ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

§ The PRIME MINISTER

At the moment of interruption I was saying how, in the course of the consideration of the payment due on the 15th December to the United States, suggestions were made from both sides that no agreement could be come to regarding these debt payments without personal interviews and negotiations. In December those interviews were impossible; there was no effective Government in Washington. It was a very long time to wait until the beginning of March, and I am very happy to say that what might perhaps be described as the very strictest propriety was waived somewhat, and contacts were established with the knowledge and consent of President Hoover. But the month of June is approaching rapidly, and both Governments are still as convinced as they were in November that, preliminary to any action that may be taken on the 15th June, there ought to be a personal and a candid examination of the whole situation. This Debt question is not merely a matter for experts—can gold be transferred, what is the effect of the transfer going to be upon international exchange, and so on? Everyone who has had any responsibility in conducting Anglo-American affairs during the last 10 or 15 years knows perfectly well, and neither Americans nor Englishmen should hide the fact from them, that these payments of Debt have had a very important political effect, and a settlement of the Debt question which was acceptable to both sides would be one of the greatest blessings that could happen. I am not going to discuss on what lines conversations are to take place, but I can say this to the House, that in so far as conversations will take place in America, I shall report what I find with any recommendations that I can make to the Cabinet, and when the Cabinet comes to a decision in the matter, if the House asks for it, a Debate will be provided.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

There will be no agreements entered into without confirmation by the Cabinet?

§ The PRIME MINISTER

At this visit, which my right hon. Friend, I am sure, 2751 remembers, is only going to be a prolonged week-end, I propose to come to no agreements. What we want on the matter I have just mentioned of debts and various other matters, to which I shall only refer, and as to which I am going to make no elaborate explanation—what we want with America is an understanding of each other's point of view. That is the first thing. We must sit down together and mutually understand each other, the various points of view that have to be satisfied, the various interests that have to be satisfied, and if that field can be very thoroughly explored in the short space of four days, I think very good work will be done.

Going back to the question of debts, it is certain that there can be no provisional agreements come to. There will be exchanges of views. I expect the President to talk to me with the most friendly candour of his own difficulties. I shall certainly talk to the President with the most friendly candour of the difficulties that would have to be faced in this country if certain proposals were put to this House. Let us understand the requirements of the case, which are that the Cabinet shall be in a position to make up its mind as to how it will propose to deal with the 15th June payment. I regret very much to see a statement in a certain newspaper, a statement that can only put impediments in the way of agreement, that we have come already to some agreement. There is not a word of truth in it, and there is not a shadow of foundation for any such statement. But I shall not go over during those four days merely as Prime Minister. I shall take the opportunity of the visit to speak to President Roosevelt as the Chairman of the International Economic Conference.

I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in opening this Debate, that the biggest problem, the all-comprehending problem, is how to get the riches that are in the world enjoyed by the people who dwell in it, and to put an end to this insane block of exchange, to put an end to this extraordinarily mad state of things, where men desiring work cannot get it, although if markets that are freely available were opened up, and the bars which block them were removed, they would enjoy that wealth and the comforts, peace and happiness of the world 2752 would be enormously increased. I have always taken that view of the matter as the only really successful end of the Economic Conference. I am sure that President Roosevelt will have no objections if I say that I know he most thoroughly shares that view of the work of the International Economic Conference.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will not quarrel with me if I somewhat modify what I said about agreements, because I think he would applaud it. If I could get an agreement as to an early date that would be suitable to the United States Government for the assembly of that Conference, I will do it if I possibly can. I will do everything I can in order to get it, but I would like just to remind the House that the calling of this Conference is not our business—I mean the British Government's business. It is the business of a committee set up by the League of Nations, and that committee, I think, perhaps, has been a little too democratic in the way that it has consulted the convenience of the 40 or 50 other Powers. But this Conference ought to meet without delay, and the British Government have been pressing for it. Personally, when I was in Geneva the other day, and when I was at Rome a few days later, I pressed that Governments should take immediate steps to co-operate with us and with that committee in getting this Conference called.

Then as to the general views. As regards the lines of approach, the British Government share the views of the Experts' Report. I might, perhaps, go upon a marginal piece of ground. I believe that no great success can result from the International Economic Conference unless a large part of the obstructions which have been raised in the way of international trade have been removed. A large part of those obstructions were necessary for temporary purposes. We were meeting most abnormal conditions of tottering currencies, failure to pay for goods which had been delivered on account of lack of a currency that had any international value, and so on. Whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me or not, I believe it was quite necessary that temporary measures should be taken to protect countries from being swamped, not by the legitimate competition, not by the sort 2753 of competition which is justifiable because it sharpens the productive capacity of the competitors, but by the superfluous overflow of products which could not find markets by other countries. The whole world must try to get international agreement as to the principles upon which changes are to take place.

For instance, there is the question of tariffs. The tariff position in various countries is very different. Suppose—I advance it purely as a supposition—there is a general agreement that tariff walls should be reduced in order to enable a more voluminous flow of international trade, a flow the volume of which would compensate even those who are pursuing what President Roosevelt has called "nationalist economics," to their own detriment. If those walls are reduced in order to enable a more voluminous international flow which would be more fruitful to the nations which have reduced their tariff walls, that is a problem which obviously may be settled in a temporary and a partial way between two bargaining parties, but, if we are to have the benefit of a general world policy to that end, it can only be as the result of discussions and decisions on the part of conferences such as those that we now contemplate. The problem cannot be faced from the old Free Trade point of view. Make no mistake about that. The doctrines of an individualistic Free Trade are as dead as Queen Anne. But the new policy of systematically studying how certain aids can be used to advance both national and international economic interests can only be carried out successfully by a court representing the great economic nations of the world. I understand that those views are not acceptable in other parts of the world. There is also the question of the levels of wholesale prices. Does anyone mean to say that we have yet discovered a solution of that problem, which must be solved? We have to find a solution of it or we have to go on staggering through the existing unfortunate conditions. I hope we shall have an opportunity of exchanging views upon a rapid start of the International Economic Conference.

But there are other fields than the economic. There is the question of disarmament. There is the question of Geneva. What co-operation can the 2754 nations give to each other at Geneva? In considering that, there is no doubt at all that we cannot be indifferent to certain threatening influences which are active in Europe to-day. We must not allow them to obstruct our progress towards disarmament, but we must consider the conditions and must be very careful at the same time as to how these conditions are to operate. For instance, the hon. Gentleman referred somewhat lightly to the multiplication of declarations for peace, and he included in his list the declaration of no resort to force which emerged from the Five Power Pact. That conference was called for the purpose of getting agreement for the principle of German equality. We are perfectly aware of certain dangers of that declaration, and Germany was asked to declare specifically, as part of that Five Power Conference, that, we agreeing to the declaration of equality in principle, she would solemnly renounce any resort to force which might be possible for her in consequence of the operation of the declaration. [Interruption.] The great difficulty is that, if no one believes it, we had better believe no one. I am bound to say that sometimes I am almost driven into that most uncomfortable position. It is no use talking about disarming by agreement, it is no use talking about treaties, it is no use talking about pacts, it is no use talking about co-operation for peace unless you have had some experience which justifies you in accepting the word of those with whom you are to co-operate.

There is the general position of Europe. The American historical position always been that it will enter upon no European entanglements, and I shall certainly not go now to Washington, nor will I ever go to try to persuade America to do otherwise than carry out that historical policy, the only possible exception being in the event of a world agreement quite clearly defined regarding an aggressor and America having previously been a party to that agreement. Therefore, in the four days there will be the question of our own relations and the question of the calling of the International Economic Conference. There will be an attempt to get an understanding as to how each of us stand regarding, at any rate, the major questions which will have to be discussed and, I hope, settled at the International 2755 Economic Conference itself. There will be an exchange of world views, and the whole purpose will be to get closer and closer together, not in an alliance, but in spirit, to get a relationship between our two countries of the most cordial and co-operative character established, and, if I can do that, then, I think, my mission will be successful. At any rate, in that belief, and with that hope, and to do that work, I accepted the request tendered to me by my colleagues in the Cabinet that I should go to America and that trust I shall carry out.

§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion this afternoon made to the House what was, I think I shall be expressing the opinion of his colleagues apart if I say, a very remarkable speech, and for nothing was it more remarkable than for the unusually wide measure of assent which a great part of it drew from Members seated in all parts of the House. The hon. Gentleman found words to express the feeling which is profound and widespread in this country, and in giving expression to that feeling, though he spoke as the mouthpiece of a party, he expressed the opinions of Members of all parties. In the course of his speech, he covered a very wide field. I do not propose to deal with anything like as many subjects as he. I must say a, word, however, about the statement which the Prime Minister has just made about his mission to Washington. I rejoice that the Prime Minister is going to meet the new President of the United States. I recognise that among the various foreign missions which the Prime Minister has conducted in the course of his official experience none perhaps was more fruitful than his previous visit to another American President, and he will carry on the visit which he is now contemplating, I am sure, the good will of all men and women in this House and in this country in the task which he has set himself of trying to reach a close and cordial understanding with the great American Republic.

