every step we can take to restore her will be a step towards the security of the Continent.
I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who referred to the situation with regard to the administration of France that is likely to arise immediately after the entry of the Allies. This question has, as I think the noble Viscount knows, been for some time under discussion, but unfortunately the negotiations between the Supreme Commander and General Koenig have had to be temporarily suspended because of the ban on diplomatic communications. We are trying to make arrangements to get over that difficulty. In any case, the Prime Minister announced yesterday that General de Gaulle himself is coming over here in the near future and we may hope that that visit will give an opportunity for a settlement of this and various other questions which are still outstanding.
I would now like, if the House will allow me, to travel a little farther away to the South-East, to the Balkans, and say one word upon the situation in Yugoslavia and in Greece. There is very little I need say about Yugoslavia, because the Prime Minister dealt so fully with the situation there in his speech yesterday. It is, as your Lordships know, a difficult and tangled situation, which cannot be compared with anything that exists in this country. It is impossible for anyone to approximate the various sections of opinion there to the political Parties here. The country is far too distracted for that. But there are signs of a definite improvement which we may hope will ultimately lead to the unification of the country. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, he has received a message within the last few days from King Peter to the effect that he has dismissed the Government of M. Pouritch and is at present engaged in forming a smaller Cabinet for the purpose of assisting all active resistance in Yugoslavia and uniting, so far as possible, all the fighting elements in the country.
One of the important results of this change is, as I understand it, that it involves the disappearance from the Government of General Mihailovitch, who has hitherto been Minister of War. As the

991
House knows, the British Government lately decided to cease the supply of arms to General Mihailovitch, and this decision has caused a certain amount of questioning in this country. The reason is really an extremely simple one. Whereas in the early stages of the war General Mihailovitch was the leader of resistance against the Germans, he has recently adopted a far more passive role. He is hardly fighting the enemy at all, and indeed there are indications that some of his subordinate commanders are in exceedingly close touch with the enemy. As our policy throughout has been to assist those who actively oppose our foes, we accordingly transferred our full support to Marshal Tito, who is gathering an ever greater support from his countrymen in the great fight that he is making against the Germans. It will be our object in any way that is possible to continue and increase that help to Marshal Tito. I should add that in the policy which we have adopted towards Yugoslavia we have been in close touch both with the United States and with Russia and that our policy has their full approval.
Now, my Lords, I would like to say a word about Greece, a question which was the subject of a very full speech by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I am afraid he is not at present in his place but no doubt he will read what I have to say. Lord Huntingdon, like Lord Noel-Buxton, put down a Motion earlier in the week on this subject and I asked him to postpone it until after the Prime Minister's speech. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for his courtesy, but I think he will agree, and that all your Lordships will agree, that it was a wise course. There is much information available to-day which would not have been available had we had this debate two or three days ago. I am sure we shall all of us have welcomed the opening words of Lord Huntingdon's speech in which he gave his good wishes to M. Papandreou and the Government which he is now forming. But I must say I got the impression that the noble Lord was still harbouring unfounded suspicions that sinister influences were affecting our policy towards Greece and the attitude of the British people towards that country.
I remember that on the last occasion when the noble Earl spoke on this subject,
992
he was under the impression that the E.A.M. was the only organization which was fighting the Germans. But it is clear from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that this is not the case. On the contrary, the excesses of the guerrilla bands which have been under control of E.A.M. were so terrible and came to constitute such a menace to the ordinary people of Greece, that the Germans were able to recruit security battalions from the Greeks themselves in order to preserve law and order. That was clearly a lamentable situation; in fact conditions of civil war existed in the country. Ultimately, the situation became so bad that drastic steps had to be taken to try and achieve some measure of national unity.
Some time ago, therefore, M. Tsouderos, who was at that time Prime Minister, sent invitations to all the political Parties in Greece, including the Communists and E.A.M., to send delegates to Cairo for discussions there. Before replies were received the regrettable mutinies broke out to which Lord Huntingdon referred. I do not propose to say anything more about them to-day, because they were dealt with pretty fully by the Prime Minister yesterday. But one result of these was that M. Tsouderos, who felt unable to cope with this new situation, resigned and was succeeded by M. Venizelos, a son of the great Greek leader whom Lord Cecil of Chelwood knew so well at the time of the last war. He succeeded, with the help of British troops, in quelling the mutinies. He also announced that he proposed to follow the same policy as that instituted by his predecessor and steps were taken to bring as rapidly as possible delegates of all the political Parties from Greece to the Middle East.
On April 15, just over a month ago, M. Papandreou himself arrived in Cairo. M. Papandreou is a man of extremely strong personality and he has the great advantage that he has lived in Athens practically throughout—I think altogether throughout—the German occupation. He was therefore in a particularly strong position to rally the distracted elements in Greece. He became Prime Minister on April 26. On May 10 the delegates assembled for a Conference in Lebanon. As the result of that Conference, which I understand was notable for some extremely plain speaking by all Parties concerned, a unanimous conclusion was, in the end, reached, and all Parties alike

993
adopted M. Papandreou's programme, which had two aims, first, the formation of a National Government, and, secondly, the reorganization of the Greek forces in the Middle East and the guerrillas in Greece itself into a national army. I am quite certain that noble Lords in all parts of the House will rejoice in these developments in a country to which the Allies owe so much, and will wish me to express to the Greek people our good wishes for a happy issue out of their present difficulties.
At a time like this, I could not but feel regret—though I recognized his good intentions—that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, should have found it necessary to rake over so many old ashes of the past. That type of action is only too liable to start new fires and I had a feeling, as he spoke that no one would regret his speech more than M. Papandreou himself. I cannot think it will be of much assistance to him in his new and difficult task. We have a new Government in Greece. My feeling is, do let us allow them to do their own job. It may seem to your lordships that I have devoted rather disproportionate time to the affairs of one country, but I felt it due to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who had postponed his debate, that I should give as full an account as I could of the situation as it has developed there.
And now, what about the European neutrals? The position of neutrals anywhere in a world war is undoubtedly an extremely difficult one. The fence on which neutrality obliges them to sit is so uncomfortably narrow that it is extremely difficult for them to balance themselves without wobbling over one way or another. Your Lordships will perhaps remember the story of the Irishman in the early days of the war who when told that his country was neutral asked who she was neutral against. That shows the difficulties that beset earnest neutrals at a time like this. But clearly those countries can hardly be regarded as truly neutral which, whilst receiving the necessities of life from one side, are supplying the sinews of war to the other side. It is for that reason that we all of us, I am sure, warmly welcome the recent agreement with Spain, which has removed numerous causes of friction between her and the Allied Powers. That agreement, I suggest, should not be regarded as a victory
994
of the Allies over Spain, but should be regarded rather as the victory of Spanish common sense over German pressure. We have hereditary bonds of friendship with Spain, which date from Napoleonic days, and I think we may all hope that those bonds of friendship will be strengthened and renewed by the agreement just reached.
We may also hope that it will be followed by a similar agreement with our ancient Ally Portugal. With regard to Turkey, I can only say this. No doubt we have all welcomed the step which the Turkish Government have taken in stopping the supply of chrome to our enemies. We can only echo the Prime Minister's deep regret that, in the wider issues of peace and war, their extreme caution should have compelled us to modify our policy of assistance to her. I believe Turkey, too, will come to regret it as the day of Allied victory draws steadily nearer.
If I may now pass to the other side of the world, I feel it would be wrong to complete a review of foreign policy without making some reference to our relations with our gallant Ally China. Battered and bruised by over seven years of war, the Chinese people continue to hold up their heads with unfailing and dauntless courage. Cut off as she is from the outer world—entirely cut off except by the air at the present time—China labours under far greater difficulties than any other of the great Powers. But she has never shown any sign of abandoning the struggle. To-day, she is not only resisting a new Japanese offensive in Honan which aims at threatening vital rice producing districts but is also pushing forward in Burma in conjunction with General Stilwell's forces which have just gained such outstanding successes as your Lordships know, in the north of that country. China has had a long and bitter trial, but with the defeat of Hitler and the concentration of Allied forces against Japan we may hope that her sufferings will soon be at an end.