My right hon. Friend said that he would not describe to the House conversations which had not yet taken place, and I was prepared to support him in what I thought was a perfectly reasonable atti- 2756 tude. Yet what a curious speech he has made! The major portion of it was devoted to a description of the character to be attached to, and the subjects to be treated in, these conversations which have not taken place; but of the conversations which took place weeks ago and which have been the concern of every nation of Europe, of every Government and of this House ever since, he told us no more to-day than he did on his return from Rome. Although I presume that it is true that there are no papers yet in existence in regard to the visit to Washington except the invitation which he has accepted, yet we know that a paper was handed to the right hon. Gentleman in Rome. We know that the British Government have prepared and communicated to other Governments a paper of their own. We read that the French Government have now made their observations upon the proposal. These documents are the common property of all the chancellories of Europe. They are, I should think, by this time in most of the newspaper offices. The only people who are not allowed to know anything about it are the House of Commons. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary comes to reply he will give us the information which is lacking, for it is useless to pretend that what is public property about something which we are not to call the Pact of Rome has had, as the hon. Gentleman said, a sedative effect on spirits in Europe and has contributed to a more peaceful attitude.

Frankly, with some experience to guide me, I view the present situation with grave anxiety. I think that the position in Europe, the state of public opinion and the actions of Governments are more menacing to-day and threaten peace more directly than anything which we have known since the close of the Great War. I cannot pretend to conceal from my right hon. Friends on that bench that the state of uncertainty in which the world has been left as to what actually was proposed or agreed to at Rome, or as to what has been undertaken in consequence since, has contributed to create that disturbance and unrest. All that we know about the Pact—I call it the Pact of Rome—is that it combines two ideals, renewed assurances on the part of the four great Powers of Europe that they will not have recourse to force for the settle- 2757 ment of international disputes, and seine proposal for the revision of treaties, find myself in agreement with the Prime Minister rather than with the hon. Member who opened the Debate in regard to these renewed assurances. There has been a tendency visible in certain circles, and it has even appeared in this House, I regret to say, to consider that the acts of one Government if done on behalf of a nation are binding only on that Government and may be repudiated by their heirs and successors. It is not, therefore, wholly idle to require of a new Government whose intentions may be doubtful and whose words give rise to anxiety, a renewal of all the assurances by which that nation is bound.

I do not, therefore, criticise that proposal, nor do I wish by any words of mine to feed the jealousy which does exist among the small Powers at the co-operation and agreement among the great Powers. I think that anyone is an enemy of peace who says one word to increase that jealousy. It is of great importance, of first importance, that the great Powers, who have the largest resources at their disposal, upon whom will fall in case of catastrophe the heaviest weight of responsibility and who will be expected to make the largest contribution, should cultivate closer and confidential relations, and that as a means of helping to remove enmity and jealousy among others they should remove enmity and jealousy from their own councils. That kind of consultation, that kind of successful consultation and co-operation, does not need a Pact to make it workable. It does not need the reverberating echo a the conversations of Rome to bring it about. The more quietly it is done, the more simply it is done, the less jealousy it will arouse and the more effective it will be. Go to it as Briand and Stresemann went. That is the real road to success, and not these echoing declarations—vague, unsettling, frightening, alarming to those who are not included in your deliberations.

Revision is a dangerous word. Revision should never appear, I venture to think, in the mouth of a statesman or in the policy of a Government until they are prepared to define very closely the limits within which they think revision should take place. The long history of this country has in one sense been a history of the revision of Treaties. We have re- 2758 vised and revised and what have we got for it? What concession once made has any longer kept the value it had before it was revised? Of which of these concessions can it be said at this present moment that it has tempered feeling in Germany, that it has produced that friendly spirit that those who made it desired to promote? What is passing in Germany seems to me to render this a singularly inopportune moment to talk about the revision of Treaties, and I must say that I think it is little good talking so loudly about the revision of Treaties whilst the originators of the conversations repudiate each on its own behalf any idea that concessions are to come from them. I have yet to learn that the head of the Italian Government has withdrawn his opposition to the Anschluss. I have yet to learn that he thinks that one of the frontiers which ought to be revised to the advantage of the beaten Power is the frontier in the Tyrol. If I come to our own country I find the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke to us the other day, repudiating with indignation the idea that it was any part of his programme of revision that Tanganyika or some of the German Colonies should be restored.

Must not we go to work more gently, with much more consideration, with much more knowledge of what exactly we mean, within what limits we are prepared to make concessions, and in exchange for what? Is this the time to talk of revision with what has been happening in Germany before our eyes? A good deal is made in Germany of some sensational propaganda and exaggerations which are said to have appeared in other countries. I dare say such have appeared in this or in other countries, but I do not base my case on that. I have not myself read it, because that is not the kind of paper from which I seek to get information. I have not read it and I do not base anything that I say upon it, but I have read the very restrained accounts of some very responsible correspondents. I have noted that the "Manchester Guardian" is not considered a fit paper for the Germans to have access to. I do not base my observations upon what I have read in serious and responsible papers, written by men who carefully sift the information they send home and whose reputations depend upon its impartiality and its accuracy, but I base my case upon the statements of 2759 Germans in authority. I do not need to go outside them.

I am not going to enter into a discussion of the internal happenings of Germany except in so far as they are applicable and pertinent to a Debate on Foreign Affairs. What is this new spirit of German nationalism 4 The worst of the all-Prussian Imperialism, with an added savagery, a racial pride, an exclusiveness which cannot allow to any fellow-subject not of "pure Nordic birth" equality of rights and citizenship within the nation to which he belongs. Are you going to discuss revision with a Government like that? Are you going to discuss with such a Government the Polish Corridor? The Polish Corridor is inhabited by Poles; do you dare to put another Pole under the heel of such a Government? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to beware of what he is doing. After all, we stand for something in this country. Our traditions count, for our own people, for Europe and for the world. Europe is menaced and Germany is afflicted by this narrow, exclusive, aggressive spirit, by which it is a crime to be in favour of peace and a crime to be a Jew. That is not a Germany to which we can afford to make concessions. That is not a Germany to which Europe can afford to give the equality of which the Prime Minister spoke. That is more than he ever promised. I understood that the promise made by the Five Powers was of equality of status, to be reached by stages. Before you can afford to decide or to urge others to decide, you must see a Germany whose mind is turned to peace, who will use her equality of status to secure her own safety but not to menace the safety of others; a Germany which has learnt not only how to live herself but how to let others live inside her and beside her.

§ Mr. JANNER

As a member of the Jewish community, and more particularly as one who treasures the honour and responsibility of membership of this House, I feel it my duty to add a word on a subject to which reference has already been made—the tragic situation in which the Jewish people in Germany find themselves to-day. Much has been written of the cruelty and violence to which they have been subjected. Some have suggested— 2760 possibly rightly—that there may have been slight exaggeration, but this exaggeration, if any existed, was caused by the rigid censorship which has been imposed by the German Government. I wish to place it on record with the utmost emphasis that the allegation made in Germany that these exaggerations were inspired or manufactured by German Jews or by their co-religionists in other countries is wholly untrue. No responsible Jewish organisation, news agency or newspaper has lent any credence to or propagated any exaggerated reports, for the unhappy reason that the truth itself was serious and sad enough, and nothing more was necessary.

The fact which is most disturbing to the civilised people of the world is the cruelly deliberate policy of suppression which is now in process of active realisation. It is this fact which is filling the world with the gravest anxiety and moving it to urgent protest. There is no question of any exaggeration here. The policy is openly avowed; it is part and parcel—if not the whole—of the Nazi programme, which seeks to extirpate all non-Aryan influence from the national life. Its operation in practice is manifested in the columns of the Nazi Press, which daily publishes long lists of Jewish doctors driven from hospitals, Jewish lawyers and judges expelled from the courts, and Jewish nurses prevented from carrying on their merciful work. Even Jewish sportsmen like Prenn have been forbidden to play. In fact night after night Nazi spokesmen proclaim on the wireless that Jewry will be destroyed.

I will ask the House to remember that the small community subject to this ferocious attack numbers only some 500,000 or 600,000 people within a population of over 60,000,000—less than one in a hundred—and that the Nazis must be singularly distrustful of their country if they think it capable of being subjugated by so small a minority. I would also remind hon. Members that, small as German Jewry is in numbers, it has contributed men of outstanding eminence to the country in all walks of culture. Whether in music, literature or science, Jews have won distinction and enriched the national life. Jewish doctors, in particular, men like Ehrlich, have achieved international fame, as Lord Horder pointed out in a letter to the "Times," 2761 and have won the affectionate gratitude of the poor among whom they have laboured with unstinted devotion. The plea that these men and their co-religionists have not identified themselves with the German nation is a wild perversion of the truth. German Jewry as a community has been settled in the country for many centuries. As early as the year 321 there was a German community. It has rejoiced in its citizenship, and gave some 12,000 lives to the national cause during the World War. Moreover, the whole argument that Jews have not become part of the nation is a transparently dishonest one, seeing that the Nazi policy is devoted precisely to preventing them from doing so, that policy being a race-pure Teuton Germany.

I would therefore suggest that the plan of Jewish suppression is based upon no moral ground, just as its principle is a ridiculous denial of ethnological facts. As such I feel that this House will understand the emotion to which it has given rise among Jews the world over. In this great hour of trial they have received enormous encouragement from the worldwide support and sympathy that have been so spontaneously shown in every direction and from every party. They believe, in particular, that appeals made by this House and from the British people—ever the guardians of religious liberty—will not go unheeded. They also hold that the sufferings which they are enduring arise from a general call for freedom against tyranny. It is therefore as citizens quite as much as Jews that they are asking for support in this deplorable struggle that has been thrust upon them. This country has a splendid tradition in this regard. It stretches back to the far-off days of Cromwell. England's voice has been raised again and again in the cause of the oppressed, and not least of oppressed Jews. It has been heard with respect, and it will be listened to again. Let me say that in this connecton I am by no means convinced that no appeal lies to the League of Nations in this sad emergency. I believe that it is at least open to discussion whether Article 11 of the Covenant could not be invoked. Certainly the German-Polish Convention would seem to be strictly applicable in respect of the treatment of Jews in the German section of Upper Silesia, and I put it to the Government that it is far better in the 2762 cause of peace that the issue should be raised by Great Britain than by Poland, whose relations with Germany are already sufficiently strained.

I also express the earnest hope that the negotiations for treaty revision will not pass without a definite removal of what is after all a source of grave irritation to the establishment of the peace of the world. It is indeed a serious impediment to the establishment of peace for which the Prime Minister is labouring with devotion, that this terrible condition has arisen not only in respect of the Jewish position but in respect of democracy, as far as Germany is concerned. A great predecessor of the Prime Minister once boasted that he brought back from Berlin "Peace with honour." If the Prime Minister can bring back from his impending negotiations peace with security for a much harassed community, His Majesty's Jewish subjects and, I make bold to say, every friend of liberty and justice in this country which includes the whole nation will have cause to rejoice. I am sure the House will bear with me for having intervened in this Debate, but I felt it my duty and only consistent with the desire of the House that a person representing such an important constituency as mine, where feeling is so tense, where the heartbeat of the Jewish community is so strong and where the feelings of so many of all creeds are being aroused by the terrible treatment of their brethren in Germany, should express the earnest hope that the 500,000 persons in a country which is at present oppressing them and who are living in hourly dread of their lives, will be given the satisfaction of knowing that their case is being attended to.

§ Miss RATHBONE

It is not often that even a free-lance like myself finds herself in almost passionate agreement with almost every word that has fallen from two speakers so different usually in their outlook as the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) who began this discussion and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). But that feeling, I think, was shared by Members in all quarters of the House. Since I have been a Member of the House I have seldom been in a Debate in which feeling seemed to be so unanimous. And no wonder, for blind and 2763 thoughtless indeed must anyone be who does not see in the events that are happening in Germany an omen for the rest of the world. A spirit has come over Germany. One speaker called it a new spirit, but I would rather call it a reemergence of an evil spirit which bodes very ill for the peace and freedom of the world.

Most people in this House are old enough to remember a document which most of us would fain forget, the Bryce Report on the Violation of Belgium, and we well remember the shock of horror which spread over the world on the publication of that report. We had known that we were at war, but not that we were at war with an enemy capable of such excesses at the beginning of the conflict, before the evil passions which war engenders might have been expected to reach their full effect. Now that same disposition to brutal excesses is abroad in the land. One may doubt as to the extent to which the responsible authorities in Germany have organised or merely connived at what is happening, and to what extent the people of Germany in general approve or are merely cowed into submission, but there is one dreadful fact beyond doubt, and that is that the party which was guilty of those excesses is now in uncontrolled power in Germany, and is inflicting cruelties and crushing disabilities on large numbers of law-abiding peaceful German citizens, whose only offence is that they belong to a particular race or religion or profess certain political beliefs. I lay stress on the persecution of the Socialists and Pacifists, because less attention has been drawn to that aspect of the German persecutions than to the persecution of the Jews. The "Times" in a recent article said: A significant fact is the fact that practically every prominent man who has openly professed pacifism in Germany is at present under arrest. The authorities in Germany have been as outspoken as they dared to be regarding their real views and intentions. Con-suffer the announcement made the other day, not by Herr Hitler or any of his Nazi colleagues, but by President Hindenburg himself in announcing the change in the standard of the German Reich. By the changes in the Reich military standard and by introducing the old black- 2764 white-red cockade I have given visible expression to the inward affinity of the fighting forces with the resurgent national forces of the German people. In spite of all its heavy shackles the German Reichswehr has in the difficult post-War years preserved the martial idea in the German people. May this outward sign of an inward affinity ever bring to the eyes of the whole nation the realisation that a better future cannot be achieved without the will to defend the homeland. I think that for "defend the homeland" we might substitute the words "revenge the homeland." Consider the Order recently made by the Nazi Commissioner of Justice, revoking the prohibition against duels amongst students. He said: The joy of the duel derives from the fighting spirit which must not be checked but promoted in our academic youth. It strengthens personal courage, self-control and will power. In a time which demands the education of our young manhood in a martial spirit there can be no public interest in preventing students' duels. Again when Herr Hitler was reproaching the Marxists for "the destruction of the Army and Navy and the dissipation of immense quantities of war materials," he said: His Government will rear the nation to reverence before the old Army, in which the youth of Germany shall once more see the mightiest exertion of the nations strength and the symbol of the greatest achievement in history. We in this country have to ask ourselves what lesson we have to draw from these events. First of all we have to admit frankly our own share of blame for the present mood of Germany. If in the years after the War, when the new Republic had been proclaimed, the victorious Powers had been more magnanimous in their treatment of Germany and had refrained from the infliction of crushing burdens and some unnecessary humiliations, there would have been better hope that the mass of the German people would have continued, as they began, to blame their previous rulers for their misfortunes, and would have been content to devote themselves to the task of peaceful economic development and restoration of their country. But those errors, to which I believe our country contributed less than any other of the Allies, belong to the past, and the question now is as to the present facts. It will be a fatal blunder for ourselves, and it would be no true kindness to Germany 2765 to make any concession now which would allow her rulers to claim that they had won for themselves an influence and place in the councils of Europe which had been denied to their predecessors. It would be disastrous to choose the present moment for a revision of the Treaty in any sense that would strengthen either Germany's power of aggression over other countries, or her control over weak and undeveloped peoples. Herr Hitler and his colleagues have let the world see plainly the feelings which they cherish about questions of blood and race. Their treatment of members of the most highly civilised and gifted of all Oriental races, even those members of it who have been for generations peaceful German citizens, shows what their attitude would be towards weaker and less developed peoples, in places where public opinion could not exercise any control. It would be a crime to allow the present Germany any share in mandates.

As to Disarmament, I have always been a strong advocate of international disarmament by agreement. But great a misfortune as would be the failure of the Disarmament Conference, it would be a greater misfortune if any measure of rearmament were permitted to Germany at present. There is a question which is stirring in the minds of many people to-day, and I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is no longer in his place, because I should like to put it directly to him. Are we convinced that Germany is not at present re-arming? Are we sure that Germany is not in fact and in effect converting herself into an armed camp. We have a right to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is satisfied that Germany is not now violating in the letter or the spirit or both the Clause in the Treaty of Versailles which forbids or limits rearmament. I hope the Foreign Secretary if he does not give a full answer to that question to-day will choose an early opportunity after our reassembly to give the House the fullest answer possible. Whether the facts are pleasant or unpleasant Parliament and the country have a right to know them. This is a question which neither the Government nor the League of Nations can afford to shirk and however difficult and delicate it may be, it must be faced boldly.

§ Major NATHAN

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), delivered with all the authority of a former Foreign Secretary; the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and other speeches, both within and without this Chamber, and the British Press which is almost unanimous, indeed I think quite unanimous in its expression of opinion, make it clear that it is not necessary to be a Jew in order to feel horror and indignation at the sufferings which are being inflicted on Jews in Germany at this time. On an occasion like this it would be impossible for one like myself, who is a Jew by profession of faith and by blood, not to participate in this Debate by the indulgence of the House. The hon. Member who opened the Debate, taking a wide survey of Europe, pointed out how democracy had suffered during the last few years. In Germany, democracy, born out of the misfortunes of the War, has, for the time, collapsed under the misfortunes of the peace. All the hard and arduous work of Doctor Stresemann—it killed him—and of Doctor Bruening—it broke him—over a period of years to bring Germany back to the comity of nations has, almost in a moment, been destroyed. I believe those who are now in power in Germany, Herr Hitler, Captain Goering, Dr. Goebels and their Nazis, have for the moment, at least dissipated the prospects of Europe being rendered safe for democracy. They have roused the moral conscience of the world against Germany.

There has doubtless been in regard to the lawless outrages in Germany a good deal of exaggeration. That was bound to happen in such circumstances, when the German Government imposed such a strict censorship that only those who escaped could tell the tale to the world outside. But the responsible correspondents of the British Press in Germany have made the facts sufficiently clear and, as far as my information goes, and I have used every effort to seek information and to see that it is accurate, while it may be true that the atrocities have been exaggerated in extent it is not true that they have been exaggerated in intensity. If I wished to harrow feeling or foment passion in this House, I have here material which would enable me to do so. I refrain from doing so but after discounting all exaggeration, 2767 there is no room for doubt that Germany is, at this time, failing to conform to the lowest common denominator of modern civilisation, and the principles which are the pre-requisite to her position of equality of status with the nations of the world. Do not let it be thought that these cruel atrocities and outrages have been perpetrated only upon the Jewish population of Germany. They are, perhaps, the smaller number of those who have suffered. Great bodies of political opponents of the Nazi party have suffered like outrages—imprisonment, exile, to say nothing of personal assault—for no other reason than that they are political opponents.

I am not sure that the most formidable feature of the situation is not that injury, perhaps mortal injury, is being done to the vital principle of freedom of conscience and of speech. No less than liberty herself is at stake in Germany at this moment. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham I do not rely upon the evidence of the victims themselves for what I say about the situation in Germany to-day. I quote from the official programme of the Nazi party. It is not a programme of to-day or yesterday or even a year ago but a programme which is over 10 years old. The Nazis are at present in Germany, deliberately carrying out a carefully planned policy and here are two of its 25 points. First, Jews must be deprived of the rights of citizens. A new class is to be created in Germany, a class of noncitizens. Then, Jews must not hold official or semi-official positions. What does that mean, reduced to plain terms? It means that the Jews are denied the elementary rights of citizenship. They pay their taxes to the State, they obey the laws of the State, but they have none of the elementary rights which membership of the State confers. They have duties, but they have no rights. They have a full claim to citizenship, but they are treated as outlaws. See how that works out in reference to the tales of atrocities. I can quite understand how, in moments of revolutionary excitement, groups of irresponsible youths, maddened by militarist propaganda of the most vicious type, fed on hate and nurtured on lies, may here and there break out into acts of violence. But the serious thing, and what shocks the conscience of 2768 the world is that there is no attempt to control them, still less any attempt to punish them. On the contrary, they are treated as something like heroes who deserve well of the Republic.

I am not at all sure that the most serious feature of the present situation is not this, that Germany is so cowed that at the moment not a single responsible voice has been raised in Germany itself against the terror that has been existing there. After the physical terror comes what is far more formidable, far more lasting, and that is the economic terror. That is an outrage upon a race that in peace and war has served Germany well. I am going to give to the House examples of the sort of thing that is happening, and these are cases for which I can vouch, for they come within my own knowledge. I know a family of Jews that has lived in a great German city since the year 1604. Its ancestry can be traced back in that city for more than 300 years. They are Jews by birth, Jews by faith and Jews by race. The man of whom I am thinking is a lawyer. He served in the German Army as a private, and he served on the Russian front. At this moment, that Jew, with 300 years of German history behind him, is a refugee in this country, deprived of the means of livelihood. Let me take another friend of mine, also a lawyer, with perhaps the leading practice in one of the great German cities. Of his four grandparents, three were non-Jewish and one alone was Jewish. He himself is a Christian. He served in the German Army as an officer, and he was awarded the Iron Cross and some distinction, the name of which I forget, for valour. One grandfather was a Jew. To-day that man is a refugee in Scandinavia.

In the city of London the other day there was a telephone message sent to Leipsic, and the man sending the message was speaking to his brother. He asked his brother what the situation was in Germany, as he was very much alarmed. This is the answer that he got: "Oh, everything is beautiful here. Don't worry about us in the least. All these tales of atrocities are all nonsense. We are carrying on our business just as usual. Don't waste your money on telephoning all the way from London to me here in Leipsic." The man in London, within 24 hours from that telephone conversation, received a telegram from his 2769 brother, to whom he had spoken at Leipsic, but who was then in Holland, and the telegram said: "Happy to say arrived safely in Holland." The terrorism in Germany at present is something that we in happy, free England cannot really understand at all.

There is a short time only for the Debate, and there are others who desire to take part in it. I have no desire to prolong unnecessarily anything that I have to say, and therefore I bring myself at once to the point of asking what, in these circumstances, is the appropriate action for the British Government to take. I understand, and I fully subscribe to, the view that one sovereign State cannot interfere with the internal affairs of another, but I am not quite sure whether even those who subscribe most firmly to that view would also consider that questions of racial and religious persecution are entirely matters of internal policy. Humanity has no frontiers, and freedom has no boundaries. There have been precedents for the action of Great Britain in such circumstances as those which now prevail in Germany. I believe I am accurate in saying that in a, situation some 20 years ago in which persecution of the Jews was taking place in Russia, the late King Edward, on the advice of his Ministers, held language with the Tsar of Russia upon this subject, with a view to obtaining a modification of the conditions in Russia, and with the result of obtaining a modification of the conditions relating to Jews in Russia.

Therefore, the suggestion that the British Government should make representations to a foreign Power upon such a subject is by no means one for which there is no precedent, and I ask, as I should have asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had he been present—I fully understand the reasons why he is not—whether he will not make representations to the German Government that British public opinion is so much affected by the occurrences in Germany, and not in relation to the Jews alone, that the effect may well be to make most difficult the re-entry of Germany into the community of nations with the equality of status which she claims. I do not think it would be out of the way if the Foreign Secretary were to point out to Germany the old English 2770 adage that "He who seeks equity must do equity." It is only equity that is desired from the German Government in relation to its citizens, both Jews and otherwise, who are now suffering from the terror, both physical and economic.

There is also the question of whether the British Government can initiate action before the League of Nations. There is a German-Polish Convention of 1922, under the terms of which it is stated, I believe I am right in saying, that the position of minorities in Germany is a matter of international concern. Great Britain has long been the mouthpiece of the world when questions of liberty are involved, and for the protection of minorities against racial and religious persecution ought not the voice of this country to be raised in the halls of the League of Nations? I also add my voice to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in suggesting that the Foreign Secretary should make it clear to Germany that she cannot expect that treaties will be revised, even to secure to her what many of us believe to be her just demands, unless she makes liberty and justice secure within her own borders. Let Germany show a response to the public opinion of the world, and let her enshrine liberty firmly in her own country. It may not then be long before she is restored to that equality of status which she seeks.

§ Captain CAZALET

There will be a chorus of approval of the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). There can be no question in any quarter of the House as to the opinion of the people of this country on recent events in Germany, and I cannot imagine anything more effective than the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who has been for the last 15 years the best friend that Germany ever had. I cannot imagine an appeal which will do more to mitigate, alter and relieve the conditions of that country than the speech that he has made to-day. I happen to come of Huguenot origin and I am cognisant of what they owe to the hospitality which was meted out to them by this country in days gone by; and I only hope and trust that this country will once again open its doors to many of those who are being persecuted and who find no happiness in living on the Continent to-day.

2771 One of the difficulties of the position is that, whatever the Government may feel in regard to this matter, they have to continue negotiations with the de facto Government in Germany. I know that whenever one takes a point of view in regard to foreign affairs or to any specific aspect of them, one is bound to be labelled at once pro-German or anti-French or pro-Polish. I appreciate the fact that if you live on the Continent it is almost impossible not to be prejudiced in regard to these questions. We in our island security, however, can view these particular problems with a certain amount of dispassion. Therefore, I believe that the Government of this country have a peculiarly important part to play in revising, if it be necessary, the map of Europe. I take the traditional English point of view that if only some of those foreigners who get so excited and talk so much and GO fast, would allow their affairs to be settled by a small group of sensible, sane Englishmen round a table, it would be better for all concerned. I confess that the more I travel in Europe the more confirmed I am in that belief. It seemed to me in the last few months that Europe was getting down to facing the realities of the situation, and it is particularly unfortunate that, just at the moment when there was some hope of a revision of conditions, we should be faced with the present Government in Germany, which, I believe, has set back all hopes of revision for months, perhaps for years.

I have visited all the plague spots of Europe, from Lithuania to Albania, and whenever one suggested some alteration, one was always told, "Leave it alone; it will work itself out. You cannot begin to alter the Treaty of Versailles, for it has been working 10, 12 or 15 years, as the case may be." Although for the individual or the Government leaving problems to find their own solution may be a satisfactory policy, it has not worked as regards Europe. It is certain that unless Europe can at the same time revise certain aspects of the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties, the treaties themselves will be torn up. Revision of treaties is no new factor in the history of Europe. It is 15 years since the end of the Great War, and it was 15 years after Waterloo and after the Congress of Europe had imposed a peace upon Europe, that the 2772 first measure of revision of that treaty came in the partition of Holland into two separate countries. I am certain that to the legitimist, Conservative, orthodox view of that time, the solution of that problem was considered no more impossible and difficult than many of the problems of to-day.

I think it is true that the economic depression which has existed during the past 10 years has exacerbated, increased and deepened the political problems of Europe. Had trade prospered and commercial treaties and lowering of tariffs been the order of the day, instead of restrictions and the erection of barriers, the atmosphere would have been very different indeed. For instance, take the case of the Balkans. It is clear from the various conferences that have been held recently, that the only hope of salvation and the solution of the problems in that part of the world is some form of economic unit rather on the lines of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The German and Polish question has been exacerbated by the fact that even to-day there is no commercial treaty between Germany and Poland, and along the whole of that long frontier there is practically no trade operating to-day. Again, I believe that no diplomatic relations are yet established between Poland and Lithuania, and yet Lithuania ought to be the highway for much of the export trade of Poland. These situations have not really been faced, and there has been no open discussion. There has, however, been intense propaganda, and false expectations have been aroused both by the victors and by the vanquished in the late War. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if there is to be revision the victors, no less than the vanquished, have to make concessions.

May I refer to the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Italy? The real trouble about the so-called Pact of Rome, or the Four-Power Pact, or whatever it may be called, was its publicity. I know that it is rather the fashion these days to criticise and abuse the Prime Minister. I feel that he is perhaps the fit and proper target for criticism, and I have myself made some criticisms of him in the past. We were, however, approaching a condition similar to the pre-War situation. Europe was being divided into armed camps—on the one band, Germany, Italy and the small entente of Austria, Hun- 2773 gary and Bulgaria, and on the other side France and Poland and the little entente. The situation was dangerous, war was in the air, and on the Continent everybody was talking about it. There is this further difficulty, that if we are agreed upon the fact that certain revisions in Europe are necessary, then in order to get those revisions the assistance and co-operation of France are essential. With good will, I believe, we could effect certain changes; without good will those changes are absolutely impossible now or at any other time, and I do believe that the Prime Minister's visit to Rome did, at any rate temporarily, break up, or do something to break up, those sharp divisions in Europe, and did definitely contribute something towards making Europe realise that the solution of European problems does not lie along the old pathway of pre-War conditions and the pre-War balance of power.

The Prime Minister does things and says things in his own way, but as long as he achieves the end which we all desire, I have no fault to find with that. Call is the Pact of Rome, or whatever you like, I must admit that I call it common sense, from this point of view, that we have not yet reached that stage of international Utopia in which the great Powers are prepared to have their individuality swamped by the votes of small Powers. However excellent the advice of Peru may be, or however deserved may be the criticisms of Paraguay, I do not think we have yet reached the state of international co-operation where these considerations can be a deciding factor in world affairs. Of course the League of Nations has its place and its work, and I hope and trust that all these revisions, if and when they come, can be accomplished within the framework of the League of Nations, for unless the League of Nations continues to have the united support of the so-called great Powers, it ceases to be an effective force in world politics.

One final word as regards the Prime Minister's visit to the United States of America. I confess that I have always been one of those who thought that, however important may be our duty and our policy in regard to Europe, it is as nothing compared to the necessity for co-operation between this country and the United States of America. I have always wished to 2774 say this, and I will do so to-day. I have always hoped that so intimate would be the association between ourselves and the United States of America that, in regard to naval matters, for instance, we might allocate at the Admiralty a floor or suite of rooms to officials of the American Navy, that nothing should be hid behind us, that everything should be done to proclaim publicly the complete unity of action between this country and the United States of America; and I, for one, have always regarded every battleship or cruiser which the United States may have and may build as au addition to the English Navy. I recognise that in the past the United States of America has not always been either an easy or a willing collaborator. It seems to me that she has found it difficult, sometimes, to know exactly what she really wants. She has never been able to make up her mind whether to play a part in international affairs or to remain in prosperous and splendid isolation.

To-day all that is changed. Anyone who visited the United States during the past year would recognise the tremendous change which has come over public opinion in regard to America's attitude to the rest of the world, and in particular to this country. All is changed. What was impossible five years ago is not only possible to-day but would, I believe, be welcomed both by the executive and by the public in the United States. The Prime Minister will find the position in the United States an exceptional one. There is a new President and public opinion has completely altered, and I hope and trust he may be able, while the right hon. Gentleman is in conversation with President Roosevelt, to lay those foundations which, in their turn, will ensure the success of the World Economic Conference, which in its turn will bring some measure of security, hope and comfort to the struggling masses of mankind, and I, for one, wish him a successful journey.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

The speech which I had prepared for to-day is torn up. Everything I wished to say has been said far better than I could say it by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), 2775 in speeches which, I believe, have been the finest of their career. They have voiced not only the true English sentiment, but they have voiced, I believe, the views of the whole of this House and of the country. The revision of the treaties is dead—killed by two speeches, or, rather, killed not so much by those two speeches as by that which caused them. All here to-day realise that all that they have said and done in European politics during the last 13 years has to be scrapped. The views which we expressed we must now regret, and we have to-day, in the face of Europe, to formulate a new position, a position which, I think, has been admirably expressed in those two speeches. The Prime Minister is going to America. With the last speaker I hope that he is going to America to lay the foundations of a slew foreign policy of the closest co-operation between ourselves and America. I hope that that will be the result of the visit. The question of the settlement of the American debt, the question of the date of the Economic Conference, the question, even, of the restoration of the Gold Standard, are small compared with the vital importance of securing real co-operation in future between the only two liberal countries, liberal great Powers, left in the world.

I could have wished that it had been the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) who was going to America instead of the Prime Minister. I think that he realises perhaps better even than does the Prime Minister that the settlement of the debt is a question which does not matter in comparison with the settlement of sources of difficulty between the two nations, and that it would be infinitely better to pay, and go on paying for ever, every penny of that debt rather than that we should be accused of dishonourable conduct by those people who have trusted us in the past and whom we trust in the future. But I do not think there is now much danger of difficulty over that. We have realised that the settlement of the debt is a settlement of a merely financial difficulty which was obstructing the good relations of two peoples.

I wish to say one or two words on what has gone on in Germany. The corner boys of Germany have disgraced their country, and in the language of Italy I 2776 would say: Non ragionam di for ma guarda e passes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Translate!"] It means: "You need not talk about those people, but watch for what they are and pass by on the other side." As a result of what has gone on in Germany, I would like to see the strengthening of this country and of the British race by the admission freely into this country of those elements which are now suffering from persecution. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) who has just spoken is a Huguenot of distinguished Huguenot ancestry. Does not everybody to-day realise the enormous strengthening of the Anglo-Saxon race that has come from the admission of those Huguenot migrants into this country? They were flying from a persecution that was, I suppose, as bad as that which reigns in Germany to-day. The dragonnades of Louis XIV sent to this country an element of religion and of independence, and a commercial and intellectual element which has been of inestimable service to this country in war and in peace. I would beg the Government not to miss this opportunity of so benefiting England to-day and in the future. There we have, driven out of Germany, flying, when they can fly, to all the neighbouring countries, the thinkers, the intellectually-independent people, scientists, doctors, civil servants, artists and musicians.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN

Workmen as well.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

Yes, all those people are asking for a home. I wish we had the Home Secretary present. To-day those people are being turned back at Harwich, while nations like France, Belgium, Spain—rejuvenated Spain—are welcoming this new intellectual element. Those scientists would be our business men of the future, just as the Huguenots brought us the silk trade, made Norwich and made Leek in my own county of Staffordshire. The Huguenot element built up a great export trade for this country. We are now anxious to import foreign capital into this country; how much better is it to import foreign brains and amalgamate them. I do not speak from the obvious humanitarian point of view, but from the point of view of the material advantage of this country. Get those people in.

The House will remember that at the beginning of the War we threw our homes 2777 open in this country to the people who were flying from Belgium. That was one of the finest effects of the early enthusiasm for our cause. It was humane, and it was also materially advantageous. They produced munitions and helped us in the War. We showed a great sign of international friendship. I wish to-day that we could do the same. Do not leave it to the Jews. Let English people see whether they, too, cannot receive these people into their family to make a home here, and to show that whatever the Prussian Aryan may feel about the Jews, or the peace-mongers or even the Socialists, we in this country realise the value of brains and the duty of hospitality to the oppressed. The position at the present time is almost humiliating for an Englishman. Those people are being welcomed in every foreign country, but here nothing is being done. Speeches are made in this House and the subject is given a good run in the Press of all parties, but still the door remains closed. I wish that one result of this Debate to-day might be the opening of those doors, and the welcoming here not merely of the scientists who make the trade of the future, not merely of the doctors whom in the past all the world has gone to seek in Germany, but of those political exiles about whose fate we hear less, and who are now under preventive arrest in a dozen concentration camps throughout Germany. I wish that we might welcome those men, the free spirits of a free people, who decline to live in a land where liberty is no longer allowed, and get them here to strengthen our home and our love of liberty.

§ Brigadier-General SPEARS

I will not detain the House more than a very few moments, because I, like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has expressed not only my feeling and the feelings of the majority of the House, but the feelings of the country as a whole. I hope that the Government will take the warning, which came from one who has supported them, who is an ardent advocate of peace and of the League of Nations and who would not have spoken as he spoke if he did not think that there was real danger. The Prime Minister said, and I noted it 2778 as he spoke, that what had taken place at Rome was a "revision for peace and that that had been clear from the beginning." All I can say is that I listened with the utmost care to every word of his speech when he came back from Rome, and that I did not understand his meaning. Attributing my lack of understanding to my own stupidity, I looked about me, and I found that any neighbours and colleagues in the House were in exactly the same position as I was. I would add that what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman to-day has not added one scrap of light to his previous utterances.

How can it be said that the matter is clear from the beginning, in view of the impression made on the small nations concerned and what they have said on the subject? It is public knowledge that Ministers from these different countries have come here and used very strong language indeed on the subject. It certainly has not been clear from the beginning what the intentions of the Government were, nor has it been clear that those intentions were likely to promote peace. In view of the lack of clarity in regard to the whole situation, I make a specific demand of the Government, and that is that they should publish a White Paper. We have no idea what was the starting point of all this. There have been utterances of all kinds; there have been communiques, the best informed of which seems to have been one published in the French newspaper "Le Matin"; but none of us know what was the wording of the proposed Four Power Pact that started this very serious trouble, and, therefore, I request that we should be furnished with a White Paper containing the major negotiations and correspondence that have taken place.

I should not, perhaps, have intervened even to put that question if I did not consider that the action taken at Rome has raised yet a new danger in Europe, on the top of so many others already existing. What occurred in Rome has done nothing less than make preventive war a possibility. On the top of the grave anxieties raised by Germany itself, to a good many nations it looks as if the very foundations of the League of Nations were being undermined, and a kind of consortium of four nations was to rule the roost; and what sort of organisa- 2779 tion of four Powers? What sort of unity would there be within that Pact of four nations? The only two nations united within it would be Germany and Italy. France would have stood anxiously outside, watching these two, and we should have gone on, I suppose, standing now on one leg and then on another, quite unable to make up our mind who to support. When it became evident, or, at least, it appeared likely, that there was a possibility of the Four Power Pact being implemented, the idea arose among some nations that, after all, perhaps, it would be better to fall upon Germany before she developed her full strength, rather than wait and be devoured piecemeal, or be bludgeoned by the Central Powers if they were allowed to consolidate their strength uncontrolled. That possibility is not yet a real danger, perhaps, but it is one that will materialise unless we strengthen the idea of security at the centre.

This idea of security has been raised by certain speakers to-day, and I am very glad of it, because it has so often appeared to me that the essential importance of security escaped the general sense of this House. I saw in the papers this morning that M. Herriot made a speech of the very highest interest, which ought to be studied with great care by us here. M. Herriot said that, once Germany has obtained equality in armaments on land, she is going to ask for naval equality as well, and colonial equality too. There was a time when Germany, being so entirely occupied with her Army, could not possibly attain naval equality with ourselves; but in the future that will not be so. Germany's entire energies will not be taken up with her Army; she will be able also to build up a navy equal to our own. I dare say it has got to come, but I say that, when that day does come, we shall be very glad if there is somewhere an organisation to which we can look for security and for the protection of our frontiers should they ever be invaded.

One last point. It was referred to by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). The hon. Lady asked whether Germany was rearming or not. I ask the Government again a specific question on this point. In their view, is Article 162 of the 2780 Treaty of Versailles being violated, or is it not; and, if they consider that it is being violated, what are they going to do about it? I know that in the view of many it has been violated; in fact, I do not see how anybody can deny this. That Article provides for limiting the police forces allowed to Germany. We know that there have been enormous additions to those forces. Stahlhelm, Nazis, and storm troops have been more or less officially, but in some cases by decree, embodied in the armed police forces of Germany; they are being drilled in barracks; and, if all the armed and partially armed forces of Germany were taken into consideration, she has more drilled men to-day than any other country in Europe. Are we going to tolerate that because they are called something else? Because they are not actually police, but are called auxiliary police, are we going to tolerate the recruiting of all these armed men outside and beyond what is permitted by the Treaty of Versailles? Are we going to allow ourselves to be put off by words? If we allow the Treaty to be infringed in this respect to-day we will not have a leg to stand upon later on should major infringements occur. I do ask the Government most respectfully if they will be kind enough to give us their views on this extremely important subject upon which, I consider, the House is entitled to be enlightened.

§ Mr. MALLALIEU

There are possibly very few things which we in this House can do actively to put an end to the oppression which we feel is going on in Germany to-day. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has suggested one small amelioration of the lot of the victims of that oppression who manage to escape, and with which I would humbly and cordially agree. I think the unanimity with which feeling has been expressed in this House and in this country may, in some degree, bring consolation, if not active help, to those who are being oppressed in Germany now. There is only one thing which I would like to point out with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). His father before him 2781 had, and now the right hon. Gentleman has an immense influence in France. If only the right hon. Gentleman would use that influence in France, and be as frank with the French as he has been to-day with the Germans, there might be a much greater chance of peace in Europe in the years to come.

I would like to go back to the economic position which has been touched upon in the earlier part of the Debate. We have been accustomed to hear from leading politicians and industrialists for the last three or four years that the moment has now arrived, that the tide is going to turn, that normal activities and prosperity will return to industry and agriculture. But we have had painfully to realise so often that this was merely well-meaning aspiration on their part, based largely upon ignorance, or upon woolly thought as to the real causes of the depression. It does seem to me that at this time there has been a remarkable waking up, not only in this country but in other countries, as to the root causes of this evil which has been weighing down the world. Responsible politicians, and almost all the reputable economists, have been pointing out the fact that, in spite of the forceful fulminations of the Minister of Agriculture about glut, lie position is not one of glut but of hindrance to the distribution of the plenty we have in the world. This hindrance this time has worked such havoc upon the distributive system of the world that people are prepared to listen to reason about it.

It is really the imminent collapse of the system of world trade which has driven the countries to meet together at the forthcoming Economic Conference, and which is taking the Prime Minister across to America shortly. The signs of change of view with reference to hindrance to trade have been most conspicuous in America, which was formerly a stronghold of the doctrine of isolation and economic nationalism. In this country, too, we have had most powerful pleas by such respected persons as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). But it is more particularly the signs in America to which I would like to draw the attention of the Government. From the word "Go" in the term of office of President Roosevelt, he indicated which way he was going to try to lead his own country; to- 2782 wards being a better neighbour than it had hitherto been. Only two days ago his Secretary of State, Senator Hull, made a most remarkable declaration on fiscal policy when he said that the chief aim of the United States in the forthcoming economic discussion will be to lead the world out of the morass of economic nationalism. He went on to add that the United States had been one of the nations chiefly responsible for the disastrous tariff race, and also one of the hardest hit.

In yesterday's "Financial News" the need for the complete reversal of the United States fiscal policy was again urged by Mr. Roper, the Secretary for Commerce. Discussing the preparations for the World Economic Conference he stated that trade barriers must be lowered if the movement of goods between nations was to be restored. The United States, according to Mr. Roper, should lead, in what should be done by nations throughout the world; and he said that the United States was now definitely committed to an international economic policy of fair play. That is precisely what I would urge our Government to do also. Our Government have not, in the past, been so wedded to the isolationist theories which have dominated the United States. If, at the same time, it were possible for our Government to secure support for a policy of eliminating from international trade such uneconomic interferences as export subsidies and subsidies to shipping, then, indeed, it would be a great day for fair trade, which is, apparently, the avowed object of this Government, and certainly of those who sit upon these benches.

I am not suggesting that tariffs, and so forth, are the only obstacles to world recovery. I do, however, say most emphatically that the abolition, or substantial lowering of world tariffs, is by far the most likely line of policy at the present time. In view of the changed attitude in the United States, and in other countries, too, it is the most likely policy to succeed, and it has by far the greatest possibility of any one stroke of policy for world recovery. Now the last word on this subject, apart from the pleasing generalities which the Prime Minister gave us this morning, was a speech by the President of the Board of Trade on 15th March. There are two 2783 passages to which I would like to refer, and which, I hope, I have misinterpreted. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the proposition that there should be established a low tariff group. He said: If there is to be anything in the nature of a low tariff group, we must examine how far it is likely to affect our own manufacturers and exporters and importers. That will be our first duty. When we have examined that we shall be better able to know how to deal with proposals that are placed before us. He went on to indicate certain limits which he thought would have to be in operation, and he said: Within those limits we are ready to consider any proposals that may be put forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1933; col. 2023–4, Vol. 275.] That is all right as far as it goes, but there is no indication in that speech of any lead to the world. Are the Government in this respect merely going to adorn the conference with their dignified silence, and possibly pass judgment upon proposals which will be put before it? Are they merely going to be passengers in the world economic omnibus and leave all the constructive proposals to the Portuguese and the Greeks, or are they really going to take a lead and make definite proposals and use their influence actively to create the formation of such a group, a Free Trade group if it can be obtained, and, if not, a low tariff group? Such influence actively exerted would commit the Government to nothing until a treaty had been signed. I appreciate the point of the President of the Board of Trade, who said that it would be unwise to throw up our existing rights under existing treaties if the area of the new low tariff group were to be highly restricted; but surely it is no argument against actively pursuing a policy of forming such a group and attempting to secure for it the widest possible acceptance?

I do not suppose that hon. Members either know or are in the least interested in the particular views that I hold upon the fiscal question, and I would not parade those views before the House were it not in order to make clear what I shall subsequently say. I am one of the last ditchers of Free Trade. The Government have adopted a policy with which I could scarcely be in agreement. Their object, however, is apparently my object, to free world trade. I may dis- 2784 agree with their method, but the question of who is right, whether to use the big stick or not to use it, is now on trial, and it may very well be that by the end of this year, after the World Economic Conference has finished, I may be found wrong, and I very sincerely hope that I shall be. If I am found wrong, I shall be the very first to go upon a pilgrimage to Cleckheaton, or even to St. Ives, to worship at the shrine of the big stick. I implore the Government to make that pilgrimage incumbent upon me by so carrying on at the conference, and by the Prime Minister so carrying on at the deliberations that are about to take place, that they shall really seize this gift which is being offered to them—the changed situation in the United States—and pull off the one big stroke which is within their power, to bring back prosperity to international trade.

§ Mr. J. P. MORRIS

I never felt more proud of being a Member of this House than when listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). It was a speech of superb statesmanship. It breathed tolerance and justice. I am only sorry that among the leaders of German political thought there is not such a representative as the Member for West Birmingham. I wish to refer to the persecution of the Jews. I have on the Order Paper a Motion which states that this House, while not desirous of interfering with the domestic government of any nation, deplores the continued persecution of the Jews in Germany and requests His Majesty's Government to make friendly representations to the German Government to respect the numerical weakness and the defenceless position of the Jews in that country. Unfortunately, owing to the pressure of public business, I was informed by the Prime Minister that it was not possible to have a day for the discussion of my Motion.

The whole of the people of this country are definitely opposed to the policy of the Jewish persecution in Germany, a persecution which is depriving the Jews of that country of the elementary rights of citizenship. Public opinion throughout the world sympathises with German Jewry, and it is only owing to the existence of that world public opinion that 2785 there has been a mitigation of the persecution. Already the boycott has been abandoned and the German Minister of Justice has increased the number of German lawyers who will be allowed to practise in the courts in Berlin. It is just as well that Germany should know that in place she cannot succeed with world opinion ranged against her, just as she found in the Great War.

A few days ago a question was addressed to the Foreign Minister asking whether it was possible that anything could be done through the League of Nations to help the German Jews, but more particularly the Jews in Upper Silesia. The reply was that it was doubtful whether Article 11 of the Covenant could be invoked, because it should only be applied in grave cases which might effectually menace the peace of nations. Such a guarded statement leaves the ground open for further examination as to whether the League, if it desires to act, can do so legally. In so far as the Jews in Upper Silesia are concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that they are protected by the Geneva Convention of 1922 which still has another five years to run. In this Convention Germany recognises the Jews in Upper Silesia as a minority and undertakes that German subjects belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and the same guarantees both in law and fact as other German subjects. It also recognises that all German subjects, Jews included, are entitled to admission to public employment and to the exercise of professions and industries, and it further recognises that these undertakings are obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. Furthermore, Article 72 reads: Germany agrees that any member of the council of the League of Nations shall have the right to draw the attention of the council to any infraction of any of its obligations, and that the council may proceed in such a manner and give instructions as may appear to it appropriate and effectual in the circumstances. Therefore, I submit that if the Jews in Upper Silesia have been subjected to persecution because they are Jews, then, by Germany's admission, any member of the League Council is entitled to raise this question. I agree that the Jews in Germany in general are not covered by the Convention of 1922, but if the Jews in one 2786 part of the jurisdiction of the country are protected by international obligations, surely the Government of that country cannot escape the moral responsibility of extending the same guarantee to the Jews of its own nationality. There are two further points to which I wish to call the attention of the Foreign Secretary. Article 4 of the Covenant says: The council may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League for effecting the peace of the world. Article 11 reads: It is also declared to be the friendly right of each member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends. It is reported by Reuter that there is now dangerous tension between Poland and Germany and that relations are severely strained. Anti-German demonstrations have taken place in Poland, and the Anti-German boycott is extending. The German Minister in Warsaw has protested, and on four occasions the Polish Minister has made protests in Berlin. A German paper has had the headline "Poland incites to war." In my opinion, nothing for many years has been so well calculated to disturb the peace of the world than the German persecution of the Jews. In the interests of world peace, the question of Jewish persecution ought to be brought before the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government are better fitted than any other Government in the world to perform that duty, and, in accordance with our ancient traditions and precedents, I implore His Majesty's Government to perform that noble duty, and thereby convey to the Jews of this country a message of hope, that in the near future their co-religionists in Germany will have restored to them their rights of citizenship as Germans.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

This has not only been a deeply interesting but a memorable Debate. We had in the opening speech of the spokesman of the Opposition the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) a most weighty and helpful contribution to this discussion, and one which, I am sure, will have an influence far beyond the limits of this country. We 2787 had the very fine speech of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). These two speeches taken together, and the obvious attitude of the House, in all parties, will, I believe, do something to steady the situation, and will be more helpful than many far more flowery utterances which have dealt only with the smoother side of things. Naturally, both those speeches were very agreeable to me, and I shall venture this afternoon to follow up the course which I have adopted for some time now of pressing a view upon foreign affairs based, first of all, upon a study of the realities of the European situation and aiming throughout at increasing the detachment of Great Britain from the more serious dangers which may arise there.

I have heard, as everyone has of late years, a great deal of denunciation of the treaties of peace, of the Treaties of Versailles and of Trianon. I believe that that denunciation has been very much exaggerated, and, in its effect, harmful. These treaties, at any rate, were founded upon the strongest principle alive in the world to-day, the principle of nationalism, or, as President Wilson called it, self-determination. That was the principle which governed the making of those two treaties. The principle of self-determination or of nationalism applied to all the big Powers. Over the whole area of Middle and Eastern Europe this principle of nationalism has been applied. Europe to-day corresponds in its ethnological groupings in a manner that it has never corresponded before. You may think that nationalism has been excessively manifested in modern times. That may well be so. It may well be that it has a very dangerous side, but we must not fail to recognise that it is the strongest force now at work.

I remember, many years ago, hearing the late Mr. Tim Healy replying to a question that he put to himself, "What is nationalism?" and he said: "Something that men will die for." There is the foundation upon which we must examine the state of Europe and by which we should be guided in picking our way through the very serious dangers which concern us there. Of course, in applying this principle of nationalism to the defeated States after the War it was 2788 inevitable that mistakes and some injustices should occur. There are places where the populations are inextricably intermingled. There are some countries where an island of one race is surrounded by an area inhabited by another. There were all kinds of anomalies, and it would have defied the wit of man to make an absolutely perfect solution. In fact no complete solution on ethnographical lines would have been possible unless you had done what was done in the case of Greece and Turkey, that is, the physical disentangling of the population, the sending of the Turks back to Turkey and of the Greeks back to Greece.

I recognise the anomalies and I recognise the injustices, but they are only a tiny proportion of the great work of consolidation and appeasement which has been achieved and is represented by the Treaties that ended the War. Europe has never rested so securely in its beds in accordance with the heart's desires of the nationalities and races of which it is composed. It would be a blessed thing if we could mitigate these anomalies and grievances, but we can only do that if and when there has been established a strong confidence that the Treaties themselves are not going to be deranged. So long as the Treaties are in any way challenged as a whole it will be impossible to procure a patient consideration for the redress of the anomalies. The more you wish to remove the anomalies and grievances the more you should emphasise respect for the Treaties. I think it is the first rule of British foreign policy to emphasise respect for these great Treaties, and to make those nations, whose national existence depends upon and arises from the Treaties feel that no challenge is levelled at their security. Instead of that I am bound to say that for a good many years a lot of vague and general abuse has been levelled at the Treaties with the result that these powerful States, some of them very powerful States, comprising enormous numbers of citizens—the Little Entente and Poland together represent 80,000,000, strongly armed—have felt that their position has been challenged and endangered by the movement to alter the Treaties. In consequence, you do not get the consideration which in other circumstances you might get for the undoubted 2789 improvements which are required in various directions.

The Prime Minister last year, in a speech at Geneva, used a very striking phrase when he described Europe as a house inhabited by ghosts. I think that is to misinterpret the situation. Europe is a house inhabited by fierce, strong, living entities. Poland is not a ghost. Poland is a reincarnation. I think it a wonderful thing that Polish unity should have re-emerged from long hideous eclipse and bondage, when the Poles were divided between three empires and made to fight one another in all the wars that took place. I rejoice that Poland has been reconstituted. I cannot think of any event arising out of the Great War which can be considered to be a more thoroughly righteous result of the struggle than the reunion of this people, who have preserved their national soul through all the years of oppression and division anal whose reconstitution of their nationhood is one of the most striking facts in European history. Do not let us be led, because there are many aspects of Polish policy that we do not like or agree with, into dwelling upon the small points of disagreement, and then forget what a very great work has been achieved, a work of liberation and of justice, in the reconstitution of Poland. I trust she will live long to enjoy the freedom of the lands which belong to her, a freedom which was gained by the swords of the victorious Allies.

We may look elsewhere. There is Bohemia, the land of Good King Wenceslas, which has emerged with its own identity re-established. There are all the small countries on the Baltic, all holding tenaciously to their principles of nationhood. There are all those countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea, small individually compared to the greatest Powers but comprising an enormous proportion of the European family. All these countries are armed and determined to defend the lands of their fathers and their new gained independence, and it is most unwise to pursue any foreign policy which does not take account of these facts, which are not, as I have said, ghosts or memories of the past but which are the living forces with which we have to cope at the present time.

New discord has arisen in Europe of late years from the fact that Germany 2790 is not satisfied with the result of the late War. I have indicated several times that Germany got off lightly after the Great War. I know that that is not always a fashionable opinion, but the facts repudiate the idea that a Carthaginian peace was in fact imposed upon Germany. No division was made of the great masses of the German people. No portion of Germany inhabited by Germans was detached, except where there was the difficulty of disentangling the population of the Silesian border. No attempt was made to divide Germany as between the northern and southern portions which might well have tempted the conquerors at that time. No State was carved out of Germany. She underwent no serious territorial loss, except the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, which she herself had seized only 50 years before. The great mass of the Germans remained united after all that Europe had passed through, and they are more vehemently united to-day than ever before. You may talk of the War indemnity; what has happened there? I suppose that the Germans paid, in round terms, £1,000,000,000. But they had borrowed £2,000,000,000 at the same time, and there are no signs of their paying back. They have lost their colonies, it is true; but these were not of the greatest value to them, and it is not at all true for them to say that these colonies could ever have afforded any appreciable outlet for their working-class population. They are not colonies which are suited for white colonisation.

On the other hand, when we think of what would have happened to us, to France or to Belgium if the Germans had won; when we think of the terms which they exacted from Rumania, or of the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: when we remember that up to a few months of the end of the War German authorities refused to consider that Belgium could ever be liberated, but said that she should be kept in thrall for military purposes for ever, I do not think that we need break our hearts in deploring the treatment that Germany is receiving now. Germany is not satisfied; but, as my right hon. Friend says, no concession which has been made has produced any very marked appearance of gratitude. Once it has been conceded it has seemed less valuable than when it was demanded. Many people would like 2791 to see, or would have liked to see a little while ago—I was one of them, and I daresay that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in the same position—the question of the Polish Corridor adjusted. For my part, I should certainly have considered that to be one of the greatest practical objectives of European peace-seeking diplomacy. There again, however, hon. Members must think of the rights of Poland. The Polish Corridor is inhabited almost entirely by Poles, and it was Polish territory before the Partition Treaty of 1772. This is a matter which, in quiet times with increasing good will, Europe should have set itself—and might well some day set itself—to solve.

The question of the Germans regaining their colonies is being pressed by them, and the question of their rearmament—which, personally, I consider more grave than any other question—is being brought to the front. They demand equality in weapons and equality in the organisation of armies and fleets, and we have been told, "You cannot keep so great a nation in an inferior position. What others have, they must have." I lave never agreed. I think it is a most dangerous demand to make. Nothing in life is eternal, of course, but as surely as Germany acquires full military equality with her neighbours while her own grievances are still unredressed and while she is in the temper which we have unhappily seen, so surely should we see ourselves within a measurable distance of the renewal of general European war. If this process of rearmament or of equalisation were actually to take place while the present conditions prevail, undoubtedly the nations who are neighbours of Germany and who fear Germany would ask themselves whether they would be well advised to postpone coming to a conclusion until the process of German rearmament has been completed. It is extremely dangerous for people to talk lightly about German rearmament and say that, if the Germans choose to do it, no one can stop them. I am very doubtful if Germany would rearm in defiance of the treaty if there were a solidarity of European and world opinion that the Treaty could only be altered by discussion, and could not be altered by a violent one-sided breach. I therefore do not subscribe to the doctrine that we 2792 should throw up our hands and recognise the fact that Germany is going to be armed up to an equality with the neighbouring States in any period which we can immediately foresee. There may be other periods, but certainly we ought not to admit it at the moment.

I am not going to use harsh words about Germany and about the conditions there. I am addressing myself to the problem in a severely practical manner. Nevertheless, one of the things which we were told after the Great War would be a security for us was Parliamentary institutions in Germany; that she would be a democracy with Parliamentary institutions. All that has been swept away. You have dictatorship—most grim dictatorship. You have militarism and appeals to every form of fighting spirit, from the reintroduction of duelling in the colleges to the Minister of Education advising the plentiful use of the cane in the elementary schools. You have these martial or pugnacious manifestations, and also this persecution of the Jews, of which so many hon. Members have spoken and which appeals to everyone who feels that men and women have a right to live in the world where they are born, and have a right to pursue a livelihood which has hitherto been guaranteed them under the public laws of the land of their birth.

When I read of what is going on in Germany—I feel in complete agreement in this matter with hon. Gentlemen opposite—when I see the temper displayed there and read the speeches to which my right hon. Friend referred, the speeches of the leading Ministers—because those are quite enough—I cannot help rejoicing that the Germans have not got the heavy cannon, the thousands of military aeroplanes and the tanks of various sizes for which they have been pressing in order that their status may be equal to that of other countries. I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham with the greatest satisfaction, and it occurred to me that the House has not always done justice to his conduct of foreign affairs. He was very much scolded and condemned at the close of the late Conservative Administration, but the Locarno Treaty and all that followed from it were models of skilful peace-seeking diplomacy. Although other difficulties have come in other times, I 2793 cannot see that the handling of the Foreign Office since he left it should fill him with any particular feeling of humiliation.

I will leave Germany and turn to France. France is not only the sole great surviving democracy in Europe; she is also the strongest military power, I am glad to say, and she is the head of a system of States and nations. France is the guarantor and protector of all these small States I mentioned a few moments ago; the whole crescent which runs right round from Belgium to Yugoslavia and Rumania. They all look to France. When any step is taken, by England or any other Power, to try to weaken the diplomatic or military security of France, all these small nations tremble with fear and anger. They fear that the central pro tective force will be weakened, and that then they will be at the mercy of the great Teutonic power.

I have described the situation to lead up to the conclusion that we should be very careful not to mix ourselves up too deeply in this European scene. We have expressed our opinions to-day, and they will, I, am sure, be of value, but our desire to promote peace must not lead us to press our views beyond a point where those views are no longer compatible with the actual facts of the situation. It may be very virtuous and high-minded to press disarmament upon nations situated as these nations are, but if not done in the right way and in due season, and in moderation, with regard for other people's point of view as well as our own sentiments, it may bring war nearer than peace, and may lead us to be suspected and hated instead of being honoured and thanked as we should wish to be. Even more vain is it for the United States to press indiscriminate disarmament upon the European States, unless, of course, the United States is prepared to say that those nations which take her advice will receive her aid if trouble should arise, and is prepared to envisage the prospect of sending millions of soldiers again across the ocean.

I sincerely believe that our country has a very important part to play in Europe, but it is not so large a part as we have been attempting to play, and I advocate for us in future a more modest role than many of our peace preservers and peace 2794 lovers have sought to impose upon us. I remember when I was very young before I came into this House a denunciation by Dr. Spence Watson of what he called "the filthy Tory rag of a spirited foreign policy." In those days the feelings of all those who sat opposite, their forerunners, were directed against jingo policies of bombast, with Palmerstonian vigour. But you may have another kind of spirited foreign policy which may also lead you into danger, and that is a policy in which, without duly considering the circumstances in which others are placed, you endeavour to press upon them disarmament or to weaken their security, perhaps with a view to gaining a measure of approbation, very natural approbation, from good people here who are not aware of the dangerous state of affairs in Europe. There you could have a peace policy which may be too spirited.

It is easy to talk about the moral leadership of Europe. That great prize still stands before the statesmen of all countries, but it is not to be achieved merely by making speeches of unexceptional sentiments. If it is to be won by any nation it will only be by an immense amount of wise restraint and timely discreet action which, over a period of years, has created a situation where speeches are not merely fine exhortations but record the achievements of unity and c