At this point, I would like to say one word about a matter which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Vansittart. It does not fit into the main stream of the argument of my speech but I feel your Lordships will wish me to reply to what he said. He at the end of his speech adverted to the question of the shooting of

995
a number of Allied officers which was announced in this country last week. I think that all of us will share to the full the indignation which he expressed this afternoon. I do not think there is any action which the Germans could have taken which would have exposed more clearly the savage brutality of the Nazi régime. Inquiries into the exact facts are, as the noble Lord knows, still going on and it is difficult for me to say any more to-day. In any case the proposals which the noble Lord put forward this afternoon will clearly require, as they deserve, very careful consideration. I think we may say this—it will represent not only the views of the Government but of the whole House—that it must be our object to ensure that those responsible for this brutal crime shall be held responsible for it when the time comes.
I would also like to say one word with regard to what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said about the position of the Jews. I understood the noble Viscount to refer rather to the situation of the Jews when hostilities end than to their situation at the present time. I would fully agree with him that there has been no greater tragedy, probably in any period of the world's history, than the horrors which have been inflicted upon the Jews now over a long period of years. I am quite certain that His Majesty's Government will wish, in any way practicably possible, to afford the Jews some help in repairing the horrors they have gone through. If there are any steps they can take, in conjunction with other countries, to enable the Jews to recover from the sufferings through which they have passed I feel certain they will be willing to do so.
Now I have finished my tour of the countries of Europe and passed as far as China. I hope that your Lordships will feel that the picture I have painted is encouraging. I feel it is myself. I do not want to overstate the case, but I think it is a definitely encouraging picture. In the nature of things our foreign policy at a time like this cannot be clear cut. It must be capable of constant adaptation to meet changing circumstances. The world is rent and torn by the earthquake through which we are, at present, passing and any country must feel its way very cautiously through the ruins. Moreover,
996
as one of the speakers this afternoon has said, the diplomatic position is bound to be affected, and constantly affected, by the actual course of hostilities. A vital battle won, in one area or another, may alter the whole situation in a few hours. To-day we are witnessing what we all hope will prove to be a great victory in Italy. As I think General Smuts pointed out, a success in that area may turn out to be just as important, for the purpose of winning the war, as any success won in Eastern or Western Europe. Soon, even greater operations are impending in another theatre of the war. We may indeed be nearer the end of this terrible period of history than we know. It is right that in circumstances of this kind we should look forward and prepare for all eventualities.
Several speakers in the debate this afternoon have referred to the world organization which is to be set up after the war. They did not press the Government for details, and I am grateful to them for that. As the Prime Minister explained in the debate in another place yesterday, this is not a question upon which it is possible at the present stage to go beyond the bare outlines. Discussions which were envisaged under the Moscow Agreement have to begin, at one level or another, at an early date, and it would not be at all helpful if any of the participating Powers were to take up public positions before the talks started. The Prime Minister indicated that there must be a World Council to prevent war. I agree most warmly with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said on that head. The prevention of war is the foundation on which you must build social reform or any other advance. People who say that social reform is the foundation on which to build peace are, in my view, putting the cart before the horse. If we can once obtain peace, all these other things will be added to us. The Prime Minister also said that there would presumably be a World Assembly. I understand that these two simple main proposals have the full support of my noble friends Viscount Samuel and Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.
While it is impossible for me to go beyond these elementary propositions at the present moment, there are one or two points which I might try to clear up. The first was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who expressed the hope

997
that the rights of small nations would be firmly safeguarded in the new organization which is envisaged in the Four-Power Pact. I do not feel that he has cause for serious anxiety. If he will look at Clauses 4 and 5 of the Pact he will see what the signatories have unequivocally stated. I quote their exact words. Clause 4 states:
"That they recognize the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving Sates and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Clause 5 states:
"That for the purposes of maintaining international peace and security pending the reestablishment of law and order and the inauguration of a system of general security, they will consult with each other, and, as occasion requires, with other members of the United Nations, with a view to joint action on behalf of the community of nations."
Quite obviously, if the four great Powers are to have the main responsiblity for maintaining peace, they must be given adequate authority to perform their tasks. But it is not intended to leave out of account the rights of small nations.
I would also like to deal with a point made by my noble relative, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood. I understood him to say that he had seen statements on behalf of His Majesty's Government or other Governments to the effect that it was hoped that, after the war, nations would have the form of democratic government they wished. What, he asked, in this context, does democracy mean? Did it mean that we should impose on them our form of government, a sort of Westminster model, as it were?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I merely drew attention to the fact that the Prime Minister said that that was not our intention.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is quite correct. I am not an expert in words, but it is evident that that would be an impossible proposition for His Majesty's Government to put before the world. We naturally like Parliamentary democracy of our own type, but that view is not universally taken, and it is not the desire of the Government that it should be universal. Some even of our Allies have very different forms of government from ours. As I understand it, what democratic government
998
means, in this particular context, is a form of Government freely chosen by the masses of the people, and a Government that allows free discussion by the people of all matters of national interest. There are some Governments at present such as those of Germany and Japan which are supported by the mass of the people and yet represent a serious danger to other countries. But so long as a Government represents the will of the people and allows free discussion by the people of the country of all matters of national interest, no danger to that country's neighbours should be involved. It seems to me that we can accept any form of Government so long as it represents the will of the people of the country concerned and, as I say, so long as it allows free discussion of all public questions. Such a Government, I am convinced, does not involve danger to neighbouring countries.
To return for a moment to the world organization. The main purpose of the United Nations, at the present stage, is not to lay down any rigid plan, but merely to explore possibilities and clear our minds. Herein, I suggest, lies the importance of the meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers which has just concluded. I make no apology for mentioning the meeting of the Dominion Prime Ministers in a foreign affairs debate, for the members of the British Commonwealth together constitute a very powerful influence for good in the world. The meeting took place at a crucial moment. It gave opportunity not only for review of the present but for a glance forward into the future. I think that no one who took part in those meetings, as it was my good fortune to do, could have failed to be impressed by the complete unanimity which prevailed on all questions of international policy, and also the sober recognition of the part which the nations of the British Commonwealth must play in moulding the future. And indeed, the British Commonwealth—that strange, unprecedented combination of self-governing nations, bound, not by visible bonds, but by ties of the spirit—is in a unique position at the present time.
There are bigger nations, greater nations in that sense, but no other Power which occupies exactly the same situation. Sprawled over the whole world, the British Commonwealth partakes of the qualities both of the Old and of the

999
New World. It is firmly based in the past by its traditions and its Constitutions, and it looks out fearlessly into the future.
Nearly a hundred years ago, in 1859, Lord Beaconsfield spoke some penetrating words which I should like, if I may, to quote in full, as they represent a very remarkable prophecy of what has happened since and of the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It is a longer quotation than is customary in a speech, but I think your Lordships will feel that it is justified. This is what he said:
"Remember always that England, though she is bound to Europe by tradition, by affection, by great Similarity of habits, and all those ties which time alone can create and consecrate, is not a mere Power of the Old World. Her geographical position, her laws, her language and religion, connect her as much with the New World as with the Old. And although she has occupied not only an eminent, but, I am bold to say, the most eminent, position among European nations for ages, still, if ever Europe by her shortsightedness falls into an inferior and exhausted state, for England there will remain an illustrious future. We are bound to the communities of the New World, and those great States which our own planting and colonizing energies have created, by ties and interests which will sustain our power and enable us to play as great a part in the times yet to come as we do in these days, and as we have done in the past. And therefore, now that Europe is on the eve of war, I say it is for Europe, not for England, that my heart sinks."
How truly history has vindicated Lord Beaconsfield's judgment! One can but wish that his advice had been taken by the countries of Europe.
To-day ancient Europe, which is the custodian of the traditions of civilization and the guardian of all her treasures of
1000
beauty and art, is a mere litter of rubble and broken hearts; but England, or what we should now call the British Commonwealth, stands erect and undefeated. It is for us, above all, who are not only old but also new, to come to the rescue of Europe, to help her and lift her up when the present agony is over. That, to my mind, must be one of the prime purposes and main objectives of British foreign policy. It is a tremendous task, but it is a task which we cannot shirk; for on the success or failure of ourselves and our Allies must depend the whole future of the world.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, as I have already intimated, I do not propose to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has assured me that His Majesty's Government will give consideration to the concrete proposals which I have put before the House to-day with regard to Stalag Luft 3. I hope that by that he means early consideration, for in my judgment there is no time to lose. In these circumstances I shall not move my Motion today, but shall await the answer which I shall receive from the Government before considering any further action.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Winster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned.