Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Back Matter
 Back Cover

Title: British speeches of the day
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076217/00044
 Material Information
Title: British speeches of the day
Physical Description: 5 v. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: British Information Services
Publisher: British Information Services,
British Information Services
Place of Publication: New York
Publication Date: November 1946
Frequency: monthly
Subject: World War, 1939-1945 -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Great Britain -- 1945-   ( lcsh )
Foreign relations -- Periodicals -- Great Britain   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
Dates or Sequential Designation: Began with Mar. 1943.
Dates or Sequential Designation: -v. 5, no. 5 (June 1947).
General Note: At head of title: British Information Services, an agency of the British government.
General Note: Description based on: Vol. 4, no. 1 (Feb. 1946); title from cover.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076217
Volume ID: VID00044
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01412079
lccn - 45006482

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
        Page 583
        Page 584
        Page 585
        Page 586
        Page 587
        Page 588
        Page 589
        Page 590
        Page 591
        Page 592
        Page 593
        Page 594
        Page 595
        Page 596
        Page 597
        Page 598
        Page 599
        Page 600
        Page 601
        Page 602
        Page 603
        Page 604
        Page 605
        Page 606
        Page 607
        Page 608
        Page 609
        Page 610
        Page 611
        Page 612
        Page 613
        Page 614
        Page 615
        Page 616
        Page 617
        Page 618
        Page 619
        Page 620
        Page 621
        Page 622
        Page 623
        Page 624
        Page 625
        Page 626
        Page 627
        Page 628
        Page 629
        Page 630
        Page 631
        Page 632
        Page 633
        Page 634
        Page 635
        Page 636
        Page 637
        Page 638
        Page 639
        Page 640
        Page 641
        Page 642
        Page 643
        Page 644
        Page 645
        Page 646
        Page 647
        Page 648
        Page 649
        Page 650
        Page 651
        Page 652
        Page 653
        Page 654
        Page 655
        Page 656
        Page 657
        Page 658
        Page 659
        Page 660
        Page 661
        Page 662
        Page 663
        Page 664
        Page 665
        Page 666
        Page 667
        Page 668
        Page 669
        Page 670
        Page 671
        Page 672
        Page 673
        Page 674
        Page 675
        Page 676
    Back Matter
        Page 677
        Page 678
    Back Cover
        Page 679
Full Text

17^R. is"
a- 78 tb
V. -
No. 9

HOUSE OF COMMONS, October 30, 1946
The Prime Minister (The Rt. Hon. Clement Attlee): I beg to move:
"That this House approves the proposals in Command Paper No. 6923 for the
Central Organization for Defense."
The proposals for the central organization of defense embodied in the
White Paper which we are now about to discuss have, I think, received
pretty general approval. There have been one or two points of criticism,
with which I will deal, but, broadly speaking, I think the proposals are
considered to be a logical development from the past and an application
of the lessons learned during the war. As is usual in this country, they
are essentially evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and they do not
attempt to lay down the final form which our defense organization will
take. I would rather suggest that they represent a consolidation of ground
already won, and a jumping-off place for the future.
It is not my intention this afternoon to paraphrase or reproduce what
is contained in the White Paper. I would rather indicate the aims which
we are pursuing, the steps we are taking to formulate these proposals and
the general conception of Governmental organization into which defense
must fit. On this matter of defense organization and that of a Minister
of Defense, I have rot infrequently spoken in the House in past years;
I have even committed myself in written articles, and for many years I
have been an advocate of the creation of a Minister of Defense. I sought,
by discussions with officers and others, as far as possible to inform myself
on these issues, and in addition to these pre-war theoretical studies I had
the advantage subsequently of testing them in practice. As a Member of
the War Cabinet and the Defense Committee for five years, I had that
opportunity and I do not find, on reflection, that I had to discard any of
the main principles which I formulated in peacetime, although naturally
their detailed application had to be changed.

The problem which faces us now is how to ensure for the fighting
Services unity of thought, unity of supreme direction, unity of plan, unity
of outlook, and, above all, unity of defense doctrine. The Services are
increasingly inter-dependent but, in obtaining this unity, we have to take
care to preserve the responsibility of Ministers to this House, and, particu-
larly, to avoid overloading one Minister with a great mass of administrative
detail. In fact, we have to achieve what is the feature of all good organi-
zations; we have to distinguish between the function of decision on broad
matters of policy, and the function of detailed administration, without,
at the same time, allowing the former to be divorced from the latter. In
fact, in all planning, there must be an intimate connection between the
people who plan and those who have to carry out the plan. We have
also to consider, of course, not just the fighting Services, but the fighting

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ATTLEE)
Services and their supplies, and how they are related to the rest of the
activities of the nation, without allowing the latter to become completely
subservient to the former.
In the present age, when hostilities break out, as we are all well aware from
experience, the whole energy of the nation has to be concentrated on a
single objective-victory-and this objective involves every Department of
Government. The Government have to take control of every phase of the
nation's life, and that, of course, necessitates changes from the organiza-
tion which obtains in peace. We all remember how, in both the world
wars, the function of decision was taken into the hands of a small War
Cabinet. In war, the Prime Minister, of necessity, has to take the ultimate
responsibility for the mobilization and direction of the whole resources of
the nation. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on
becoming Prime Minister, wisely, I think, assumed the additional title of
"Minister of Defense," and he devised the machinery which functioned
so successfully throughout the war. When I succeeded him, I continued
to employ the same defense machinery although, necessarily, its content
-the amount of work to be done-was different, and I assumed the same
When the war ended, I did not wish to revert to pre-war practice, which
I thought had various defects. At the same time, it was quite obvious that
the machinery built up during the Great War, and appropriate to its ends,
must be adapted to fit into the peacetime organization of Government.
I had, therefore, to consider what were the appropriate steps to take. I
did not consider it useful to set up another Committee, as was done* in
1904 under Lord Esher, because that would take time and, as a matter
of fact, the decision, ultimately, has to be taken by the Government. Fur-
ther, the relevant evidence was available from those who either as high
ranking officers, Ministers of the Crown or members of the defense staff
had a unique knowledge of the actual functioning of the machine. I, there-
fore, decided to conduct an inquiry myself, with two of my colleagues,
to see how the machinery which had worked so well in war could be
adapted to peace conditions, and this White Paper is the result.

While the Government naturally take the whole responsibility for these
proposals, I should like to express my indebtedness to the wartime Chiefs
of Staff, to the civil and military members of the Secretariat for their
advice, and also to right hon. Gentlemen who are not of my party, but
who were colleagues of mine in the wartime administration. They were
so good as to give me the benefit of their views and suggestions on tentative
proposals which I submitted to them in the course of my inquiry.
In the various Debates which I can recall in this House on the organ-
ization of defense, there has always been raised the question of the exact
relationship of any possible Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister.
There have been those who either desired or feared that the Minister of
Defense would be a kind of leviathan among all the other Ministers and
would compete with the Prime Minister in authority. There have always

The Central Organization for Defense
been those who would reduce him to a mere shadow. I do not think
there is any reason to fall into either of those two errors, and I hope and
believe that in our present proposals, we have avoided them. I think we
have to bear clearly in mind that there are two separate aspects of defense.
There is the wider aspect which involves the activities of all the citizens
in a nation at war, and the narrow one which covers only the problem of
co-ordinating the three Services and their supply.
As I have already pointed out, in war, necessarily, the whole energies
of the nation are concentrated on victory. Therefore, during the war
these two aspects did not stand out so clearly and separately as they do
in peacetime. In wartime, for example, the activities of the Ministries of
Food, Agriculture and Labor were harnessed to the chariot of the war
machine. The Ministry of Home Security had its work supplemented by
the Ministries of Work, Health, Education and War Transport. I think
it is perfectly obvious that, in war, this wider aspect cannot be the busi-
ness of a single Minister; it must be handled by Ministers collectively. It
is equally true in peace that, if preparations for defense have to be made,
they cannot be entrusted to a single Minister, and, for this reason, action
recommended on defense grounds in time of peace, may often involve some
sacrifice of immediate civil advantage. An obvious case will occur to hon.
Members in the location of industry. Future defense advantages often
have to be weighed against immediate disadvantages to our peace economy.
Therefore, in peacetime, these decisions must be agreed to by the Ministers
If we had one Defense Minister responsible for this whole field, he
would obviously encroach on the responsibilities of other Ministers and,
Sin fact, become that leviathan that has been dreaded. Our pre-war war
organization took account of this, and entrusted the whole business of
planning defense to the Committee of Imperial Defense. It was created
for that purpose for facilitating the discussion of defense plans involving
co-operation by several agencies of the Government, and in our new or-
ganization we carry forward this principle. The Defense Committee, which
will take over the functions of the old Committee of Imperial Defense, will
be presided over by the Prime Minister. Its composition will be flexible.

I would here like to advert to certain criticisms that have been made
in another place. While stating the fact of flexibility, we had set out in
the White Paper that certain Ministers will be regular members of the
Committee, and we did this in order to give the House and country a clear
picture of the machine. Thus, among those permanent members, in addi-
tion to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Service Min-
isters, mention is made of the Lord President, of the Foreign Secretary, of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labor and, of course,
the Minister of Supply. In setting this out so fully, we have departed
from a very sound principle and practice, that of not disclosing the com-
position of Cabinet Committees. That is a very sound principle. We do
not want to depart from the principle of departmental responsibility and
there is, after all, no obligation on the Government to disclose the exact

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ATTLEE)
domestic arrangements for handling its collective business. But I notice
that, in a Debate in another place, this departure from the normal got
us into trouble, because more weight has been given to our illustration
showing that these are certain regular members, than to the statement that
its composition is essentially flexible. The idea, of course, is that other
Ministers are called in from time to time, as happens in other Committees
when there is a nucleus.
In particular, a point was made of the fact that the Secretary of State
for Dominion Affairs was not mentioned among the regular members.
Perhaps I might deal with that point now. The Dominions Secretary will,
of course, be kept in the closest possible touch with all defense matters,
and will attend all meetings and discussions which involve the defense of
the Commonwealth as a whole or in any way affect the interests of any
part of the Commonwealth. But, of course, there is a vast number of
defense matters which concern only this country, and they need not occupy
the time of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I wish to make
it dear that there is no intention whatever of bypassing all those matters
with which he is concerned.
Another misapprehension I noticed in a Debate in another place was
that one speaker assumed that because the normal organization of the
Defense Committee had been set out in a White Paper, the Government
would be precluded from making any change of structure without coming
to Parliament. That again is to disregard the point I have made, namely,
that, like the Committee of Imperial Defense, the Defense Committee must
not be rigid but flexible and must be adapted to circumstances.
I have stated the points of likeness between the new setup and the old,
and there is one important matter of difference. The old Committee of
Imperial Defense was essentially an advisory body, set up, hon. Members
will realize, as long ago as the beginning of the century, and I think the
reasons for making it advisory were largely historical. The result was that
it had no powers of decision. Its recommendants took the form of advice
to particular Ministers on matters for which they were individually re-
sponsible to Parliament, and to the Cabinet upon matters requiring co-ordi-
nated decision. Of course, I am well aware that in practice that advice
was often tantamount to a decision, but the distinction is, I think, impor-
tant. Under the new scheme of organization, the Defense Committee will
not be purely advisory. As a committee of the Cabinet, it will have powers
of decision to the extent to which authority is devolved upon it.

I would like to depart for a moment from what is set out in the White
Paper, and say a word on the organization of government, because there
have been very great changes in the last 40 years and especially in recent
years, in particular in the development of. the Cabinet committee system.
Let me remind the House that in 1914, there were only 15 major Depart-
ments of State, and all the Ministers in charge of them were in the Cabinet.
Today there are something like 27 Departments headed by Ministers, and
that means that we have either to exclude some of them, or have an im-
possibly large Cabinet. Practical experience has shown .that there is a limit

The Central Organization for Defense
of size in relation to the effectiveness of an instrument of decision such
as the Cabinet. In the war we were as few as five, and I think we never
exceeded nine. One was overseas, so that the number was really eight.
Other things being equal, it is desirable to keep the Cabinet as small as is
reasonably possible.
At the present moment we have 18 Cabinet Ministers, and 18 Ministers
in charge of Departments outside the Cabinet. This is only possible through
the development of the committee system. In our present practice, which
we developed greatly during the war, we have standing committees of the
Cabinet acting under authority devolved from the Cabinet. They can make
decisions or they can make recommendations to the Cabinet. There always
remains-and let me stress this-the right of departmental Ministers in the
last resort to bring matters to the Cabinet, but, in fact, experience has
shown that a great many inter-departmental matters can be settled in
committee and a great deal of preliminary work done, so as to free the
Cabinet from an excessive amount of work over detail. Thus by bringing
within that general structure the work that was formerly done by the Com-
mittee of Imperial Defense, it is possible to give the Defense Committee
a power of decision which was denied to its predecessor.
I would like again to stress the point that the Prime Minister presides
over the Defense Committee precisely because the wider aspects. of defense
with which I am now dealing must be dealt with by the authority of the
Prime Minister who has to take full account of not only of the claims of
defense, but also of the claims of all the other activities of the nation, and
obviously that could not be handed over completely to the Minister of
So much for the wider field which must be handled by Ministers collec-
tively. Within that wider field there is a particular group of problems
which can, with advantage, be made the responsibility of a single Minister.
They are the problems of the three branches of the Armed Forces and
their supply. This is a sphere of responsibility which under the White
Paper is assigned to the Minister of Defense. There was, I think, a certain
defect in the Committee of Imperial Defense just because it was an advisory
body. In effect, it may have had a fairly large measure of executive author-
ity, but I think there always was the lack of a guiding hand to formulate
a unified defense policy. This we hope to remedy by the appointment of
a Minister of Defense.

Here let me say that the new Minister must not be merely a co-ordinator
or a chairman of committees. That was tried prior to the war and found
wanting. Let us see why it failed. It failed because the responsibilities and
powers of the three Service Ministers and the Minister of Supply were
left in all respects unchanged. The new Minister was given a co-ordinating
responsibility over the whole field as a deputy to the Prime Minister, but
as he had no power and lacked the authority that belongs to the Prime
Minister, he failed to secure real unification. In fact, his scope was too
wide, and his authority too small. The scope of the new Minister's respon-
sibility is defined in paragraph 26 of the White Paper. The underlying

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ATTLEE]
conception is that the new Minister should be directly responsible to Par-
liament for a defined range of subjects, subjects which are common to the
three branches of the Armed Forces and supply. Those three Service Min-
isters will continue to be responsible to Parliament for the administration
of their own Services. The new Minister of Defense has a separate respon-
sibility for matters common to all three.
I think there are four broad headings under which a unified defense
policy is to be sought. First, there is the heading of strategy and -planning.
The formulation of unified strategy and planning as between the three
Services remains the responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff in their corporate
capacity. There is in effect one Chief of Staff in commission, responsible
for advising the Government on technical questions. Though the Chiefs
of Staff will continue to tender their advice direct to the Defense Com-
mittee and the Cabinet, the Minister of Defense will be presiding over
meetings of the Chiefs of Staff whenever they or he may desire; and the
Chiefs of Staff organization, with the Joint Staffs for planning and intel-
ligence, will be within the organization of the Ministry of Defense. Let
me hasten to add that there is nothing to prevent-indeed it may happen
on occasions-the Prime Minister consulting with the Chiefs of Staff. I say
that, because sometimes an omission is thought to make a tremendous
Secondly, the Minister will be responsible for correlating the produc-
tion problems of the three Services. He will discharge this responsibility
through a Production Committee. The members will include the Service
Ministers, the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labor; and they will
be served by a Joint War Production Staff.
Thirdly, there is the Minister's responsibility in connection with scien-
tific research and development. That will be discharged in much the same
way. He will formulate general policy and apportion the available re-
sources between the three Services, and he will be assisted by a Defense
Research Policy Committee, including the Directors of Research of all the
three Services.
Mr. Eden (Conservative): Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a ques-
tion? When he spoke of the Chiefs of Staff meeting in their corporate
capacity with the Minister-with which we are in entire agreement-I was
not quite clear from what he said, whether the Service Ministers would
normally be present on those occasions or not.
The Prime Minister: I do not think they would necessarily. There would
be meetings at which there would be the Service Ministers and the Chiefs
of Staff; but the Chiefs of Staff Committee meet by themselves-just the
three-very often; sometimes, when they or he desire it, with the Minister
of Defense, and sometimes they meet with the Prime Minister. I think
it is a continuation of the present practice, with which we are both very
I am sure the House will be interested to know that the Chairman of
the Research Policy Committee will be Sir Henry Tizard, the President
of Magdalen College, Oxford, a gentleman of great distinction who gave
great service to us in the war. I should like to add that in the field of
science, there will be the closest liaison with the other scientific activities

The Central Organization for Defense
of the Government, which come under the aegis of the Lord President
of the Council....
Fourthly, the new Minister, through a Committee of Service Ministers,
will be responsible for developing in the administrative field the closest
inter-Service collaboration; that is to say, he will be doing in the adminis-
trative field what is done in the operational field by the Chiefs of Staff.
I have now dealt fairly fully with the departmental functions of the
Minister of Defense in relation to what I have called the narrower aspect;
that is, the promotion of a unified defense policy as between the Services
and their supply. However, we intend further, that the Minister should
also act in his personal capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Defense Com-
mittee. The responsibility of the Prime Minister for national defense as a
whole must remain. He must take a close and continuing interest in all
the work of the Defense Committee. But in peacetime he actually has a
great deal of other work to do, and it would be quite inappropriate that
he should occupy himself continuously with the work of the Defense Com-
mittee. My conception of the Minister of Defense is that he would be
acting in the closest personal contact with the Prime Minister; and, as the
Minister responsible for inter-Service policy, he can ensure a close linking
between the two aspects of defense. We must remember that in any organi-
zation a great deal depends on the personal factor. There must be in this
the closest possible working, in my view, between the Prime Minister and
his Minister of Defense. In this respect, his position does not really differ
very much from that of any other Departmental Minister who may be
appointed to act as a chairman of a Cabinet committee, and, therefore,
to go beyond his purely departmental functions.
It will be seen then, I think, that while in peacetime the Prime Minister
will retain the supreme responsibility for defense, the Minister of Defense,
without any derogation from the responsibility of the Prime Minister, will
relieve him of much of the work concerning the three Services and their
supply. I think many of the issues which are apt to arise between the three
Services will be threshed out below the Defense Committee by the new
Minister, and he will very often present to the Committee a single case
on behalf of the fighting Services as a whole. In the Cabinet he will,
normally, voice the defense aspect in questions which come before him;
though I would stress again that where the particular departmental inter-
ests of any Services are concerned, they will naturally be summoned to
The question may be asked: What about war; and how will the rela-
tionship continue? There is nothing in this organization inconsistent with
the Prime Minister taking over the office of Minister of Defense in time
of war. Here again, I think we cannot lay down any hard and fast rule.
As I say, much depends on the personalities of the two Ministers at the
time when war breaks out. I hope I shall never come across that as a prac-
tical question in my lifetime. Below the Ministerial level the organization
is as well adapted for execution in war as for preparation in peace. It
is based on our wartime experience, and it is flexible.
Here may I say a few words with regard to civil defense, which, as ex-
plained in paragraph 33, is not within the jurisdiction of the new Minister?

British Speeches of the Day [Ma. Arrlm]
That is not because it is not an essential part of our defenses, or is a
matter of small importance. On the contrary, the protection of the civil
population is vital. I may say that a complete review of the methods and
organization of civil defense is now in hand. But civil defense is essentially
a matter for the co-ordination of a number of civil Departments-the Home
Office, the Ministries of Health, 'Transport, Fuel and Power, Food, Works
and Labor. Our war experience has shown that a separate Minister is re-
quired to co-ordinate the civil defense activities of their Departments. In
peacetime that co-ordination, and that stimulation of defense planning,
will be undertaken by the Home Office, which is the parent Department
of the wartime Ministry. A small staff has, in fact, been established there
for this purpose, and other Departments will be asked to make similar
provision. The principle to be followed, as I have stated before, is that
plans should be prepared by those who will be responsible for carrying
them out; dearly, though, the Minister of Defense and his Ministry will
be able to assist that staff in many ways. The civil defense planning staff
will be kept in close touch with the Service staffs responsible for intelligence
and research, and the production demands for civil defense must again
be correlated with those of the fighting Services, and there will be a Home
Defense Committee.

I turn to Part V of the White Paper. It deals with the organization
for collective defense. We have stated again and again that this country
will be prepared to play its part in any measures under the United Na-
tions organization. These plans have not got very far yet; they have not
been worked out. But we have to look to them, and I think everyone will
recognize that the better our organization here, the easier it will be to fit
into any wider scheme.
I should like to say a word or two about Commonwealth co-operation,
because I think there has been some criticism in another place of this sec-
tion. There has also been some criticism by Lord Hankey, who has had,
of course, very great experience in the past of these matters. The fact is
that this subject must be approached on the basis of present-day political
and constitutional realities, and these are very different from what obtained
in 1904. We have had the experience since then of two world wars in
which major contributions were made by the great Dominions. I think
Lord Hankey's regret at the passing of the old term, "Committee of Im-
perial Defense," is understandable, but sometimes new conditions need
new phraseology. It is a matter of fact that that is a phraseology which
is not very popular in all the Dominions. But the suggestion seems to
have been made that there was an intent on the part of the Government
to deny the Dominion Governments the opportunities which were pre-
viously available for the exchange of information and views on defense
matters. I should like to assure the House that nothing could be further
from the truth. Our present proposals are designed to increase those op-
This subject was studied in the spring of 1946, when the general prob-
lem of co-operation between the different members of the British Com-

The Central Organization for Defense
monwealth was considered at the meeting of Prime Ministers. I recollect
that, prior to that meeting, there were Members in this House who were
rather inclined to suggest that we needed some rather rigid and centralized
machinery. In fact, there was some tendency to criticize the Government
for not having created this. Well, it was my view at the time, and it was
certainly confirmed when I met the Dominion Prime Ministers, that this
particular point of view did not appeal to them. They preferred the meth-
ods which are now employed. There are two objectives to be achieved:
there is the exchange of information, and there is the concerting of com-
mon plans.
In order to bring about the exchange of information on technical
matters, it has been suggested that there should be liaison officers. This
is merely a suggestion, which was made in the course of discussion, and
which remains to be adopted. If the Dominion Governments accept this
proposal, and appoint such officers, the United Kingdom will make it their
business to see that they are kept in the closest possible touch with the
United Kingdom staff. They will receive all the information which was
made available to the Dominion Governments in the past-I hope, even
more. Let me say this: the system would be reciprocal under the proposals
we have made, in that there would be appointed by the United Kingdom
liaison officers to the Dominions.
Vice-Admiral Taylor (Conservative): Would the Prime Minister say
who these officers would be? Would they be military officers, or what?
Would they be of high rank?
The Prime Minister: Clearly, they would be Service officers. I cannot
say exactly what their rank would be. This is a suggestion which will have
to be discussed.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: But they would be of high rank?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, they would have to be very responsible
officers. I cannot say exactly what rank they would have, or what elevation
the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. He and I start from different
elevations. The development of the United Kingdom organization in this
White Paper is not unlike what is being developed in some of the Domin-
ions, and that, I think, will help to make liaison effective. There is, on
the other hand, the conclusion of agreements and the concerting of com-
mon plans. It is quite obvious that the exchange of liaison officers, how-
ever elevated in rank, is not enough. Decisions in these matters cannot
be taken for Dominion Governments by their representatives in this coun-
try until they have been fully considered by the Dominion Cabinets.
Dominion Governments, let it be remembered, are, like ourselves, member
States of the United Nations, and defense arrangements will have to be
considered in relation to our respective obligations to the United Nations,
and within any regional schemes that may be evolved under that Organization.
I would add that it is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government
to achieve the fullest co-operation in defense, as in other matters, with
the Dominion Governments. Remember, this is not a thing we can lay

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ArrLEE]
down. They are equal partners in the Commonwealth. Therefore, all
agreements must be done on that level, between equal partners. My right
hon. Friend, who will speak later in the Debate, will reply to any of the
detailed points that may be raised. I have tried to give the House a general
view of the conception in this White Paper. I believe that the present
proposals will promote efficiency and economy in our defense organization,
and I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton (Conservative): I think we must have it very much
in our minds that we are discussing this White Paper against the back-
ground of victory. No war in which Great Britain, and the Empire, have
been engaged has been conducted with so few mistakes in the higher di-
rection, in strategy and grand tactics, than the one we have just concluded.
I think that the most perfunctory study of our military history, from the
eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, would show that
statement to be correct. If we look at the relations of the Cabinet with
the Duke of Wellington, we shall find a very different story from that of
today. Perhaps I may be forgiven for reminding the House how those
relations appeared in some very dramatic forms. At the battle of Vimiera
in August, 1808, Sir Arthur Wellesley's pursuit of the enemy was whipped
off by the cbmmander-in-chief who superseded him that day, and the future
Duke of Wellington turned to his staff and said, "Gentlemen, there is
nothing for us to do but to hunt red partridges." On the following day,
that commander-in-chief was himself superseded. It was not a new story,
but that did not happen during the last war. Our earlier military history
seems to be a story of the most successful of our commanders in the field
rising above the limitations and mistakes and, indeed, the follies of Min-
isters in London and their officers.
In the main, the proposals of His Majesty's Government, as set forth
in the White Paper and as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, are a
continuation of the system of defense which stood us in good stead in the
War, and which can be said to have proved itself under the most severe
stresses to which any State has ever been subjected-excepting, of course,
Germany towards the end of the War, but, then, she was defeated. My
right hon. Friend and I are very grateful for having been taken into con-
sultation on some aspects of this Paper. The present organization is built
up, admittedly, on foundations laid in the past. That is, I think, chiefly
due to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
We can detect, through the official language-and the cadence of that
official language is very familiar, I might almost say painfully familiar to
some of us-an ungrudging admiration for his conduct of the war as Prime
Minister, so it is not surprising that we on this side of the House find
ourselves, in the main, in agreement with the proposals. May I also say
that we welcome the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman who is at
present disguised from us under the title of the Minister without Port-
folio, and who will be the Minister of Defense when the Bill is passed.
The Prime Minister, among whose difficulties and anxieties a glut of ad-
ministrative talent is probably not one, is, I think, much to be congratu-

The Central Organisation for Defense
lated and thanked by us for having spared the right hon. Gentleman for
this post. We all know him for his robust patriotism, and, if I may add
a personal note, I like to remind myself that through many anxious and
critical years we were in very close relations on supply matters when, I
also like to remind myself, our relations were always harmonious, although
our political differences are not at all small. We always found the right
hon. Gentleman's word as good as his bond, and either is quite good enough
for me.
Turning to the main features of the White Paper, I think the most
important thing to notice is that the Chiefs of Staff Committee retains its
key position in the new system, as also do the Joint Staff for Planning,
Intelligence and Administrative Planning. My right hon. Friend the Leader
of the Opposition held firmly to the belief that a military plan, whether
by sea, land or air, should be made by those who had the responsibility,
and, indeed, the power, to carry it out. The Chiefs of Staff, after the plan
had been agreed upon, themselves set in motion the forces which had to
carry it into effect. If this seems obvious now, and it does seem obvious,
it was not always so, even to some hon. Members of this House, and it
certainly was not a principle upon which the Germans acted. I am glad
to see that paragraph 16 of the White Paper mentions this point and attri-
butes many of the failures of the higher direction of war in Germany to
this fact.
On the other hand, I do not think that paragraph 18 of the White
Paper stresses sufficiently, or does full justice to, the flexibility of the sys:
tem as it was used in the War. The Prime Minister, in explaining it, has
removed some of the objections that I have to the paragraph; it is only
a historical one, but I think it is worth remembering that the then Prime
Minister presided over innumerable meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Com-
mittee, and, at other times, called the Defense Committee together, but
there were very many occasions when he matured his plans with the Chiefs
of Staff Committee and then presented them to the War Cabinet direct.
I understood the Prime Minister to say that that flexibility is still to be
retained in the new system. I want to make the point that the most im-
portant feature of all the wartime machinery, whether it was through the
Defense Committee or through the Chiefs of Staff Committee, was that it
enabled a purely military view, a view which was confined at that stage to
a study of what was militarily desirable and possible, to be put forward.
When, for example, the Defense Committee was used as one of those in-
struments, I think it is worth remembering that it was a very small Com-
mittee, and that nearly all the Ministers who were members of it had a
practical experience of war-and by that elegant phrase I mean that they
had been well shot at in the war before and had experienced some of the
feeling which those engaged in war sometimes suffer. I do not think
there is any better way leading to the scientific study of war than to take
part in one.
Looking for a moment at the Defense Committee as it was in the last
war, I think it would be true to say that it rested upon three things. First,

British Speeches of the Day [Mn. LYTTrnTON]
its work was in the main military; second, the number of members of the
Committee was very small-and even then they sometimes proved too big
for effective working-and, thirdly, the Defense Committee was composed
of Ministers who had all had practical experience of war or who were
in charge of the departments solely concerned with war. None of those
features have been entirely preserved in the peacetime setup. The officers
of the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
-I am not talking of the individuals, but the officers-appear to carry with
them membership of the Defense Committee, and I think that this blurs
the frontier which, I believe, at this stage, and I emphasize at this stage,
should divide the military from the economic and financial. In my opinion,
these Ministers should exercise their influence at a later stage than this,
perhaps in the Cabinet or some other body.
Then I must say that the Committee appears to have become so large
as to be cumbersome. It certainly could not function in war in its present
form, and I fear that even in peace its discussions will be much protracted,
that military matters, which should be its prime concern, will become
overlaid with others, and that its decisions may even be indistinguishable
from compromises. Thirdly, there are, in my opinion, too many Ministers
whose Departments are not concerned with war, and who will, therefore,
have to draw entirely on their personal experience if they wish to make
any contribution. I am quite aware that these objections are open to
the answer that this is a Defense Committee set up in peacetime, but I
still believe that the Committee will suffer from being too big, from the
subjects coming before it being too diverse, and from too many civilian
Ministers and Ministries being concerned.
To point the criticism, I would remind the House that one of the
main duties of the Defense Committee is to review all current strategy.
Perhaps the most perfunctory part of the White Paper will appear to the
House to be that which is headed "Organization for Collective Defense."
I see that The Times describes the expression "Collective Defense" as "a
coy alternative to Imperial defense." Certainly we are becoming more
genteel in these matters every day. I do not think we can necessarily
impute blame to His Majesty's Government for the nebulous nature of
these proposals; clearly the Dominion Governments are equally responsible,
and we are all aware how the Statute of Westminster bears upon the
whole subject. I hope I may say here that in criticizing this particular
part of the White Paper we are not talking about a system where respon-
sibility in the Chiefs of Staff Committee would be shared at the top level
by the Dominions, because I think that that would be clearly impracticable.

On the other hand, when we consider that the great striking force of
naval power is chiefly in the hands of the people of this country, and that
we are a maritime Empire, we should have expected to see emerge from
the discussions something more definite than the rather flaccid statement
quoted in the White Paper. We have to be content in these matters with
the appointment of liaison officers. That is a phrase used in the White
Paper, and, if I understand aright the meaning of the words "liaison of-

The Central Organization for Defense
ficer," he is someone who goes from one headquarters to another and in-
forms that headquarters what the other man is doing. The term "liaison
officer" excludes specifically the idea of consultation, and it does appear
that the members of the British Commonwealth and Empire should do
more than merely keep themselves informed about the organization for our
The Prime Minister has touched upon the need, and upon his desire,
for full consultation to take place on the highest political level, but surely
even if it is without commitment there should be, as a continuous matter,
a greater degree of consultation at a higher level than that which appears
to be laid down in the White Paper. I do not think that that can be re-
placed by occasional meetings at the highest political level. The White
Paper takes refuge in the anodyne of the word "flexibility." I see that
Lord Chatfield said, in another place, that there is no need to have a rigid
machinery, but there is a great deal of space between rigidity and no
organization at all. Nobody wants rigidity. What we want is organized
consultation and planning in peace, on a high level. I take it that the
Government are making some advance on these lines. I must say that I
derive a little comfort from the last words in this part of the White Paper,
which reads:
"There is reason to suppose that in the main they will prove acceptable, aid
that they will pave the way for machinery which, while giving full play to the
Member States of the Commonwealth, will be effective as a means of consultation
and collaboration."
We are familiar enough with official language to have some glimpse of
what is meant.
I turn to some supply matters touched upon by the White Paper, and
I wish to make a point regarding the Ministry of Supply, with which is
now embodied the Ministry of Aircraft Production. My point arises out
of paragraphs 20 (b) and 26 (a). The Ministry of Supply is responsible
for the production of weapons of war for the Army and Air Force. Hon.
Members must distinguish between the relations of the Admiralty with
the industries which supply them, and the relationship of the Army and
Force with the industries which supply them. The relationships are en-
tirely different. The Admiralty, so to speak, do their own ordering direct,
and follow the progress of the orders they place with industry. The Army
and Air Force, on the other hand, have a separate and distinct Ministry
to handle these matters for them. Those Services are, so to speak, one
Ministry removed from the producers of weapons and implements of war.
Perhaps this is not the time to argue the merits or defects of these different
systems. It has always appeared to me to be a great merit that the Con-
troller of the Navy and Third Sea Lord, after being responsible for the
design of one of His Majesty's ships, may later find himself in command
of it. That has actually happened within the memory of the House. Sir
Bruce Fraser, as he then was, at the beginning of the war was Controller
of the Navy and Third Sea Lord, and later was Commander-in-Chief of
the Home Fleet, and subsequently Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific.
Therefore, he was fighting in ships for the designs of which he had been
responsible in his previous capacity.

British Speeches of the Day [MR. LYTTELTON]
There are, of course, defects in a system which orders separately what,
for some reason, are called "common user items," such as shirts or .303
ammunition. Whatever system is used, no one who has intimate knowledge
of these problems will deny that the most obdurate trouble is to try to
bring into harmony the tactical needs, the everchanging nature of battle,
the kaleidoscope of war, with the technique of production in modern in-
dustry. It is a complicated, slow, cumbersome and long-term process to
change the products of industry, and nowhere more so than in mass pro-
duction to meet the needs of the tactical battle. Tactics change under
the spur of war, almost overnight-across from the North Africa Desert,
with almost unlimited fields of fire, to the olive groves and vineyards of
Sicily or Italy, where an entirely new tactical problem presents itself, re-
quiring entirely different weapons. The adjustment between the user of
the weapons and the producer of the weapons, requires the most continuous
study. It requires knowledge of war by those who produce the weapons,
and knowledge of the mechanical possibilities of modern weapons by those
who use them. All this calls for the greatest foresight and closest collabo-
ration. It is only too easy for industry to produce weapons efficiently, iii
large numbers and mechanically satisfactory, which are obsolete or useless
when they come off the production line. It is only too easy for admirals,
generals and air marshals to make plans involving the use of weapons
which we cannot produce and on which they have no right to count.
This subject is one of the crucial subjects in war organization. I should
like to remind the House that no country has ever produced an aircraft
from the drawing-board to full-scale production in under four years. There
we have an instance where the nature of the tactical battle in the air has
to be judged four years in advance of the time when we are producing
the weapon to take part in it. This is one of the most terrible responsi-
bilities and it lies chiefly on the shoulders of the Minister of Supply. If
it goes wrong, it means at the very best a serious dissipation of our re-
sources, and at the worst it means a defeat. If it is decided to set up a
separate Ministry or what are really two separate Ministries, to deal with
the requirements of the War Office and the Air Ministry, it is abundantly
clear that they have a most vitally important, difficult and hazardous task.
The Ministry should devote all its time to the study of war, and to the
development of weapons of war. Even then, great mistakes are bound to
be made. Offensive weapons will be produced only to be found useless
against a development of defense by the enemy, or by the appearance of
new conditions and new weapons, or new theaters of war. I suggest that
this is a wholetime job. Yet the Ministry of Supply is now cluttered up
with all sorts of other jobs connected with housing and the like.
I believe this to be a cardinal error in the organization for defense, and
that a Ministry whose prime responsibility concerns war and weapons of
war, ought not to devote its time to ordering the production of peacetime
requirements. The Ministry of Supply should not be ordering aluminum
houses, electric cookers, baths and lavatory seats at the same time as air-
craft, field guns and radar equipment. I trust that the Minister of Defense
will look into this point, and will consider it desirable to prevent the
competition of the Ministry of Supply with the Co-operative Wholesale

The Central Organization for Defense
Society and others, and will segregate these tasks, and allow the Ministry
of Supply to concentrate more directly on the production and supply of
weapons of war.
This leads me to another part of the White Paper. I notice that the
Joint War Production Staff-a body of which I can claim paternity-is to
be continued. I believe it to be essential to war production. I understand
that it will consist of officers of the Armed Services and civilians, all being
associated together in the same body. It was through this body in war that
we tried to make some contribution to the practical and obdurate prob-
lems of the difficulties between the producers and users of weapons. I think
that we had some success, but undoubtedly the system requires to be ex-
panded and matured in peacetime to a greater extent than was possible
during the war.
There are three other matters to which I wish to refer. The first is in
reference to what the White Paper calls "the apportionment of resources,"
which is to be one of the responsibilities of the Minister of Defense. This
delightfully simple phrase conceals, in reality, one of the most complicated,
detailed, and difficult administrative functions which any Minister could
have on his plate. In the last war the apportionment of manpower between
the Services, the production of munitions, and civilian production, were
examined by a Manpower Committee under the chairmanship of the Lord
President of the Council, who was assisted by the Minister of Labor, the
Minister of Production, and Lord Cherwell." That Committee submitted
their recommendants to the War Cabinet when it came to the allocation
of industrial raw materials and productive resources. So far as they were
used in the production of munitions, that was handled by the Ministry of
Production. The Minister thus had considerable influence on what was
left over for production for civilian use. Apparently, all these functions,
which are complex and baffling, are to be put on the shoulders of the
Minister of Defense. He will need the Ministry which he is to get for this
purpose, and I express anxiety lest he should be overburdened with ad-
ministrative detail, whereas what the House looks and hopes for is a Min-
ister who will have time to look at broad strategic questions, and broad
matters of defense, and not become a sort of uneasy clearing house for a
great mass of Departmental detail. I think it is very dangerous to dismiss
a thing like apportionment of resources in the way in which it is dismissed
in the White Paper. The White Paper deals with it much too glibly, and
I rather suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me in
his heart of hearts.
Paragraph 32 of the White Paper deals with the organization and for-
mation of policy for research and development. It begins with the de-
liciously ingenuous phrase:
"The problem here is to secure the continued and complete integration of military
and scientific thought at all levels . ."
Well, as the Americans say, "You're telling me." Apart from the fact that
such integration is manifestly impossible, I, nevertheless, welcome the at-
tempt to tackle the problem. Again, however, I doubt whether the great
extent of the task is really conveyed by that paragraph. In my opinion,

British Speeches of the Day [MR. LYTTELTON]
when history comes to be written it will be found that by no means
the least of the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Leader
of the Opposition to victory lies in this particular field. It is a contribution
which is almost unknown to the public. My right hon. Friend succeeded
in getting a hearing for any new idea. He brushed aside objections, and
pulled down barriers, and encouraged the most improbable people to put
forward more improbable ideas, out of which there emerged, very often,
a contribution to victory. I think that the decisive result of this kind of
action-and I do not use the word, "decisive," loosely-will one day be
recognized. So, I welcome very heartily the attempt to weld scientific and
military thought together at the beginning. But, as this is going on to
the shoulders of the Minister of Defense, he will have a very hard time.
Now, I wish to draw attention to a very remarkable omission from the
White Paper. There is no mention of the arrangement to be set up be-
tween the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Transport. We are
an island people, and availability of shipping is the limiting factor of large-
scale intervention in war in any part of the world. Therefore, we should
have expected to see a committee or organization maintained in peace, as
well as in war, which would keep the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry
of Transport in communication with one another from day to day. That
should form an integral part of the central organization for defense, and
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he will deal with this point,
and consider whether a committee or body is not necessary.
I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House hope that the
right hon. Gentleman who is to be Minister of Defense will succeed in
carrying out his heavy and hazardous tasks, although some of those tasks
are, we think, too heavy. He carries our good wishes, and we hope most
sincerely that if his burden becomes too detailed and too heavy, he will
not hesitate to shed some of his responsibility on to others, or broaden the
organization which is outlined in the White Paper.
[House of Commons Debates]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, October 22 and 23, 1946 [Extracts]
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Rt. Hon. Ernest Bevin): It
will be recognized that it is essential that I should give a review over a wide
range of foreign affairs, and not only the Peace Conference. I am afraid,
therefore, that I shall have to weary the House with rather a lengthy state-
ment. World War No. 2 has caused such an upset-the greatest the world
has ever seen-that it virtually means that the whole world has to find a
new settlement on a comprehensive basis, if we are to prevent a further
catastrophe. The problems to solve in Europe are interlinked with those
of the Middle East and the Far East, while at the same time we have to
take into account the rising of nationalism all over the world and, while
recognizing it, guide it into a world organization or it may become a danger
of further conflict.

Foreign Afairs
There are some who judge by the speed with which the Versailles Peace
Treaty was signed at the end of World War No. 1 who are impatient at
the pace with which we are settling the present world problems, but I
would emphasize at the outset that there is noreal comparison with World
War No. 1. The great problem that had to be settled then was that of
Germany and the re-division of Europe, and the creation of new States in
Europe. At that time a League of Nations was shaped which did not
function before the Peace Treaty, but was the outcome of it and functioned
afterwards. This time the United Nations organization was established
apart from, and at the same period in time as the Peace Treaties. There-
fore, the heart of the subject was being dealt with at the beginning, and
the other questions were dealt with afterwards. The whole problem of
reconstruction of the world now is entirely different. For the sake of the
security of the future, the two main aggressive nations of the world are
being left to the last, on the ground that it is essential to continue to exer-
cise such control over them, and occupation, as to prevent them ever becom-
ing aggressor nations again. Therefore, as a result of the discussions which
took place at Potsdam, we are proceeding from the circumference instead
of from the center, and even this raises such antagonism and difficulties,
that the task is made extremely difficult and calls for 'patience, toleration
and a steady moving away from the war itself.
Another great factor which had not to be taken into account at the end
of World War No. 1 was Russia. She was then a defeated nation. She had
passed through a revolution. Her position was largely ignored and, as
many of us felt at that time, this was one of the greatest mistakes the peace-
makers of that time made. If that error had not been committed, much
more confidence might have been established between the two wars, and
particularly if the United States also had come into the League. It is quite
fair to assume that in this case World War No. 2 might have been avoided.
But I am not unhopeful that, as we proceed, understanding will come, and
it will not be the fault of His Majesty's Government if it does not come.
The House will be conversant with our difficulties from the large
amount of propaganda which is put out against the British Empire and
Commonwealth, and the temptation there always is to reply, which often
makes things worse. But I have taken the view that our contribution to
these two world wars, the price we have paid in blood and money, our
moral claim as well as the sacrifices which we have already given, do not
call for a justification of our existence every five minutes. In fact, I think
our steadiness and patience are bringing their own reward. These attacks
on the British Empire and Commonwealth do not all come from one
source. We hear the old idea of British imperialism being trotted out in
the West and in the East, but our policy in these days, with all the experi-
ence of the war behind us, and the great desire for freedom throughout the
world, is, I believe, more clearly understood now than ever before.
If I may, to begin with, I would like briefly to touch on the Far East.
This is a region of very great importance to us and particularly to the
British Commonwealth, and Australia and New Zealand. Australia had to

British Speeches of the Day [Mi. BEVIN]
face the dangers of invasion, although happily that did not actually take
place. She is, therefore, quite properly concerned about the future settle-
ment with Japan, and the peace which will be established in the Pacific.
The agreement reached at Yalta provided for the handing over of certain
territories to Russia, including the Kuriles, the occupation of Korea, and
so on, as well as an understanding with Russia regarding her coming into
the war against Japan. At the Moscow Conference at the end of the year,
it was decided to establish a Four Power trusteeship for Korea. Unfortu-
nately, not much progress appears to have been made yet, and the situation
there is very similar to what it is in certain parts of Europe.
We, both in the occupation of Japan and in the handling of the situ-
ation in the Far East, have co-operated closely with Australia and New'
Zealand and Canada. There is a British Commonwealth force in Japan,
and we are represented collectively on the Council by an Australian as-
sisted by representatives from here. We admire the administration that.has
been set up in Japan by General MacArthur and his Council, and the
progress that has been made towards the establishment of democratic in-
stitutions and practices in that country. Physically, the demilitarization of
Japan is complete; the task ahead is to ensure that the Japanese have
neither the resources nor the desire to tread the path of aggression again.
Therefore it is quite proper, having regard to the contribution made by
the partnership of the British Commonwealth, that we should be closely
associated with this present task, both by the employment of our Forces
in the occupation and control of Japan, and by our counsel in interna-
tional deliberations. We are anxious to conclude an enduring peace with
Japan, and this will be helped if the Japanese people are ready and will-
ing to put into practice the democratic ideals of their new constitution.
China has shown resistance to the Japanese over a number of years,
and we are all concerned to see an early return to peace and prosperity
in that great country. Invaded by a powerful aggressor, many of her great
industries destroyed, a good deal of equipment taken, particularly from
Manchuria, and now torn by civil war, that great country is left with
tremendous problems to solve. She is now handicapped by an unfortunate
dispute between the National Government and the Communists. The United
States took a very wise step in sending General Marshall there with the
object of bringing about a reconciliation, and it is a matter for regret that
this great effort has not, up to the moment, been successful. It is certainly
not the fault of General Marshall. He has been wise and patient, and
has done everything in his power to try to bring the parties together to
obtain a settlement in the hope that wiser counsels would prevail. His
Majesty's Government can only express the earnest hope that, before long,
such a settlement will be reached and China, under a united government,
will achieve her goal of peace and prosperity.
One of the encouraging signs is to be found in the developments that
have taken place in Indonesia. It will be remembered that I indicated to
the House that His Majesty's Government would do their best to promote

Foreign Affairs
a settlement in that territory. We have been pushing this with vigor.
Lord Inverchapel went there, and helped to encourage discussions which
are now being followed up by Lord Killearn. We have carried out our task
in collecting the Japanese prisoners and moving the internees. This creates
a better atmosphere, and we are able to pursue a determined and sincere
attempt at reconciliation. The arrival of a Netherlands Commission Gen-
eral in China, headed by the ex-Prime Minister, Dr. Schermerhorn, for the
purpose of negotiations with the Indonesians, will, I hope, lead to a final
settlement. The Netherlands and Indonesian delegation have met under
the chairmanship of Lord Killearn, and, on 14th October, a truce between
the armed forces was concluded. This is an auspicious start, upon which
the two parties principally concerned and Lord Killearn are warmly to
be congratulated. It has been our aim throughout to try to bring the
parties together, and both sides have recently made friendly references to
the part we have played. Dr. Van Mook on 8th October said that the
Dutch would not forget their gratitude and friendship for the British
Empire for what we had done in the Netherlands East Indies, and, on
the other hand, the Indonesian Prime Minister, Mr. Sjahrir, said on 7th
October that the British Forces had shown a just appreciation of the Indo-
nesian national movement, and the national revolution that had grown
out of it. Our troops will be out of Indonesia finally on 30th November.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have every hope that, by that date, a
settlement will have been reached.
Farther north there has also been progress towards a settlement of the
long-standing territorial disputes between Siam and French Indo-China.
One great bug-bear which has hampered our work in these lands has been
the food situation, and it still remains very serious in the Far Eastern ter-
ritories. In spite of every effort, supplies of rice have not been coming
forward to the extent expected, and the cereal rations in these countries
have had to be cut below the danger level. In conditions of famine the
development of peace is extremely difficult. The Special Commissioner in
South-East Asia, in consultation with-the Government concerned, is taking
all possible steps to help in the economic rehabilitation of the rice ex-
porting countries in order to increase their rice production. At the same
time much has been done to stimulate the local production of foodstuffs
in the devastated areas. I do not need to remind the House of the self-
denial of the people of this country. Since March, 1945, no rice has been
imported into this country, and the British housewife has had to do with-
out this food in order to prevent starvation in these Far Eastern lands.
I should now like to direct the attention of the House to the Middle
East. This review has to be as quick as possible because of the territory
that has to be covered, but this area is a very vital one. It needs to be
handled with very great care. Great Britain and the countries of the Mid-
dle East have very close ties, and no country has done more to promote
their security and the development of this independence than Great Britain
has done. So far as Syria and the Lebanon are concerned, both the French

British Speeches of the Day [MN. BEVIN]
and our troops have been withdrawn. As regards Egypt, we are at this
moment trying to replace our existing alliance, which was forged under
the threat of Axis aggression, by an alliance founded on identity of interest
and the principle of partnership and mutual responsibility. These talks
are still continuing, and the Prime Minister of Egypt, who is unfortunately
ill in this country at the moment, came over to continue the discussions.
We wish him a speedy recovery. We are handicapped in bringing the talks
to a final conclusion, however, owing to a good many internal political
differences in Egypt itself. Both parties are agreed that it is to their mutual
interest that a proper alliance should be established which, later on, can
be fitted into a world security arrangement.
These discussions do not only affect Egypt as an isolated entity, but
have repercussions over the whole Middle East area. We are extremely
anxious to avoid anything which will create suspicion or difficulties with
other countries. In this connection, I would remind the House that the
Suez Canal has been open to the shipping of the whole world on equal
terms, and it is that status we are determined to maintain. We have other
interests in the region. It should be borne in mind that this area is vital
to the peace of the world, and that the countries in it, themselves look
to us for assistance in their development. Allegations have been made
that we in Britain wish to oppress and exploit the people of the Middle
East. That is just sheer nonsense. It remains an essential part of the
general policy of His Majesty's Government to respect, sustain, and de-
velop their independence. This is appreciated in all the countries con-
cerned, but the attainment of political independence is, of course, not the
end of a country's problems.
The great task now is for those countries to build a healthy economy,
based on a better standard of living conditions for the masses of their
peoples. In this the outlook of the new Britain particularly qualifies us
to help, that is, if our help is desired. We can assist by advising, on labor
laws and conditions, the development of agricultural and irrigation schemes,
health services, and so forth, and we have said that we are prepared to put
at the disposal of the Middle East countries all the experience and knowl-
edge that we have gained of such things in the past. This is our attitude,
not only to the Arab countries, but to all the Middle Eastern countries.

This brings me particularly to Persia. This country has been looming
largely in the news recently. In Moscow I struggled very hard to try to
get an understanding in regard to Persia. I realize that Persia is in a dan-
gerous position where interests of great Powers meet, and I am very anxious
that the smaller government should never fall a victim of any difference
of opinion by three larger Powers. Therefore, it is a matter of regret to
me that the suggestions made during the Moscow Conference were not
adopted. On the other hand, the British interests there are those of large
employers of labor, and we have taken steps to see that so far as the labor
employed by British interests is concerned, the standard of living shall be
on a good level, and that we shall be model employers. I have read with
very great interest the Report of the Parliamentary delegation which visited

Foreign Affairs
Teheran, and their suggestions are being followed up. We cannot submit,
however, to unfair discriminatory conditions, but we have indicated to
the Persian Government that our attitude will be that of really good em-
ployers, looking after the welfare of the people in health, housing, and
general" amenities, and the maintenance of a decent purchasing power of
the wages earned. We shall observe labor laws laid down by the Persian
Government, and we have given definite instructions that there is to be no
interference with the Government itself. We wish to see Persia united in
maintaining her independence, free from foreign interference, and pro-
gressing steadily to a higher standard of life. If this is observed by all
countries, this area will be kept clear of any possible conflict.
The next vexed problem which has been given attention is that of
Turkey. This matter came up at Potsdam, and the Declaration agreed by
the three Powers there was as follows:
"The three governments recognize that the Convention concluded at Montreux
should be revised as failing to meet present day conditions. It was agreed that, as
the next step, the matter should be the subject of direct conversations between each
of the three governments, and the Turkish Government."
What we think right is that there should be a discussion between the
great Powers and Turkey, in order to consider a revision of the Montreux
Convention, which now governs the passage of vessels through the Darda-
nelles. At the various international conferences during the last three or
four years, and in their latest correspondence with the Turkish Government,
the Soviet Government have made it clear that they are anxious to obtain
a base in the Straits, which would ensure, in effect, that the control of
this waterway would rest in the hands of the Soviet Union and not in
the hands of the territorial Power most clearly concerned. His Majesty's
Government have made it dear that in their view, if this were adopted, it
would involve an unwarrantable interference with the sovereignty of Tur-
key, and the effect of it would be to put her really under foreign domina-
tion, and would also represent an improper interference with the rights
of other Powers concerned. During the last two months, the Soviet Gov-
ernment have placed their views publicly on record in two Notes to the
Turkish Government, which have received wide publicity. I repeat that
His Majesty's Government do not dispute that the existing Convention
requires modification in certain respects to bring it into accord with present
day conditions. For instance, at present Japan is one of the signatories.
The Convention itself contains a number of references to the League of
Nations and, the definition of warships given in an annex to the Con-
vention is now clearly out of date. We agreed at Potsdam with the United
States and the Soviet Government that as a next step matters should be
the subject of direct conversations between each of the three governments
concerned, and the Turkish Government. But, while recognizing that re-
vision is necessary, His Majesty's Government are very anxious to keep the
international aspect of this waterway always in view.
It was with this aspect in mind that they considered the Note received
from the Soviet Government in August last. In this Note the Soviet Gov-

British Speeches of the Day [MR. BEVIN]
ernment stated that during the recent war the Convention of the Straits
did not prevent the enemy Powers from using the Straits for hostile pur-
poses against the Soviet Union, and other Allied States. His Majesty's
Government, on the other hand, although they have in the course of the
war had some difference of opinion with the Turkish Government, about
the interpretation of the Convention, held that, on the whole, its terms
had been conscientiously observed. Holding these views, however, the
Soviet Government suggested that the establishment of the regime in the
Straits should be reserved to the Black Sea Powers alone, and that Turkey
and the Soviet Union, as the most interested Powers, should jointly or-
ganize the defense of the Straits. Against that H.M. Government pointed
out that it had for long been internationally recognized that the regime
of the Straits was the concern of other Powers besides the Black Sea Powers,
and that they could not, therefore, accept the Soviet view. H.M. Govern-
ment also stated that the proposal that Turkey and the Soviet should
jointly organize the defense of the Straits was not acceptable. They felt
that Turkey, as the territorial Power, should continue to be responsible
for the defense and control of the Straits. This view was also expressed
by the United States Government. The Soviet Government have not been
able to accept these views, and a further Note has been addressed to the
Turkish Government insisting on their point of view.
Our view now is that the direct exchanges of views provided for by
the Potsdam agreement have come to an end, and any further discussions
should, therefore, take place at an international conference called for that
purpose. If such an international conference is called, of the United States,
the United Kingdom, France. ard the Soviet Union, and all the other
signatories of the Montreux Convention, other than Japan, we should be
glad to join, and to strive hard for an agreed solution of this difficult
problem. That solution should take into account the legitimate interests
of Turkey and the Soviet Union, for I would remind the House that we
are bound by treaties of alliance with both countries. But any solution
must, in our view, respect the sovereignty of Turkey and the interest of
other Powers concerned outside the Black Sea. I believe that if this case
is not pushed unilaterally, and is dealt with on an international basis, a
solution will be found. Matters have been made much more awkward by
the war of nerves which has been carried on, and I am satisfied that if
this ceased, a new atmosphere would be created which would enable the
matter to be dealt with on a much better footing.

May I now turn to Greece? Greece has been the subject of a pressure
and a propaganda attack which has been unprecedented. I have explained
before that His Majesty's Governmdht have, all along, considered it es-
sential that there should be both elections and a plebiscite on the question
of the Monarchy. From that we have not departed, and indeed this prin-
ciple was in the minds of the British Government and the Greek repre-
sentatives before the Allied Armies returned to Greece at all. I am perfectly
certain that it is in keeping with the desires of the Greek people. It is
a matter of great regret to us that all the parties did not join in the Elec.

Foreign Affirs
tion. This habit of boycotting elections is not a good one-[Laughter.] The
Opposition obviously do not intend to adopt it. The suggestion that all
this has been carried out at the point of British bayonets, to force upon
the Greek people a regime they do not want, does not bear a moment's
examination. The Greek people desire to live in security, and why they
should be selected, and made the victims of external propaganda and a
nerve war is difficult to understand. No country in the world in the last
30 years has suffered more than Greece. It is a country which has to be
completely rebuilt. His Majesty's Government have no other object in
view than to endeavor to put Greece on her feet again, allow her to de-
velop in her own way and without interference her democratic institutions,
and to carry out what" is so essential, both a short-term and a long-term
reconstruction which will put her people into a position of developing a
rising standard of life, restore her trade and allow her to take her place
among the other nations of the world under good and sound conditions.
This has been hindered by the constant agitation that has been carried
on, not so much by people inside Greece itself, as from outside.

It will be remembered that in February last the question of Greece
was put on the Security Council agenda, and I thought that as a result of
that discussion the matter was closed. Everybody knew why we were there,
and knew that we only wanted to go as soon as we could. We have done
our best to re-create Greece as a State, for we can never forget that in
Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, Greece was the only Ally of the
Commonwealth at a moment when the most friendly relations existed be-
tween others and Nazi Germany, and that she had to take the brunt of
the attack of Italy, and later was invaded by Germany. I should have
thought that gratitude alone would have left her to return to peaceful de-
velopment. That has not been done. Had it been so, a much more bal-
anced situation would now be existing in Greece. Had the original plan
of elections without civil war and without one party seeking to put through
its aims by force been followed, Greece would today have made greater
progress towards recovery. We tried, as a result of international observers,
to get as good and as clean an election as possible. I should like to have
seen international observers for all the Balkan States, and have no more
pressure on the people of those other countries than that which has been
placed on the Greeks, while exercising their vote.
Before the return of the King I made the position of His Majesty's
Government quite clear. I indicated that we expected that the Monarchy
in Greece would act in a strictly constitutional manner. In addition, I
have met not only the Prime Minister and members of his Government
and diplomatic service in Paris, but also the leaders of most of the parties,
and indicated to them the view of His Majesty's Government that it was
everybody's duty today to create and rally that great democratic opinion
in Greece, and to use it for the reconstruction of the country and to bring
happiness and prosperity back to Greece. There is a tendency there to
play politics a little too much in a critical period like this. So far as His
Majesty's Government are concerned, and I say this with emphasis, we

British Speeches of the Day [MR. BEzIN]
will not desert Greece after the great comradeship that existed between
us, and we shall pursue a policy of trying to assist her economically as well.
Therefore, I repeat that I should like to see Greece with a broadly
based Government, and with a state of law and order such that the Gov-
ernment will be able to repeal very soon the emergency measures law, and
that Greece will then return to normal life, with a prison population re-
duced so that only actual criminals remain in the prisons. Then the pol-
itical conflict would be at an end. But if she is to do it, outside interference
must stop, and allow her to do it. I suggested to the political leaders out-
side the Government that all political parties should, in a crisis of this
character, join to work to this end. Notwithstanding this policy of His
Majesty's Government towards Greece, which has been made quite clear,
we were taken again before the Security Council, while the actual Peace
Conference was going on in Paris, this time by the Ukrainian Govern-
ment, and again completely vindicated. As Sir Alexander Cadogan said
then, What Greece chiefly needs is to be left alone sothat she can grapple
with her economic needs. I think at this stage-[HoN. MEMBERS: "Leave
her alone. Take the troops out."] Well, I may say I am leaving her alone
except that I am offering help everywhere I can. I am not interfering,
neither are His Majesty's Government, with the governments the Greeks
create, how they should be set up or in any other way. I give the lie direct
to all those charges so glibly made. I think at this stage I ought to pay
tribute, and I am sure the House will agree with me, to the part played
by the Regent during his years of office and his services to the Greek peo-
ple during this very critical period.

Before leaving Greece, I should like to touch on the question of the
Greek trade unions. I have received a number of letters in the last few
weeks protesting at what is described as the suppression of the Greek trade
unions. Greek trade unions have not been suppressed. What has happened
is that, by decision of the Council of State, the highest judicial authority
in Greece, the ministerial decree under which the elections to the execu-
tive of the Greek trade unions have taken place, was declared invalid.
[Laughter.] I would remind my hon. Friends, my own comrades on this
side of the House, that many of them would not be here today if it had
not been for the judicial decision in the Osborne judgment, and if it
had not been for the Campbell judgment, the Labor Government would
not be here. These historical precedents must not be judged at the mo-
ment they happen, but must be looked upon in the light of their possible
The fact that the elections were observed by the representatives of the
World Federation of Trade Unions and the Trades Union Congress does
not make the slightest difference to their validity as far as Greek law is
concerned, and it is not for me to question the decision of the Greek
Council of State on matters of Greek law. What I did, from the moment
I knew that an appeal had been made to the Council of State's jurisdiction,
was to express to the Greek Government, through the mouthpiece of His
Majesty's Ambassador in Athens, the hope that in any action the Greek

Foreign Afairs
Government might take arising out of whatever decision was reached by
the Council of State,' they should bear in mind the extreme importance
which would be attached, both by His Majesty's Government and by orga-
nized labor throughout the world, to their ensuring that nothing was
done which would jeopardize the working and development of free trade
unions in Greece. It should be borne in mind that the situation in Greek
trade union affairs was far, from satisfactory before even the decision of
the Council of State was made known....
Strikes were constantly being called for political reasons, though very
little attention was paid to such calls by the majority of Greek workers.
There was also very little prospect of a healthy development of collective
bargaining. I realized, however, and the Greek Government now fully
recognize, that the situation which has been developing since the decision
of the Council of State is far from satisfactory, and the Greek Government
sought the assistance of His Majesty's Government in solving the crisis
which has arisen. At their invitation, I have appointed- Mr. Hull, the res-
ident labor attache, and Mr. Braine, who has served with very considerable
distinction as labor attach in our Embassy in Rome, to go to Greece and
make a special investigation into trade union matters there and to make
recommendations to the Greek Government, with a view to a solution of
the present problems which would be satisfactory to all parties. Discus-
sions are now going on with the Greek Government on the basis of Mr.
Braine's recommendations, and I earnestly hope that the Greek Govern-
ment will accept those recommendations, so that these discussions may not
merely lead to a solution of the immediate crisis, but also provide a more
solid basis and the introduction of new laws for the future development
of trade unionism in Greece.
Now, may I turn to the Peace Conference? I have already explained-
Mr. Churchill (Conservative): What about the British troops in Greece?
Mr. Bevin: With regard to the British troops in Greece, we shall get them
out as soon as we can. We have certain obligations to fulfill, and as soon
as they are fulfilled the troops will come away. I hope that will not be
long delayed.
I turn to the Peace Conference. I have explained already that it is
unreal to compare the settlement after this war with the Versailles settle-
ment, and we must not be impatient if the work of making peace appears
to go slowly. If we are to lay the foundations of a structure which is to
last, we cannot afford to take decisions without full consideration. This
Conference has given the main Allies the opportunities to which they are
entitled to state their views on the peace. The recommendations sent for-
ward by the four members of the Council of Foreign Ministers have been
subject to searching criticism and to frank discussion. All concerned now
understand better the problems and the points of view of their Allies, and
all of us have made personal contacts which may help us to better under-
standing in the future. In many respects we have employed methods dif-
ferent to those employed at other Peace Conferences. One of the most
important of these, I think, has been the full hearing and consideration

British Speeches of the Day [MR. BEVIN]
given to the views of ex-enemy countries. There has been no question this
time of dictating a piece to them.
This Conference has also been open to the press and to the public.
Everyone can know of the facts and, as should be the case in a democratic
world, can pass judgment on a peace settlement to end the war which we
helped to win. I regret to say in some cases I feel the publicity given to
this Conference has been abused. There have been attempts to use the
Conference as a forum for propaganda speeches, and some States have
taken the opportunity to level frivolous charges at others. Sometimes par-
ticularly selfish interests have been strenuously pursued without regard to
the general good, and sometimes we have seen States swayed, not by the
merits of the case, but by ideological sympathies. There have appeared
to be two blocs when we came to the voting, and the world has got the
impression that the Conference has led to the division of East and West.
Such divisions must, and I am sure can, be prevented. If it continued, it
would delay and threaten the recovery of Europe. But if we are to avoid
division, artificial barriers in political and cultural fields which prevent
free contacts must be removed. Only this will create mutual understanding
and good relations between countries which will ensure a peace worthy
of the name.
I now turn to the achievements of the Conference. In some cases the
Conference clearly expressed its opinion on territorial questions. Agree-
ment was reached on all the frontiers of Finland and Rumania. The views
of both the Rumanians and Hungarians were heard on Transylvania, and
the Conference decided unanimously that it should be left to Rumania.
It was agreed that Bulgaria should retain the South Dobrudja. As regards
the frontier between Bulgaria and Greece, we and a number of other
delegations felt that the claims of Greece had not been studied sufficiently
and that a final decision should be deferred. Hungary has its pre-war fron-
tiers back, with a small adjustment of the Czech frontier. Here, the Con-
ference was called upon to examine the problem of Hungary's minority
in Czechoslovakia. His Majesty's Government have always felt that a sat-
isfactory solution of this problem, in accordance with humanitarian prin-
ciples, could only be reached as the result of agreement between the two
Governments concerned. This course has been recommended by the Con-
ference, and the Government earnestly hope that the Hungarian and
Czechoslovak Governments will enter into negotiations without delay and
find a solution of their present difficulties.
It was in the Italian Treaty that the most contentious issues were raised,
and some of them aroused very heated debate, but I will first deal with
those on which there was little disagreement. A minor rectification of the
frontiers between Italy and France, in France's favor, was agreed to on
the condition that Italy's economic interests in this area were safeguarded.
I am glad to say also that the Conference agreed that the Dodecanese
Islands should go to Greece. As regards the Southern Tyrol, I am sure
this House, after the criticism levelled at the Government on this question,
will join with me in welcoming the agreement concluded between Italy
and Austria, whereby the German-speaking inhabitants of the territory

Foreign Afairs
are assured of their rights, while Italy can still rely on the water power
essential to her industry. At the same time, it should be possible to de-
velop the tourist trade in this territory, which can be of so much advantage
to both countries, particularly in the realm of foreign exchange. I would
like to congratulate the two Governments concerned on this happy solution
of their difficulties, and I hope it will be a precedent set for other similar.
disagreements. The Conference decided, by a two-thirds majority, to in-
clude in the Treaty a reference to this agreement which would give it
international recognition. Many interesting proposals were put forward
for the future of the Italian colonies, but, in the end, the Conference agreed
to a recommendation of the Council of Foreign Ministers that further re-
flection is required before their fate can be decided.

I now turn to the most disputed and contentious point-that of Trieste.
This question was hotly debated at the Conference. The House will re-
member that the Council of Foreign Ministers agreed in July to recom-
mend the adoption of the so-called French line, and the establishment
within that line of a free territory of Trieste. After discussion of a number
of alternative proposals, the Conference also agreed to the adoption of the
French line. Here I must confess that H.M. Government, basing them-
selves on the London decision that the frontier between Italy and Yugo-
slavia should be decided according to ethnic principles, originally felt that
everything west of the so-called British line, including Pola, should go to
Italy, and that a free port should be created in Trieste, which would
safeguard the interests of Yugoslavia, and generally promote European
trade. At first, I doubted whether the solution recommended by the Coun-
cil of Foreign Ministers was a wise one. I had in mind, of course, Danzig,
but there is a difference between Danzig and Trieste. The former only
served one country, while Trieste can serve several countries in Central
and South-Eastern Europe beside Italy and Yugoslavia, and even Danzig
might have worked if no Hitler had ever arisen. I therefore came to the
conclusion that, if we could provide for a really independent and free ter-
ritory and a free port within it, the proposal recommended by the Council
of Foreign Ministers was the best solution having regard to the problems
of Europe as a whole. In fact, we are trying to create in Trieste a new
Hanseatic area.
At the Conference, the main debate centered on the future regime of
the territory. Our difficulties were increased by the fact that the Soviet
delegation, which had voted with us over the French line, put forward
proposals, and supported a number of Yugoslav proposals, which, in our
view, would have reduced the governor to a mere reporting agent of the
Security Council and would have removed the stability which Trieste
needed if she was to remain an independent territory. We joined with the
United States delegation in declaring that our agreement to the French
line was contingent upon agreement being reached on the other parts of
the decisions of last July, including the statute for the free territory which

British Speeches of the Day [EM. BEVIN)
would provide a real guarantee for its integrity and independence, and
would protect the rights of its citizens.
During the debate, our motives in doing this were attacked. We were
accused of wishing to establish an Anglo-Saxon military base in Trieste.
I have made it clear many times, and I wish to do so again, that this is
just nonsense. We have not approached the problem from the point of
view of strategy at all. We have not thought of a military base, and shall
be only too glad when we can withdraw our troops. We are pursuing no
selfish national interest, but purely the interest of wishing to see a solution
which will bring peace and stability to the area, and we seek a solution
that will stand the immediate strain and stress and also stand the test of
time. We feel that, in view of the racial divisions in the free territory,
and the consequent risk of outside interference, special measures must be
taken to ensure the maintenance of public order and security, and the
protection of the rights of the inhabitants, whatever nationality they might
be. If these things are assured, we hope that both elements of the popula-
tion, Slav and Latin, will develop a consciousness of common citizenship
that will enable them to live and work together in harmony.
Next, we desire that everything should be done to enable the territory
to prosper. For this we feel that there are two essential requirements. In
the first place, the States concerned must agree to grant freedom of transit
for goods passing across the territory between Trieste and the countries
which it naturally serves. The second requirement is peace and stability.
Only if there is evidence that this has been established is it reasonable
to count on the confidence and the necessary finance for economic devel-
opment and the proper employment of the people of Trieste. Thus we
look at the problem. We feel the necessity for a strong and impartial gov-
ernment under the effective control of the United Nations organization.
We believe that the responsibility of the Security Council for the free terri-
tory should begin from the moment the treaty comes into force, and that
the governor, as the representative of the Security Council, should be given
power to ensure the fulfillment of the Security Council's representations.
In such circumstances, we are ready to place our troops at the disposal
of the Security Council during the transitional period, while the funda-
mental structure of Trieste is being organized. The Security Council would
decide the date on which our troops would be withdrawn. The Conference
could not reach agreement on the terms of the permanent statute of the
free territory or of the instrument for the provisional regime and the regime
in the free port.
A resolution was put forward by the French delegation suggesting a
number of principles which the Conference might recommend to the Coun-
cil of Foreign Ministers, which embodied what, in our view, are most es-
sential points. We therefore supported the resolution, which received a
two-thirds majority in the plenary session. I do not underestimate the
difficulties which lie ahead of us in the further discussions, before a final
decision is reached by the Council of Foreign Ministers. As the House is
aware, the Yugoslav Government have said that they will not sign the
treaty with Italy, nor withdraw their troops from the part of the proposed
free territory of Trieste which they now occupy, if a solution based 'on

Foreign Afairs
the French line is upheld. I hope the Yugoslav Government will with-
draw from this extreme position. The essential condition of success of
the free territory is that both Yugoslavia and Italy shall show good will
and willingness to subordinate to the general good their irredentist aspira-
tions. Both these countries have a great responsibility, as well as a great
opportunity, and I hope they will take it.
Dealing with the Italian Treaty as a whole, my view has always been
that, in 1919, Italy went too far. This has now brought about its reactions.
What we have to do now is to avoid doing anything that will again create
irredentist feelings. Therefore, I am anxious that Yugoslavia should not
make the same mistake this time as Italy did in 1919. On the other hand,
I have made H.M. Government's position quite clear to the Italians. We
have had to have regard to the damage done by Italy in her days of ag-
gression, but we have made every allowance for the services she rendered
after the armistice. We have tried to find a just balance in our treatment
of Italy. On the other hand, we have made it dear to Italy that we are
ready to discuss trade and other difficulties at the earliest possible moment
after the treaty is signed, and we look forward to resuming relations on
the most cordial basis with a new democratic Italy.
I now turn to the economic provisions of the treaties. As regards repa-
rations, on which most useful work was done, we found it necessary to strike
a difficult balance between the principle that enemy States should make
good part of the damage done to their victims, and the need not to destroy
the capacity of these countries to restore their own trade and economy, thus
hindering the reconstruction of Europe. The Conference recommended
that75 per cent compensation should be made by enemy States for damage
done to the property of members of the United Nations. While we, at
first, supported the principle that full compensation should be paid, we
finally deferred to the majority view, and voted for the recommendation.
Many other economic questions were examined, and the Conference ac-
cepted a number of recommendations, particularly in the Balkan treaties.
Here we came up against the difficulty that all States did not accept the
principle of equal treatment for all. H.M. Government have made it dear
that, while they do not expect preferential treatment, they do expect to
be given the same treatment as others, and feel that this principle should
be embodied in the treaties.
This difficulty became dear when we considered the Danube. With
my United States and French colleagues, I supported a proposal that the
Danube should be free for all States to navigate on equal terms. In order
that this principle should be put into practice, the British delegation urged
that obligations should be put-on Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria to par-
ticipate with the four major Allies and the other riparian States in a con-
ference to be held within six months of the Peace Treaty coming into
force. The object of this conference would be to establish a new interna-
tional regime for the Danube, which would take into account the condi-
tions of today. The Soviet delegation maintained that it was unnecessary

British Speeches of the Day [MB. BEVIN)
to include in the peace treaties any reference to a future regime and denied
the right of any country, other than the riparian States, to have any say
in the organization of navigation of the river. We opposed this view and
in doing so we only reaffirmed a principle which has been generally recog-
nized for at least 100 years. We are not trying to impose our point of view.
At the conference which we proposed, the United States, France and the
United Kingdom would be outnumbered by the riparian States, but we
do feel that it stands out clearly that some international body is nec-
essary to ensure that freedom of navigation on the Danube is respected
and that this necessary conservancy work is carried out. We pressed for
the inclusion of a clause to this effect in the treaties with the Balkan ex-
enemy States because we know to our cost that ever since the international
regime has existed on the Danube, it has been obstructed by one or other
of the riparian States.
We are impressed by the urgency of this problem. As the House knows,
the Danube has a swift current and silts up very rapidly. We have reports
to show that there are serious blocks south of Bratislava and that the Sulina
channel, the only channel which is navigable to ocean-going shipping, may
shortly become totally impassable. It is, therefore, our earnest resolve at the
future meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers to press forward this
proposal for the freedom of navigation and the calling of a conference.
We feel it is in the interest of the riparian States, and we are certain that
only in this way can the Danube be maintained as a great international
waterway of South-Eastern Europe, on which ships of all nations can move
as freely as on the sea, and bring prosperity to these needy lands. If we
delay longer, the river may become impassable and, if this happens, it would
bring misery to the people who live along its banks.

This brings me to the end of the main subjects discussed by the Peace
Conference, and I should like here to say a word about what lies ahead.
The Paris Conference met for a limited purpose, which I think we can say it
has successfully accomplished. It had to consider the proposals made by the
Council of Foreign Ministers to whom, in turn, it was to submit recommen-
dations for a final peace settlement. The Conference was never meant to
reach final conclusion or to agree on final texts. This is the task of the
Council of Foreign Ministers which will meet in New York on 4th Novem-
ber. This meeting of the Council will consider the recommendations of the
Peace Conference. Many of those on which the four major Powers were
agreed will certainly appear in the final text, but on others, they voted on
different sides, and it is the main task of the meeting in New York to resolve
these difficulties. I do not underestimate the difficulty of this task. Each
Foreign Minister has his own national interest to defend, but I feel sure
that if we are to achieve lasting peace and economic recovery, which the
peoples of the world desire so ardently, all must show readiness to recognize
the legitimate interest of others and to subordinate national interest to the
common good. If we approach the peace treaties in this spirit, we shall
succeed. If not, we shall fail, and, in those circumstances, no peace treaties
will be better than bad peace treaties, which could only be a hollow mockery.

Foreign Affairs
I am deeply disappointed that our work on the peace treaties did not
include a settlement with Austria. As this House is aware, His Majesty's
Government have made determined efforts to have a treaty with Austria
discussed at the same time as the treaties with the German satellites. But
it has not, so far, been possible to overcome Russian opposition to this
course. At the forthcoming meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers
to settle peace treaties and to discuss Germany, we shall continue to take
every possible opportunity to press for early discussion of an Austrian treaty.
Without this treaty, the whole Balkan settlement is incomplete. For one
thing, until a treaty is made with Austria and the occupation Forces are
withdrawn, Russia can claim that she must keep some of her Forces in
Rumania and Hungary on the lines of communication between Russia and
Austria. In a more general sense, it is most important since Austria stands
at the crossroads between East and West. So long as these roads are blocked,
Austria cannot fulfill her necessary functions of providing a meeting place
and market for neighboring countries on each side. The delay in reaching
a settlement with Austria is particularly unjust in that the Austrians have
shown their political maturity both in holding free and honest elections
at an early date after Austria's liberation and more recently, in their wise
and statesmanlike agreement with Italy about Southern Tyrol.
Moreover, the Allies are bound by the Moscow Declaration of 1943 to
re-establish a free and independent Austria. This agreement will be nulli-
fied if we are continually prevented by one pretext after another from con-
cluding a treaty which will leave Austria free to run her own affairs. We
fully realize that the question of displaced persons in Austria is a most
difficult one, and that their presence constitutes a serious burden on the
Austrian economy. But their presence is no fault of the Austrian Govern-
ment and does not in any way constitute a reason for the delay in making
a treaty with Austria. The occupying Powers and the Austrian Govern-
ment have already made considerable progress in carrying out de-Nazifi-
cation, and in removing the last traces of German influence in Austria. If
there is further work to be done in this direction, it should be easy for the
Powers to agree between themselves what it is, and to ensure that the Aus-
trian Government take steps to carry it out. This, again, is no reason at all
for delay in consideration of the treaty. We have the greatest sympathy
with the Austrian Government in the difficulties which they encounter as a
result of claims to a large part of industrial plant as reparations on the
ground that it is a part of the German external assets. We do not attempt
to dispute that Russia is entitled to take as reparations whatever can be
fairly claimed to be a German asset in Eastern Austria, but no definition
has ever been agreed to as to what is a German asset, and we could not agree
that one of the parties should make a unilateral decision defining this ques-
tion in his own interest. We have tried on many occasions to secure early
discussions between the four occupying Powers as to what this definition
should be, but we have not as yet achieved this. We shall continue to try,
both in Vienna and, if necessary, at meetings of the Council of Foreign
The question of supplies for Austria continues to cause us considerable

British Speeches of the Day [Ma. BEVIN
pre-occupation. It is cear that if UNRRA aid comes to an end about the
end of this year, Austria will not yet be self-supporting and will need assist-
ance from outside. The need for such assistance would, needless to say, be
considerably reduced if the Austrian economy was not handicapped by the
uncertainty of the reparations claims which have been made against it, and
by the obstacles placed in the way of the exercise of the Austrian Govern-
ment's authority in the Russian zone. But even if these difficulties were
removed, foreign assistance would still be necessary. We have already taken
some steps to improve Austria's economic position by arranging for the
restoration of trade between this country and Austria. In all this difficult
situation one thing is perfectly clear, that Austria must, in the shortest pos-
sible time, regain her full independence as a united country. We have gone
a considerable way towards eliminating the effect of the zonal barriers in
Austria, particularly in the West, and we do not for a moment contemplate
taking any steps to reverse this process. The special difficulties in Eastern
Austria must be dealt with by opening the area fully to the authority of the
Austrian Government, and not by shutting it off as a plague spot which can
only be treated in isolation from the rest of the country.
I now want to bring the House to one of the most difficult subjects
associated with peace, and particularly with the problem to which one has
to find a solution, namely, Germany. I turn to Germany, where we and
our Allies are confronted with a most difficult and testing problem. Agree-
ment on Germany is at once the touchstone of the relations between the
Four Powers, and our opportunity to build a system of lasting peace and
security for the world. I would like to recall what I said at one of the July
meetings at the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris. I suggested there were
three possible approaches to the peace of Europe: (1) a balance of power
between States of equal strength, (2) domination by one Power or by two
blocs of Powers, (3) united effort by the Four Powers with the co-operation
of their smaller Allies. I said on that occasion that H.M. Government re-
garded the last approach as being the most likely to produce the greatest
stability. In spite of all the difficulties, we remain firmly of this opinion and
it will not be H.M. Government's fault if it fails. It is our aim that this
system should be applied, above all, in Germany, and if it succeeds this
will lead to a general unity in Europe. But to bring it about there will
have to be a general improvement in relations and a much greater confidence
between the four great Allies. We have had lately some notable statements
on Germany. In the first place, I refer to Mr. Byrnes' speech at Stuttgart on
6th September. H.M. Government find themselves in almost complete agree-
ment with what Mr. Byrnes said., It cannot be too oft repeated that the con-
tinuance of American interest in Europe is vital to the peace of Europe
and particularly to the future of Germany. In fact, it is one of the brightest
parts of the post-war picture, and one of the main grounds for hope that we
shall reach a better settlement this time than we did at the end of the last
war. I say again how much we welcome the proposal set out in the draft
treaty on German disarmament which Mr. Byrnes put forward last July.
We would be glad to see agreement reached on some such proposal for 40
years or whatever period is considered appropriate.

Foreign Affairs

Equally, we welcome Marshal Stalin's statement, and we are extremely
glad of his categorical denial of the idea that Russia might be intending
to use Germany against the West. We can only hope that Marshal Stalin's
words will, in practice, make easier co-operation between all the Allies in
Germany, and other questions. If, therefore, we take Mr. Byrnes' pledge
of American co-operation, Marshal Stalin's words, the declaration which I
have just made of Great Britain's desire for Four Power co-operation, and
the known willingness of France to collaborate in European security, and if
this desire for co-operation can be applied in practice in the conference
room, and written into the settlement, the future of Europe looks brighter
than it has looked for ages. Whatever difference of opinion there might
be as to the final settlement in Germany, the Four Powers in occupation of
Germany are joined by their determination to prevent any future German
aggression, or the creation of any state of affairs in Germany in which such
aggression might be prepared. The issues in Germany will have to be
faced at a special meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Novem-
ber in New York. I must not mislead the House into assuming that the
German question can be finally settled at this meeting. One hopes that
it will be possible to agree on general principles to be worked out at later
meetings, until we arrive at a final solution. Our ultimate goal is the
preparation of a peace treaty, but there is a large amount of preliminary
work to be done before that can be accomplished. It is obvious that the
views of the countries which waged war against Germany must be heard.
The exact procedure to enable their views to be heard must first be worked
out at the Council of Foreign Ministers, but it is clear that no final de-
cisions can be taken until all the Powers who actively took part in the war
against Germany have had a chance to express their views.

I should like now to state some of the general principles which H.M.
Government hope to see adopted with regard to the treatment of Ger-
many. I hope they may commend themselves to the House, and that we
may go into the conference in New York fortified with the knowledge that
our ideas have the support of public opinion, of the House, and of the
country. We wish to see established, first, political conditions which will
secure the world against any German reversion to dictatorship or any re-
vival of German aggressive policy; second, economic conditions which will
enable Germans and the world outside Germany to benefit in conditions
of peace from German industry and resources; third, constitutional ma-
chinery in Germany for these ends which is acceptable to the German
people, and is thus likely to be more permanent. As regards the first point,
we are striving to stimulate habits of orderly self-government amongst the
Germans. There have recently been elections in the British zone for local
councils. There have also been elections in Berlin, of the results of which
the House is already aware. Next spring there will be elections for the
provincial councils. The lesson, that the exercise of political power and

British Speeches of the Day [MR. BEVIN]
responsibility is dependent on the approval of the electors expressed through
the ballot box, is one of the most valuable we can teach the Germans.
As regards the third point, the constitution of Germany, we are de-
centralizing German administration as far as possible. We have set up a
new province of North Rhineland Westphalia, and we intend reorganizing
the remainder of our zone into two other provinces, Schleswig-Holstein
and Lower Saxony. The Hanseatic towns of Hamburg and Bremen will,
for the time being, remain separate from the arrangement. Looking fur-
ther ahead, we contemplate a German constitution which would avoid the
two extremes of a loose confederation of autonomous States and a unitary
centralized State. Certain questions would be exclusively reserved to the
Center; the regional units would be exclusively competent in all the re-
maining powers. Allowance would thus be made for local differences in
tradition, religion and economic circumstances. The central Government
might consist of two chambers, one of which would be popularly elected,
and the other consisting of representatives of the regional units. There
might be a supreme court like the United States Supreme Court, with juris-
diction to give rulings on the powers of all central and provincial legisla-
tures. A central German government can, in due course, be established on
condition that it can be freely elected from Germany as a whole and that
its authority runs throughout Germany.
I now come to the second point, economic conditions. In the short term,
our guide should be the Potsdam Agreement, which lays down the economic
principles to be followed for the initial control period. There are many
imperfections in this Agreement, but we have said many times that we are
ready to carry it out in its entirety. What we are not prepared to do is to
carry out parts of it which are unfavorable to us, while other parts are not
fulfilled. Neither are we prepared to operate the Potsdam Agreement unless
it applies to all the zones on equal terms and covers economics, finance and
reparations. The basic provision of the Agreement is that Germany shall
be treated as an economic unit. It follows that there must not be repara-
tions deliveries from current production, so long as there is a deficit in the
balance of payment account in any one zone. As a result, Eastern Germany
and Western Germany are treated as two separate economic units. We and
the Americans have had to buy food and other goods to send into Western
Germany, while the Russians are taking similar goods from Eastern Ger-
many into Russia. This is a situation which cannot go on. We must either
have Potsdam observed as a whole, and in the order of its decision, or we
must have a new agreement.
This situation was so serious that I had to declare at the Council of
Foreign Ministers in July that Great Britain would not tolerate paying
large sums to keep German economic life going, and that we must take steps
to put our zone on a sound economic basis which would prevent any cost
falling on the British taxpayer. This would have involved the coal to other
zones and to other countries being paid for on a dollar basis. To meet
the situation the United States.offered to merge their zone with any other
zone, and to form one economic unit. His Majesty's Government accepted

Foreign Affairs
that. This will not, of course, cure the present deficit of the two zones, or
take the place of the treatment of the whole of Germany as a single economic
unit. However, we are satisfied that this merger has been a most useful step
in the right direction, and that its actual results, providing the financial
situation can be straightened out, can be made satisfactory.
As regards German industry, the British estimate, taking steel as the
yardstick-and this was worked out on what was called the Armistice and
Postwar Committee of the Coalition Government, after the most careful
examination of all the facts-was that Germany should be allowed to pro-
duce 11 million tons. That 11 million tons would not have created any
possibility of aggression, but it was just enough to rehabilitate Gerran life.
We met with strenuous opposition, and in the interim arrangement which
we reached the figure was left at 71/ million tons. However, the facts have
proved that our estimate was right, if the devastation in Germany is to be
dealt with. We agreed to this plan on the clear understanding that Ger-
many would be treated as an economic unit. As this has not been done, we
have a right to revise the plan. Meanwhile, we and the American Govern-
ment are having to provide large sums of money in order to keep our zones
of Germany at the minimum subsistence level. This is most unpalatable,
and we are doing our utmost to reduce this burden. The greatest single
improvement would be to increase the coal output of the Ruhr. In spite
of all efforts, we can do this only by retaining in Germany temporarily more
of the coal which is at present exported, and so rehabilitate the German
coal industry so as to be in a position at an early date to step up exports all
round. Of course, every importing country is greatly concerned. But the
fact is the industry there is run down and destroyed, and stocks are almost
exhausted; the workers are becoming worn out on their poor diet, and are
disturbed by lack of certainty about the future of German industry.
We had to meet two points of view. We had what was called the Mor-
genthau Plan to ruralize Germany, and that influenced the United States
outlook considerably. We had the Russian mind, which, looking for
security, thought it ought to be completely destroyed, but the British calcu-
lation, taking steel as a yardstick at 11 million tons, and basing the rest
of industry on that footing, has turned out a perfectly right calculation,
upon which we must work. All these difficulties are intensified by the pres-
ence in Germany of a very large number of displaced persons, for whom at
present no home can be found, and by the transferring to Germany of
millions of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. We are not trying
to evade our responsibility to receive a proportion of these now homeless
'Germans into our zone, but their arrival, obviously, increases the difficulties
and hardships of the already overcrowded population. Housing space per
inhabitant in the British zone, owing to the air war, is already less than it
is in any of the other zones.
I was glad to see from Mr. Byrnes' speech at Stuttgart that it is not a
part of the American policy to deny to the Germans the possibility of im-
proving their lot by hard work. M. Molotov also said, in one of his state-

British Speeches of the Day [MR. BEVIN]
ments in Paris in July, that, subject to the necessary controls, the German
output of steel, coal, and manufactured products might be increased within
certain limits. It is our considered view that German industry has a most
important part to play in the whole of European economy, and it is not
our intention that it should be permanently crippled, except in so far as it
might endanger security. The plan for the Ruhr must be worked into the
plan for the disarmament control of Germany as a whole, which is set out
in the draft treaty proposed by Mr. Byrnes, which I referred to earlier.
Apart from this, we have also to consider the ownership of the basic-
German industries. These industries were previously in the hands of mag-
nates who were closely allied to the German military machine, who financed
Hitler, and who in two wars were part and parcel of Germany's aggressive
policy. We have no desire to see those gentlemen or their like return to a
position which they have abused with such tragic results. As an interim
measure, we have taken over the possession and the control of the coal and
steel industries, and vested them in the Commander-in-Chief. We shall
shortly take similar action in the case of the heavy chemical industry and
the mechanical engineering industry. Our intention is that those industries
should be owned and controlled in future by the public. The exact form of
this public ownership and control is now being worked out. They should
be owned and worked by the German people, but subject to such inter-
national control that they cannot again be a threat to their neighbors. The
industries are in great disorder. Many of them have been heavily damaged;
most of them are operating at a considerable loss. The case for the public
ownership of those heavy industries was never stronger than it is in Ger-
many today. The Germans know this themselves. I am satisfied that this
statement by me in the House today will give hope to those Germans who
never again want to see themselves the victims of these cartels and trusts
which led them to disaster, those magnates who used the labor and skill of
the German workmen with such ingenuity and with such disastrous results
to them and to the whole world.
Let me sum up our economic aims with regard to German industry.
The productionof war material in the broadest sense must be absolutely
and permanently prohibited. Germany must become self-supporting as
quickly as possible. To achieve this more coal must be produced and re-
tained in Germany. Thereafter, German industry should be free to expand,
subject to a measure of international control whose form is to be deter-
mined. We should give active support to the German plan for the socializa-
tion of their basic industries. Another most important matter to be discussed
at our forthcoming Conference is that of Germany's frontiers. At Potsdam
we agreed that a large part of eastern Germany should be provisionally put
under Polish administration, pending final settlement of the Polish-German
frontier. We did not at that Conference deal with Germany's western fron-
tiers. There are many pressing and important questions on that side as
well. The French wish to incorporate the Saar in their economic and
administrative system, but without formally annexing it. They also propose

Foreign Affairs
that the Rhineland should be detached from Germany and formed into a
separate State. They also wish that the Ruhr should be formed into a separate
State. In addition to these major problems, it is possible that the Nether-
lands, the Belgian, Danish and Luxembourg Governments may put forward
claims for territorial adjustments with Germany.
Our own view on some of these claims has already been expressed and
told to the House. His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the
French proposals about the Saar, subject to the necessary adjustments of
the French reparations balance and the delimitation of the exact area.
We feel that this has been too long delayed, and that in the interests both
of the miners and other workers in the Saar and of the French Govern-
ment it is right the matter should be settled quickly. While, therefore,
we shall support the French over the Saar we cannot support their proposal
with regard to the Rhineland and the Ruhr. An arrangement can, we
think, be made, which would satisfy French security, by providing for
the maintenance in those territories of an Allied Force, even after the end
of the occupation of the rest of Germany.
As regards the Polish frontier, I will not try to conceal the fact that
it was with the greatest reluctance that we agreed at Potsdam to the vast
changes upon which our Russian allies insisted. It was inevitable that
such enforced, large scale emigration of people should provoke the deepest
reaction in Germany, and I fear we have not seen the last result of the
Polish affaire. Our own assent to the provisional arrangements at Potsdam
was given in return for various assurances made by the provisional Polish
Government, to the effect that they would hold free and unfettered elec-
tions as soon as possible, on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot,
in which all anti-Nazi parties should have the right to take part and put
forward candidates, and that representatives of the Allied press should
have full freedom to report to the world on developments in Poland before
and during the elections. We also secured agreement that the returning
soldiers-which has been the subject of so much criticism-should have
free entry back into Poland and the advantage of having the use of lands
that would be available. We see no reason why we should finally ratify
the cession of this vast territory to Poland, without being satisfied that
those assurances have been fully carried out. We should also wish to be
assured that the Poles were able to develop this territory so that the eco-
nomic resources were properly used, and that it did not become a wilder-
ness from which the Germans had been excluded, but which the Poles
were unable to populate.
There is a great deal of talk nowadays about the need for putting
things right in our zone of Germany. All this talk is very right and very
natural. I must say, however, that people, both here and in Germany, are
apt to see these things rather out of perspective. It must not be forgotten
that crimes were committed and millions of Germans were implicated in
those crimes, and Nuremburg by no means wipes the slate clean. We must
behave like decent and sensible human beings and not like Nazis, but I

British Speeches of the Day [Mn. BEVIN]
appeal to the country not to allow itself to begin indulging in sloppy
sentiment. It will not do the Germans any good, and it will only result
in misleading them. Having regard to the fact that we have had to fight
two wars, with all their sacrifices, we must now secure a just settlement
without fear or favor. It is extremely distasteful to see victorious nations
courting a defeated enemy for ideological reasons. The sooner we can
get away from this, and consider objectively what is demanded by justice
and by the long-term interests of Europe and the world, the better it will
be for ourselves and for Germany as well.
We have also, of course, a major interest in seeing that Germany does
not become a permanent distressed area in the center of Europe, and that
the Germans should have a proper and reasonable standard of living. If
this distressed area is allowed to develop, it can only result in bringing
down with it the standard of life all over Europe, including our own
and indeed that of the world. Therefore, striking this balance is a very
difficult thing to do. We are in Germany partly to clear up the mess
which Hitler caused, and the Germans would be very much worse off if
we were not there. We are, of course, fully conscious of the need for pub-
licity to make quite sure that our point of view is fully presented to the
German people. Instead of indulging in mutual recriminations and ac-
cusations against our administration, the German political parties, agd
indeed our own friends at home here, would be well advised to reflect on
the present situation of Germany in its European setting and on how all
this has been brought about. Only in that way shall we arrive at a useful
understanding, and only in that way will they be able to use their utmost
energies to retrieve the past crimes and errors of the Nazis, and help
Germany to a new place in the society of nations.

I now. turn to France. When I was in Paris I was able to see for
myself some of the tremendous work of reconstruction to which the French
people have put their hands. Nobody who goes to France can fail to be
impressed by the courage and resourcefulness with which the French have
set about repairing the ravages of war. It is our policy to help them in
every way we can, not only because they deserve our help, but because
it is in our interest, and in the interest of all Europe, that France should
be strong and prosperous. I am glad to say that the volume of trade be-
tween this country and France is continually growing, but because of
production and exchange difficulties, it is unfortunately by no means as
large as it ought to be. M. Bidault and I discussed all this in Paris, and
we thought it would be useful to set up a joint committee of officials to
meet at regular intervals in order to examine, and if possible overcome,
any particularly difficult obstruction to the development of Anglo-French
trade. That committee had a successful first meeting in Paris at the end
of last month, and its next meeting is to be held in London in a day or
two. The work, of course, is not intended to supplant the work of the
individual officials on each side, who are in continual consultation with
one another on day to day matters. The establishment of an Anglo-French
committee of this kind must also not be taken as meaning that we are

Foreign Afairs
les interested in developing our trade relations with other countries, and
particularly with our immediate neighbors. On the contrary, the more
trade, the more prosperity there will be for all of us.
The corollary of freer trade is freer travel. No argument is required
to demonstrate the futility of imposing unnecessary restrictions on the
movement of private individuals from one country to another. Unfor-
tunately, we have hitherto had to exclude ordinary tourists from this coun-
try because of shortages of food and lack of accommodation. Now that
conditions are improving, however,-there is no longer any need to do this.
I told M. Bidault in Paris that we should like to negotiate an agreement
with the French Government providing for the mutual abolition of visas
and for the removal of handicaps to the tourist traffic." M. Bidault accepted
the offer on behalf of the French Government, and negotiations are now
commencing. We shall shortly be making similar offers to a number of
other countries and, assuming that the offers are accepted, negotiations
will be entered into and completed as soon as possible.
Before I sit down I would like to say just one word about another
part of the world, and that is South America. I am happy to say that
the agreements arrived at, and the negotiations that have taken place, both
with Brazil and with the Argentine, and are now going on with other
countries in South America, are not only bringing back our trade and our
good will, but are also establishing very friendly relations with those

Time does not permit me to deal with the United Nations, which will
be dealt with by the Prime Minister tomorrow. I have no doubt that the
House at this moment thinks that I have been talking long enough. We
hear a lot of suggestions being made about this subject, but I would rather
have it dealt with fully tomorrow. However, I would like to say that for-
merly it has been said that the r6le of the United States was to play the
part of an intermediary between Britain and Russia. Now I see, in some
of the press, it is suggested that we should play the part of intermediary
between the United States and Russia. Our role is not to be an interme-
diary at all. We have our own contribution to make to world peace,
and they have theirs. We place our proposals on the table, and we ask
for a discussion of them on their merits, We are not ganging up with
anybody, neither with one side nor the other. Our approach to peace is
not on that footing. When we suggest something, it is neither dignified
nor proper to use the suggestion to argue that we are making attacks either
on one or another of our Allies. We cannot evolve world peace unless we
have made our views clear by discussion, and have seen what emerges.
This should always be done without prejudice or accusations of ulterior
motives. Unless this procedure is maintained at the Council of Foreign
Ministers and at the United Nations, we shall never get the common un-
derstanding which is essential to build world peace. As far as I am con-
cerned, I shall continue to act on this principle.
The peoples of the world want, above all, to be allowed to get on with
the work of reconstruction, which is so necessary everywhere after the

British Speeches of the Day [MB. BEVIN]

ravages of war. I would ask the House however to appreciate the condi-
tions under which the peacemakers are working. Hanging over them are
the terrific inventions of science-atomic energy, bacteriological warfare,
rockets, and all the other devilish devices for the destruction of human
life, and with them the suspicion and fear that they create, which pervades
the conference room. The peacemakers are haunted by a subconscious-
ness of the dangers of a recrudescence of Nazism and Fascism arising from
economic disorders. I am conscious that there is only one effective antidote
to it all, and that is to be found in policy-a policy which will establish
confidence, settle these outstanding political and territorial difficulties be-
tween nations, introduce new relations, and make the necessity for the
use of all these devices so remote that the whole world can begin to think
and act in an atmosphere of peace and confidence.
Therefore, upon the gteat Powers, in particular, and upon the small
Powers as well, rests at this moment a terrific responsibility. In this, I
can assure the House and the country, Great Britain will do her best to
plant the feet of the people firmly on the road to peace, with all the op-
portunities that follow from such a policy. Great Britain, after all, has a
great past. She set the example in the Commonwealth of Nations, where
unison and liberty have been able to march together hand in hand, the,
bonds being strengthened more and more as liberty has been increased.
She is entitled to expect that this great experiment should be examined
by the rest of the world. Her sacrifice in two great wars for freedom, and
her ability to practise it in war and peace, entitle her to a proper place
and adequate consideration of her views in the councils of the nations.
She cannot and will not be dismissed. Her moral example, her steadiness
and, if I may say so, the economic stability she is now showing after the
terrible devastation of war from which she has suffered, place her in. a
position to render great assistance in the resettlement of the world. We
shall stand firm in our purpose; I am sure that the world recognizes the
work we are doing, and that, in spite of our difficulties, our prestige and
moral leadership are bearing fruit.

Mr. Konni Zilliacus (Labor): I confess to a feeling of unreality in listen-
ing to this Debate, and in reading the discussions in the press about the
so-called ideological conflict between East and West. The nearest that
anyone has come to putting his finger on the real issue-only to take it
away again quickly-was Field-Marshal Smuts, and since it seems to be
popular to quote him, perhaps I may follow the example of the hon. Mem-
ber for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). On 7th October, Field-Marshal Smuts
"I wish the veto could be imposed on the ideologies and the world just be allowed
to settle down to its real business. For in what is really wanted we are all agreed.
People want to be fed and housed and clothed, to be secured against unemployment
and sickness and all the other miseries of our daily life-to be secured against these
fears and against the fear of war. In all this there is no East or West, and no ideol-
ogies. There is just simple stark humanity."
The Prime Minister this afternoon, quoting the Foreign Secretary, said
that our real trouble was the economic disorganization resulting from the

Foreign Affairs
war. I heard that after the First World War, when it was assumed that
the only thing wrong with the world was the economic disorganization result-
ing from the war, and reconstruction was based on the assumption that
we could go back to the pre-war economic system. The right hon. Gentle-
man the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who was at
that time Director of the Economic and Financial Section of the League
Secretariat, wrote very pungently on that point, and explained in detail
that the whole reconstruction effort had gone wrong because it overlooked
the fact that it was the very economic and social foundations of our society
which had to be rebuilt. If that was true after the First World War, it is
a thousand times more true today. The whole point about this ideological
conflict is that it is concerned with how people are to get food and houses
and be secured against unemployment and against war. We on these
benches won the General Election because we told the people of England
that these things could only be done by going forward toward Socialism.
It is a remarkable fact that in every Debate on foreign affairs in this
House our Front Bench has never mentioned the word "Socialism," except
this afternoon, when the Prime Minister said that our policy was demo-
cratic Socialism. I suppose it is exemplified in Greece?

The issue we have to face is the fact of the social revolution in the
world, and what we are going to do about it; what our attitude is towards
it. On our decision on that issue, depends whether there will be peace
between us and the Soviet Union, or whether there is to be a third world
war. When I speak of the social revolution, I am referring to the same
fact as that which was mentioned, in somewhat different words, by the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), in
the Coal Debate on 20th May. He used words then which impressed me
so much, that I still remember them by heart. He said:
"The problem of the 20th century is how to create an economic democracy
parallel with the political democracy that has come to its full estate."-[OFFIcuL
REPORT, 20th May, 1946; Vol. 423. c. 133.]
I believe that is a profoundly true observation. But I think the right hon.
Gentleman himself would agree that, in the form in which he has put the
issue, it applies only to the old established democracies in Western Europe,
to the British Commonwealth and to the United States. In the rest of
the world the situation is different. I will leave out Asia because there
the issue is complicated by the struggle for national independence and equal-
ity of status, and I will deal only with Europe because in Europe we have
a special responsibility under the Atlantic Charter and under the Teheran
and Potsdam Agreements.
The responsibility under the Atlantic Charter was interpreted by the
then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, on 24th May, 1944,
and by the then Minister of State of the Labor Government on 19th De-
cember, 1945. According to those interpretations, the Atlantic Charter
means that we are to help the ex-enemy peoples to establish democratic
forms of government, and allow them to choose any democratic form of
government they want. But we are to prevent them restoring any form of

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ZILHucus)
Fascit rule. The Teheran Agreement binds us to help the liberated peo-
ples, who are our Allies, to get rid of the remains of Fascism in their coun-
tries, and to establish a democratic form of rule.
How are we to apply those obligations in the Europe of today? In the
Europe of today there is something quite new and unprecedented going
on. It is an attempt to establish both economic and political democracy
simultaneously, as one combined operation. Nothing like that has ever
been done before. There are no precedents for it, and it is not surprising
that it is a little puzzling to observers from this country who, very naturally,
tend to look at everything through the spectacles of our own country and
our own conditions. I do not think we realize what a very extraordinary
and miraculous thing our democratic system and democratic way of life is.
It is so ingrained in the blood, and bones, and traditions, of the people
of this country, that it is generally assumed now to be part of the order
of nature. It is not. It is the result of a very long history, of restraint
and commonsense, and of faith in each other's fundamental honesty and
good will. These are precious things which do not come of themselves,
and cannot be exported, but are the result of a very long evolution.
In Europe things are happening of a very different kind because the
background is very different. The only way in which I can give an idea
of the difference, perhaps, is by telling the House the story of the Balkan
partisan who, when he heard that Labor had won the General Election,
said: "Oh, then I suppose the Conservative Party have taken to the hills."
How was that rude and unlettered Balkan partisan to know that in our
sophisticated democracy, when the Conservative Party is beaten at the polls,
all that happens is that its leaders take to the City?
We do not know, because we are used to it, what very strong medicine
free elections are. To try to apply that system to people who have gone
through years and years of a debilitating system of Fascism, or who have
never grown up to democracy, is like giving whisky to a child, or to a
patient in a hospital. An American statesman once remarked that the
United States in every Presidential election has a sublimated civil war every
four years. I know of a case where even a football match between two
South American republics caused a rupture in diplomatic relations, and a
headache in Geneva. These things put a great strain on the solidarity of
communities which are not used to our advanced democracy. As Lord
Balfour said:
"Democracy can exist only in a community where everyone is agreed on fun-
The whole point about countries in Europe who have emerged after
being overrun by Fascism and dictated to by their own Fascists and quis-
lings, is that in those countries, there has been a revolution. Fascism is
capitalist counter-revolution, and was supported by leading men of the
propertied class, the big bankers, big businessmen, and big landowners.
Part of the population of those countries went over completely to the Fas-
cist and, as a result, the overthrow of the Fascist regimes meant that the
resistance movements, which were based in great part on the working class
and peasantry, took over the derelict industries and estates from the big

Foreign Affairs
bankers, businessmen and landowners, who had fled after having associated
themselves with Fascism. What are they to do in those countries with the
people who worked with the enemy, and shot, tortured, and gaoled their
own countrymen? They cannot include them in their democracy, because
they do not agree on fundamentals. Therefore, these regimes must be
coalitions to start with, of those who support the revolution against those
who oppose it.
That is what is happening in a large part of Europe today. The dis-
appearance of the landowning and big business classes has meant the rise
to the surface of the peasants and working class. The great problem of
those countries is how to help those people to come together, and not
allow them to fall apart. The way to do that, is through the co-operatives
and trade unions. The political dynamo is some kind of political coalition,
either of Socialists and Communists, or of Communists alone in nearly all
those countries. The supporters of these regimes argue for maintaining a
coalition by pointing to the fact that during the war we put off the Elec-
tion for five years, and that at the end of the war the Conservative Party
put forward strong arguments for continuing it here in the difficult cir-
cumstances of post-war reconstruction. These people do not understand
why the Conservative Pary, who are such strong believers in national unity
in our country, are so bent upon making them return to party politics,
when their problems are incomparably more difficult. Part of their popu-
lation is still 100 per cent against the new regimes.

I want to emphasize the fact that throughout Europe today the trade
unions and working classes are playing a far greater part in reconstruction
than they have ever played, and in the trade unions the Communist Parties,
or Communists and Socialists together, are playing the leading part. In
every country in Europe today the trade unions are stronger than they
have ever been. In France the Confdddration Gdndrale du Travail is over
6 million strong, greater than it has ever been. It has taken a key part
in the reconstruction of France after the war, such a powerful part that
the Paris correspondents of The Times, New York Times and Herald
Tribune have testified that its is impossible to reconstruct France without
the trade unions and the Communist Party, which is almost in complete
control of the French trade unions. The Paris correspondent of The Econ-
omist on 17th August, wrote:
"The facts suggest that the French unions are Communist today because the
working man has learnt by hard experience to identify Communist leadership with
his own betterment. This development is vital to understanding what is now hap-
pening in France."
The French Communists had five million votes at the last election
and have 10 Ministers in the Government. They were only two per cent
behind the M.R.P. last time and may be the strongest party at the next
Election. I could go through the whole of Europe, country by country,
and come to the same conclusion that the working class, through the
trade unions, is playing a key part in reconstruction, and that Communist
Parties, or as in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria, Com-

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ZILuACUS]
munist Parties in conjunction with Socialist Parties, are playing a crucial
part in reconstruction. The same applies to the Soviet zone in Germany.
In those areas Socialist reconstruction is on the basis of about 80 per
cent nationalization of industry, a further large co-operative section of
industry and trade, and then a sector of private enterprise for light indus-
try, handicraft and petty trading. Those societies are heading for some
new social order, and have enlisted the enthusiasm and co-operation of
the working class and the peasants, who have now got the land. The
amount of political democracy and civil liberty varies very greatly, accord-
ing to the degree of political democracy that had been attained by those
countries before the war, Czechoslovakia being top of the list in that
respect, and according to the amount of suffering they endured during the
war, and how severely they were oppressed under some kind of Quisling
Contrast that with what is happening in parts of Europe over which
Britain and America have direct responsibility. In Italy there are over
two million unemployed. The first thing which the Allied High Com-
mand did when they landed in Italy was to apply the rule of "no politics,"
which meant, in fact, that the Fascists having been overthrown by our
victory, the Left were not allowed to.take charge. In Northern Italy, where
the workers had taken charge and thrown out the Fascist bosses from the
factories and got down to it, the Fascist bosses were restored and the fac-
tory committees dissolved. In all the other countries I have mentioned
trades unions and factory committees are playing a leading part in the
actual running of the factories and in actually determining the condition
of the workers. In Italy we allowed the Uomo Qualunque party, a neo-
Fascist party, to be formed in spite of our pledge not to allow any resto-
ration of Fascism, and Italy is in such a state today that there may be
civil war in that country. The Socialist Party is breaking up. Part of it
is being pulled by the solicitations of the Allies to line up with the Cath-
olics, others believe that the only hope of salvation lies in alliance with
the Communists.
We have heard about the deplorable conditions in the British zone in
Germany. I had intended to quote the same passage from the Observer
which an hon. Gentleman opposite quoted yesterday. I will forbear to
do so, but I will draw attention to the resolution of the German Social
Democratic Party. The German Social Democrats, in the midst of their
election campaign, found the situation so serious as to find it necessary to
pass a resolution protesting that they would not co-operate any further
with the occupation Forces unless there was a radical change of policy.
The Manchester Guardian Cologne correspondent on 27th September,
said that the reasons why the Social Democratic Party found it necessary
to hold such a conference in the middle of an election campaign were
"1. The Party leaders' realization that the continuing social and economic deteriora-
tion in Germany is reaching such proportions that the credit of any party co-operating
in the regional or local government-is threatened. 2. The course taken by the nego-
tiations for the economic fusion of the British and American zones "

Foreign Afairs
Delegate after delegate spoke at the meeting of the pitiable condition
of the people, the stagnation in industry, the apathy produced by con-
tinued hunger. The resolution stated that:
"Germany is threatened with the most frightful disaster . In politics, eco-
nomics and administration the same forces are in control which brought us to our
present pass. In the unification of the British and American zones all the central
offices have been handed over to representatives of the capitalist viewpoint."
An article in the Scotsman of 19th October from their special corre-
spondent just returned from our zone, said that there was great bitterness
about the working of the electoral system. I asked a question the other
day about that system and received an answer which did not satisfy me.
I note that these new elections instead of producing a fair result have pro-
duced a result in which the Social Democrats, who had 150,000 votes more
than the Catholic Democrats got 1,000 fewer seats than the Catholic Dem-
ocrats. This was the result of an electoral system against which the leaders
of all the German parties protested vehemently and persistently to the
British occupation authorities. This correspondent's article comments:
"That a party with the strongest vote should appear to get far less actual influence
on the newly elected. municipal bodies than its weaker rival must seem in German
eyes to contradict the idea that democratic institutions reflected the will of the
The article continues:
"Feeling against the British Occupation authorities is very strong and very bitter,
but hatred of Russia is even stronger and more bitter, so that as one prominent
German leader said, The British here live'entirely on the follies and mistakes com-
mitted by the Russians."
The only catch about that state of affairs is that the Russians started with
the great handicap of the Goebbels terror propaganda against them, further
aggravated by the bad behavior of Russian troops in the first few days
or weeks of occupation. If we are to rely upon that, and the Russians as
well as I have seen them doing in their zone, I think there will be a change
in the situation.
Against these facts, much as I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announce-
ment that we propose to socialize heavy industry in our zone, I would like
to be certain what it means and what is to happen. I was told in Germany
on high British official authority that we are to introduce land reform and
that a maximum of 150 hectares was to be possessed by one person. That
is about 375 acres. A land reform which allows people to have 375 acres
is not my idea of land reform. It is creating a new type of middle-sized
landed gentry. Can the good intentions of the Foreign Secretary survive
his utter dependence on the policy of the United States? The Americans
in their zone are rapidly letting American businessmen buy up the in-
dustries in that zone and run" them on American credits. The raw materials
are being supplied, and the manufactured goods being worked up for ex-
port in the American zone of Germany. There is a grave danger that what-
ever our intentions may be we shall find that in view of the fusion of the
two zones, and because of the complete dependence of this country in
world affairs on the United States today we shall not be able to carry our
policy into effect.

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ZILLIACUS]

Let me enumerate a few facts which show how complete is our depen-
dence on the United States. First, there is the issue of the Danube. The
Foreign Secretary made a speech in this House on 5th June, on the occasion
of the last foreign affairs Debate, and he made another statement yesterday,
in both of which he put the issue of the Danube as though it was con-
cerned wholly with the navigation of the Danube, and as though the only
people obstructing the matter were the Russians. In his speech last June
he added a peroration full of pathos about the wickedness of the Russians
in playing power politics on the hungry bellies of the people. But that
account left out two facts of considerable importance. The first is that the
Americans have pinched most of the river barges of the Danube, which
belong to the Danubian states, including our allies Czechoslovakia and
Yugoslavia. When some of us were in Yugoslavia last November we heard
bitter complaints, not only from Yugoslavs but from UNRRA, who said
that the confiscation of those barges was holding up supplies and causing
difficulties. If anybody is playing power politics on the bellies of the
people it is the Americans. Again, what was left out of the Foreign Secre-
tary's statement is that the issue is not concerned solely with navigation
of the Danube. The Americans have made it clear in every statement on
the subject, both at the Paris Conference and in the press, that. the issue
to them is free trade and non-discrimination throughout the Danube area.
They are fighting that as a joint issue with the navigation of the Danube.
What that means is brought out pretty clearly in a despatch to The Times
on 13th September, from its Paris correspondent, which says:
"In the European Economic Commission this morning, a debate arose over the
status to be granted to foreign business interests in Rumania; and from that starting
point it developed into an argument between free enterprise and State control. In
opposing the British proposal to grant foreign interests the same advantages as they
enjoyed before the war, the Russian delegation have been led step by step to an
almost open attack on the capitalist system and the defense of controlled economy."
One sees what terrible fellows these Russians are.
"The British, in resisting this attack, found themselves arguing the case of lib-
eralism and free competition. It was clear that the United States and the British
delegates were talking the same language. Between them and the Russian group
the gap remains unbridged."
The Times, of 12th October, in a leading article, spoke of the in-
sistence of what was called the spokesmen of the United States and our
Foreign Secretary upon free entry into the Danube Valley and Eastern
Europe for the goods and capital of the Western countries. It said that
the Russians were resisting this because they were afraid that the conse-
quence of these policies in the impoverished European countries might be
"their domination as economic colonies by the immense and unmatched wealth and
productive power of the United States."
So here we have the Labor Government openly and directly supporting an
offensive of American big business against the Socialist economies of
Eastern Europe.

Foreign Affairs

Take the case of the Dardanelles. The history of our free entry into
the Dardanelles goes right back into the nineteenth century when we com-
manded the sea and were very anxious to keep that channel open in the
case of a war with Russia. It was the Crimean War policy. Today, of
course, things have changed a little-that is, the world has changed, not
the Foreign Office tradition. We are repeating this earlier action, but this
time, please note, as the "stooges" of American imperialism. Some time
ago Walter Lippmann, who is one of the most intelligent publicists in the
States-he used to be a Liberal and he is now something between a power
politician and a war criminal-wrote very frankly about the fact that the
United States was quite ready to come into the Mediterranean and the
Middle East and help us to restore the balance of power, but she would
do so on her own terms. She wanted to become a Mediterranean power
in her own right. On this issue of the Dardanelles, Walter Lippmann
wrote another article on 12th September in the New York Herald Tribune.
He said:
"Early last winter the United States Government made the momentous decision
to take the leading part in repelling the expansion of the Soviet Empire. As t result,
we are now engaged in a world-wide diplomatic struggle of the utmost gravity. We
must realize that it cannot bewon and that it may lead to a catastrophic war unless
the diplomatic campaign is planned on a correct appraisal of what it is essential
to accomplish and of the power and influence we can muster in order to accomplish
it. .. The direct American policy would be to build up American power at a
selected point where, if war comes, the Soviet Union would from the outset be on
the defensive. That point is manifestly in the Eastern Mediterranean in the direction
of the Black Sea. For at that point American sea and air power can be brought
within reach of the vital centers of Russia, and can, therefore, most surely counteract
the striking power of the Red Army."
That is the reality of this battering at the gates of the Dardanelles by
the British and the Americans, and I say that on that issue I am entirely
on the side of the Russians. It is very big of Uncle Sam to come all the
way across the world to stop Russian expansion at the very frontiers of the
Soviet Union. But what about American expansion? Where are the Amer-
icans? They have naval and air bases all over the world. They have settled
down in Iceland and extorted an air base from the Icelanders who sub-
mitted under pressure of the American military occupation. The Amer-
icans were assisted by the subservient British Government, who sent notes
to the Icelanders urging them to give in to the Americans lest the Amer-
icans should not like their attitude. That is what is happening.
Henry Wallace has, himself, denounced the danger of the warmongers
in the United States. President Truman has just "chucked his hand in"
after a bitter fight with the American profiteers and enemies of the people
whom he denounced when surrendering to them and taking all controls
off meat. All controls are off American foreign policy as well. The United
States is now blundering about the world like a hermit crab that has cast
its shell and is looking for a bigger one.
We very often prepare for peace on the basis of the last peace. Today
people who are worrying about American isolationism are hopelessly out

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ZILLACUS]
of date. It is true the Americans helped us to lose the last peace by isola-
tion. But if we lose the next peace it will be not from American isolation-
ism but from American imperialism. I do not intend to go into the question
of the Middle East except to say that there, too, our whole policy is a
strategic policy which is based purely on military considerations. It has
* nothing whatever to do with the welfare of the people. It is all bound up
with the attempt to combine the strategy of the Crimean war with the
politics of Kipling. That is an anachronism beyond our strength, and it
makes no sense in the world of 1946. In Greece, again, we have the contrast
between the smooth words of the Foreign Secretary and ugly realities. There
I could quote what the same American paper has said about it, but I will
not do that because I have too much to say.

To take the case of Poland, there have been a lot of things said about
that country which, I think, require an answer. Anders's army is not
Poland and it does not consist by any means wholly of people who fought
on our side, because that army doubled its numbers after the armistice in
Italy. The only authority we have for interfering in Polish affairs is the
Teheran Agreement and the subsequent Potsdam Agreement. Those were
tripartite agreements between America, Russia and ourselves. I stressed
this point on Friday and I got a very unsatisfactory and lame reply from
the Government. It is a principle of international law that unless an inter-
national agreement specifies that it could be interpreted and applied by
only some of its signatories, all the signatories must agree to apply it jointly.
One or two of them cannot rightfully do so unilaterally. That means we
have no legal right whatever, unless we secure the assent of the Soviet
Union as well as the United States, to make representations to Poland on
this matter. I do not really see that we have any moral right either, if
we remember the situation that exists in Greece.
What happened was that the United States sent a note asking the Soviet
Union and ourselves whether we would protest to Poland. The Soviet
Union refused and we, of course, obliged, as usual. The United States
emphasized what they wanted to do to Poland by holding up the money
which they proposed to lend to them. We did not have any money to lend
to Poland, but our resourceful Foreign Secretary found a way by pinching
the Polish Government's money, which we promised to return, but now
said we would not return unless they pleased us about the elections. We
have no legal right to interfere in the matter. The situation in Poland is
really very serious. On Friday the Under-Secretary, replying for the Gov-
ernment, chose to identify Mikolajczyk's Peasant Party with the Labor
Party. He said they stood for practically the same thing. The whole
trouble about Mikolajczyk's Party is that its right wing has been heavily
infiltrated by members of the Fascist Underground. More than a hundred
of the captured members of Fascist bands have been found to be members
of his party. On 27th September a long list was published of the number
of people captured and the amount of the casualties, and it was stated
there were nearly 7,000 Poles who had been "bumped off" by the bands
in the Fascist Underground.

Foreign Affairs
The conclusion is that we must adopt a social engineering rather than
a Gallup Poll view of how to make democracy in Europe work again, and
how to discharge our responsibilities under the Teheran Agreement and
upder the Atlantic Charter, as interpreted by this Government and by the
previous one. We cannot separate the revival or the establishment of pol-
itical democracy from the. process of Socialist reconstruction. That ought
to hold no terrors for the Labor Party. After all, our own policy demands
that we should make Socialism the basis of international reconstruction
in Europe. This policy, called The International Post-War Settlement,
framed by the National Executive and adopted by the annual conference
in December, 1944, states that Socialism is a fundamental necessity for get-
ting rid of the causes of war, for extirpating Fascism, for successful eco-
nomic reconstruction and for restoring democracy. I would like to ask the
Government whether the main lines and principles of this statement of
foreign policy still hold good. I asked the Foreign Secretary that question
at the Bournemouth Conference during the five minutes which were allotted
to me, but in the 70 minutes which he took to reply, he did not find time
to give an answer on that point. I wish he would put that card on the table.
Does this document, the Post-War International Settlement, in its main
lines and fundamental principles, represent the Labor Party's foreign policy?
When the late Mr. Arthur Henderson became Foreign Secretary in the
second Labor Government, the first thing he did was to call his officials
together and to put into their hands the text of the foreign policy of the
Labor Party. He told them to read it because that was now the Govern-
ment's foreign policy. I would like to know whether anything like that
has been done this time. I can answer that question at once by saying
that it has not been done and that in point of fact we have not got a for-
eign policy. All we have got is the tradition of the Foreign Office. The
Labor Government are riding on that tradition as a kind of collective Lady
Godiva, singing some little ditty about their democratic Socialist foreign
policy which is invisible and imaginary. Nobody, at home or abroad, has
seen any Socialism in it. If we did have a Socialist foreign policy, I do
not imagine that hon. Members opposite would be quite so fond of it.
I am not a Vansittartist about the hon. Member opposite. I do not want
to see scenes of disorder, violence and carnage when our Front Bench set
about the other Front Bench in foreign affairs Debates. But I am getting
heartily tired of the amount of fraternization which is carried on. I see
no reason why in every foreign affairs Debate our Foreign Secretary should
enter the ring in the spirit of Ferdinand the Bull, while hon. Members
opposite bring him flowers in the guise of "Tory adorers."
What I do ask the Government is whether this document, the Inter-
national Post-war Settlement, is their foreign policy. Do they pay any at-
tention to it and take any responsibility for it? I ask them that question,
not only in my own name but in the name of my electors, who returned
me to this House. I fought my campaign as much on foreign affairs as on
home affairs. ...
If we act as Socialists in Europe, we can work with France and the
Soviet Union -on the basis of our joint obligations under the Anglo-Soviet

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ZnILACUS
and the Franco-Soviet Alliances, and these three States together would win
the respect of American Tories and the friendship and co-operation of
American Liberals and Labor. A Government adopting that policy would
be carrying out the Labor Party's own declared policy, instead of drifting
and dithering all over the world as it is doing now.
There are three major factors to consider-American capitalism, Euro-
pean Socialism and Russian Communism. If we go with American capital-
ism against European Socialism we shall throw the latter into the arms
of Soviet Communism. But if we work together with France and the
U.S.S.R. we shall have the chance of assisting the renascence of Europe and
help the people of Europe to the restoration of democracy and toleration....
I know I am right in this.. I know that, on the lines on which we are
going now, there is nothing but disaster ahead of us. But if Labor has the
courage to part company with the Tories and apply its own Socialist for-
eign policy, we shall win the peace.
[House of Commons Debates]

RT. HON. PHILIP NOEL-BAKER, Secretary of State for Air,
at the First Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
New York, October 25, 1946. Mr. President, and Fellow Delegates: In
his great pronouncement here the other day, President Truman used the
following words: "The United States will support the United Nations with
all the resources that we possess."
The first Representative of the new Government of India, this after-
noon, has said the same. And I begin by saying, in my Government's name,
that the United Kingdom will support the United Nations with all the
resources that we possess. I think it is salutary and timely that such state-
ments should be given now. Contrary to popular belief, such pledges were
not given in 1920.
The support of Governments for the United Nations far exceeds what
was given to the League of Nations when it was first set up. I think it is
salutary also, that the people should know that that is true, for it is the
most important single fact in world affairs today.
Sir, in this debate, it is our task to review for our Governments and for
our peoples, the work accomplished by the United Nations institutions since
we broke up in London eight months ago.
Every year in the Assembly we will attempt this task. Every year it will
be important. But rarely will it be more important than' it is today. For
nothing is harder than to see our work in true perspective now.
Since February last, the minds of the Governments and the peoples have
been given to the conferences which have been held in Paris. The work
of those conferences has been of urgent importance to the world. But, as
my Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on Wednesday after-
noon, even the biggest questions there discussed were "very small issues,

Britain and the United Nations
compared with the major issue that confronts the world, the major task of
building peace on sure foundations."
I lived through the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919 after the First
World War. Fresh from the battles of that conflict, I was constantly amazed
how passion blinded Governments to the true interest of their nations;
how, for a tiny irredentum, the friendship of neighboring peoples would
be lost, and the hope of peace imperilled.
The population of Trieste is less than half a million, one per cent of
the population of the two nations which claim it for their own. Even for
those two nations-I say it with respect-the vital thing is not where the
frontier line is drawn, but the kind of life which those people will lead in
years to come. And for the other 99 per cent of the two nations, isn't it plain
beyond dispute, that their overwhelming interest lies in a solution that
brings peace and justice?
It is perhaps symbolic that, in respect of Trieste, it was decided that the
only way to carry out that aim was to use the authority and the institutions
of the United Nations, but our task here is precisely to promote the com-
mon interests both of the one per cent and of the 99 per cent of the nations
of mankind.
Starting from the principle enshrined ii. every Article of the Charter,
that peace and economic progress are indivisible, we must free them by
joint international action from militarism and poverty and ignorance and
hunger and disease. Those are the tasks, which in the future, our diplomacy
must deal with. That is what we mean when we say that the United Na-
tions is the overriding factor in foreign affairs.
I believe that ten years from now, these tasks will look much more
important than they seem today. I believe that the beginnings we have
made will seem more important too.

What have we done since we met in London on January 10? Well, at
that first part of the Assembly, we completed what, in talking of national
parliaments, we call our constituent work. It is not easy work, as more than
one of our nations has discovered in recent times.. Senator Vandenberg is
ardent by temperament, but not sentimental. He told the Senate that our
constituent work in London was a "phenomenal success." Since then, the
International Court of Justice has come to life; two of our Councils have
taken shape; despite of unheard difficulties, the Secretary-General has built
up a staff. We have begun to learn how these new institutions should be
used to hammer out the procedure, the customs, and the technique which
will make them work. Above all, we have settled, for good and all, that
they shall work in public, because, as my Prime Minister said eight months
ago, public debate is the foundation of democracy and a sure guarantee
of liberty and justice against oppression.
But is that all we have done? Built up institutions, spent the money
in the budget, engaged international bureaucrats to pester the national
bureaucrats we have at home? Hasn't the United Nations helped to solve
the urgent practical problems of the post-war world?

British Speeches of the Day [MR. NOEL-BAKER]
In the Security Council? I quote my colleague, Sir Alexander Cado-
gan, who has been at every meeting since the start. He said, in Free World,
the other day: "If the Security Council had not been in existence, the situ-
ation in Iran might be much blacker." He said, "Some people might well
believe that if the Council had not dealt with the Syrian and Lebanese
complaints, British and French troops might still be in the Levant." He
said, "An ultimatum in the past has normally ended in threats of reprisals
or armed action, but the United States protest to Yugoslavia about the
shooting down of aircraft ended with the threat of bringing the matter to
the Security Council." Yes, Mr. President, even there, there is something
on the credit side.
The Economic and Social Council? A concrete plan for refugees; a
plan to end war restrictions on international travel; the commissions re-
quired to plan for full employment; new organs already at work by which
the pressing post-war evil of illicit trade in drugs can be checked; a com-
mission with a mandate, which I trust the Assembly will confirm, to draw
up what President Truman first called an International Bill of Human
Rights; a report on the needs of devastated Europe, to be followed by
others for Asia and the East, and on the action which must follow UNRRA
in the countries where it has worked-that is part of the eight months' rec-
ord of our second Council.
UNRRA itself-the first and indispensable agent of the United Nations.
Untrue and bitter things have been said about UNRRA. I assert that
UNRRA has been a superb and an astonishing success. They have saved
whole nations from starvation; they have saved the world from epidemics
and civil wars-they have done more than that-they have proved that in-
ternational institutions, even on the most intricate operating tasks, can be
made to work.
And our Assembly has played its part. Do you remember Mr. Sol
Bloom's resolution and his UNRRA Committee? The resolution had 30
lines; it brought in something like 30,000,000 pounds-$4,000,000 a line.
Do you remember our other resolution about food supplies? It was
this Assembly which first warned the world that there might be famine in
many countries before the harvest of 1946. We started a great international
debate which went on for months. It moved the Governments to action.
Millions of tons of food were saved by new policies, both in the hungry
countries and elsewhere.
In this great generous country of the United States a stupendous effort
was put forth. More tons of cereals were shipped per week than had ever
happened in history before; food was diverted to the places where it was
urgently required, and the threat of death by famine to many millions was
Mr. President, while these emergency campaigns were going on, plans
for long-term reconstruction and co-operation have been matured. The
International Bank of Reconstruction, the International Monetary Fund
have been set up. We have a right to hope that in the early future the
Bank may make its first Reconstruction loans.
FAO is working. What a magnificent purpose; what limitless perspec-

Britain and the United Nations
tives it has in view. In New Zealand, out of every thousand male babies
that are born, only 53, one in 20, die in their first year. In parts of Asia,
the number is 490, nearly one in two, who die. Their mothers eat so little
they haven't the strength to keep their babies alive.
FAO decided last month in Copenhagen -to try and end the paradox
of hunger in the midst of plenty; of burning wheat in locomotives while
men and women starve. Next week, a Committee meets to prepare a con-
crete plan. Who can say that that Committee may not be a milestone in
human history?
Public health-soon our Organization will be at work.
Atomic Energy-I'll come back to that; but no record in these eight
months can leave out the plan-the revolutionary plan-put forward by the
United States or the solid progress made by the Committees on Interna-
tional Control.
Of course this is only the beginning, the beginning of our work; but
we have accomplished something. We have shown that the Charter and
its Institutions can be made to yield results. My Government hope that
this Assembly will give a new impulsion to the work which we have begun.
We want to put the power and the faith of the Assembly behind the
Councils, behind the Commissions, and behind every Member of the Secre-
tariat, whatever task he may perform. We hope that the Assembly will
make it plain that while we want efficiency in all things, the want of money
shall not impede the work. Our total budget for the coming year is less
than half what it cost my country for a single day of war.
We want, on the basis of the decisions already made, finally to settle
how our permanent headquarters shall be planned, designed and built.
We should like to make progress, too, about the Regional Centers which
we shall need in other continents, and not least in Europe.
Sir, we want, as other people want, this Assembly to approve the Trus-
teeship agreements that will be presented, and to bring the Trusteeship
Council into being before we end. We have faith in the Trusteeship sys-
tem; we want to make it not a thing of restrictions and controls, but a
dynamic force to help us to eliminate whatever may remain of the old
predatory imperialism of the past.
We want to admit new members to the United Nations-more new Mem-
bers than the Security Council have as yet proposed. We want to secure,
while the Assembly is still sitting, the 22 adhesions to the Health Conven-
tion that will bring the organization into legal life.
We want to draw up the final Convention on refugees and get it signed.
We want to establish, and establish quickly, the Expert Committee which
will assess the post-UNRRA relief requirement of countries which are still
genuinely in need.
We want to set up the International Children's Fund which the UNRRA
Council have proposed.
We would like, if we could get agreement, to set up an Economic Com-
mission for Europe, on the lines which the Devastated Area Report pro-
posed. We hope that the Assembly will endorse the agreements with- the

British Speeches of the Day [MR. NomL-BAKER)
specialized agencies, which the Council have proposed. But, we want
also progressively to weld these bodies into a single system of United Na-
tions Institutions. That will save us money-perhaps a lot; much more
important, it will promote efficiency in a dozen ways. And my Government
remains convinced that the most important single factor is to place the
headquarters of those bodies in the new international United Nations cen-
ter which we are going to build.

But, Mr. President, there are other tasks, less pleasant but not less ur-
gent, which we must face. The first is to declare again the basic principle
of international economic interdependence, on which so much of the Char-
ter is based. We have set up a great system of international institutions
for economic co-operation. Ever since the Atlantic Charter, we have all
been pledged to the propositions that a great increase in international trade,
helped by international loans, the co-ordination of national economic poli-
cies are required if we want to have a rising standard of living throughout
the world. We are bound by Articles 55 and 56. Surely we are no longer
free to say, as has been said in recent months, that national economic inde-
pendence is the first essential; that the International Bank will mean the
exploitation of those to whom it lends; that our real purpose is to make
the bondholders the rulers of the world. To say such things is to challenge
the very basis of the program on which hitherto we have all agreed. We
have agreed by the Charter that our common welfare is the test of eco-
nomic policy in times to come. We have agreed by the Charter, that coun-
tries with differing economic systems can work together to this end.
Our job now is to make this great new system a practical success. Sir,
our second urgent task is to throw the searchlight of our collective wisdom
on the recent workings of the Security Council; to ask ourselves what is
really happening in that important body; to inquire whether any of us can
be content, whether it serves anybody's interest that things should go on as
they are going now.
Let me say at once that my Government does not think that at this first
Assembly it would be wise to try to amend the Charter. Whatever changes
any of us may desire, surely we all agree that it would be premature to at-
tempt that course.
We must try first to work the Charter even if only to discover, by ex-
perience, what is really wrong. But if it is not useful to discuss amendment,
it is useful to discuss why there is such widespread anxiety about the Coun-
cil, why already there are insistent demands that amendments shall be made.
The Assembly cannot shirk this duty by appealing to the Permanent Mem-
bers of the Council to mend their ways, to show more mutual trust, to
avoid indulging in mere propaganda, and, in general, to agree. That is
admirable but it doesn't carry us very far.
I welcome much that the Secretary-General said on that topic in his
report. But if I may say so with respect, he used some phrases which may
be misunderstood. "The United Nations," he said, "was not equipped to
act as a referee between the great Powers." But if the great Powers have

Britain and the United Nations
genuine and serious disputes and they cannot settle them by bilateral nego-
tiations, where should they discuss them if not in the Council?
Can it be suggested that they should seek agreement outside the Council
as a separate and supreme Directorate of their own? My Government would
absolutely reject any such idea. It would be a flagrant violation of the
The Members of the Council don't represent their own Governments
alone. All of them, permanent or elected, represent the whole Assembly
too. The Charter is quite explicit. Under Article 24, the Members of the
United Nations, all of them, "confer upon the Council primary responsi-
bility for the maintenance of peace" and agree that "in carrying out its
duties, the Council acts on their behalf." It acts not as 11 separate indi-
viduals, each responsible to himself alone. It acts as a corporate body col-
lectively responsible to the full Assembly.
Nor is that all. In the second paragraph of Article 24, it is laid down
that "The Council shall act"-no option allowed-"shall act in accordance
with the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Those purposes
and principles are set forth in Chapter I. They include the precise and
vital pledges of Article 2.
Members of the Council are not free to do just what they please. They
must fulfill the obligations which their membership involves, and they have
another duty which the Charter quite evidently implies. They must seek
with all their power to reconcile their divergent views. And in practice,
this must mean two things. If a Permanent Member of the Council has a
difference with another Permanent or indeed, a non-Permanent Member
of the Council, it must seek the views of this other Member before it places
the question on the Agenda of the Council for debate. No one in his senses
goes to court before trying at least to seek agreement before he goes.
Second, the search for common ground, for the reconciliation of views
must involve a little give-and-take. One Permanent Member who holds a
certain view can hardly invoke the principle of unanimity to demand that
four others who take a different view shall conform to his.
Sir, what I have said I think conforms with the spirit of Article 33 by
which the Council acts. It is only when Members of the United Nations
have tried and have failed to reach agreement that they should seek the
help of the Assembly or of the Security Council. And I regret that that
practice has not always so far been followed. Without warning or prior
consultation, items have been placed on the Agenda of the Council and an
acrimonious debate has ended in a veto. As a result, as our Mexican col-
league said yesterday, the hope of friendly compromise recedes.

But fellow Representatives, apart from this, there has been what I would
call, with all respect, a reckless use of the veto when it comes to voting in
the Council. Consider what happened in a recent case. The Ukrainian
Representative charged the Greeks and British with fomenting warlike
incidents in the Balkans. He alleged that Greece was a menace to world

British Speeches of the Day [MR. NOEL-BAKER)
peace. He laid his case before the Council. By nine votes to two, the
Council's verdict was in favor of Britain and Greece. But that verdict could
not be formally recorded. The Representative of the Soviet Union imposed
a veto.
So far, I admit no real harm was done. The vote of nine to two cleared
Greece and Britain with all impartial people throughout the world. But
what followed then? Some Members of the Council felt that the situation
in northern Greece was really dangerous. They felt that there might be
an explosion, that the Council ought to investigate the facts on which the
allegations had been made. They proposed, therefore, to send a Commis-
sion of Inquiry to the spot to find out, on both sides of the frontier, what
was going on. And what happened? Again the Soviet Union imposed a
veto, vetoed an inquiry into charges which they themselves had made. Again
the Council's will was frustrated by a single voice.
And consider the principle that was involved. How can the Council
carry out the principles of Article 2, how can it seek to prevent breaches
of the peace, how can it fulfill its task of settling international disputes in
such a way that justice and security are not endangered if it can't even
make its own inquiries on the spot? All experience has shown over many
years that this matter of free and impartial international inquiry is vital.
A tribunal that can't do that will be quite useless as an instrument for
settling disputes.
Is that really what our Soviet colleagues want? We always understood
that in their opinion the Security Council should play a most important
part. But very soon, if this goes on, it will play no part at all. Who would
take a genuine dispute before the Council if it was likely to be dealt with
as in the Greek affair?
In the view of my Government, this is a grave issue in which the rights
of all Members of the Assembly are involved. We can't now amend the
Charter but there are other things which we can do. We can agree on new
and wiser interpretations of disputed points. We can facilitate the Coun-
cil's action by improvement in its Rules of Procedure. We can bring a
new spirit to the Council's work. As Mr. Gromyko said in London, "We
can build a sound and creative atmosphere capable of securing the attain-
ment of positive results."
And perhaps we can give the Council some constructive work to do.
Under the Charter, it is the Council's duty to organize the collective sys-
tem by which alone aggressive war can be restrained. It is its duty to pre-
pare the plans for the regulation of national armaments. That is an im-
mense task in which the Military Staff Committee must take the early steps.
We would like to see them pushing forward with greater energy and reach-
ing more practical results than they have achieved up to now.
We ask our Soviet colleagues, in all friendship and good understanding,
to reflect on the speeches which they have heard since this debate began,
and to listen to the appeal which we make to them today. This thing can
still be stopped. Can not they now help us in this Assembly, in consulta-
tion with all their colleagues, to examine what has happened in the Coun-
cil, and to agree on measures by which we can make a new and better start?

Britain and the United Nations

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom welcome the report
of the Technical and Scientific Sub-Committee on the Control of Atomic
Energy, which they regard as an important preliminary contribution to the
work of the Commission. It is a valuable step forward that the scientific
advisers of all the nations represented on the Atomic Energy Commission
should have agreed on certain fundamental points. These scientists have
made it clear that all stages of the processes of harnessing atomic energy
are potentially dangerous and they have agreed that on the scientific facts
available there are no grounds for supposing that effective control of all
these processes is not technically possible.
With this body of agreed scientific information upon which to work,
the Atomic Energy Commission can now make further progress with the
task entrusted to it by the General Assembly of ensuring that atomic en-
ergy is so controlled as to be employed for peaceful purposes only, and of
devising effective safeguards to ensure that there are no violations and eva-
sions. At this point, His Majesty's Government feel that it would be valu-
able to state clearly the conclusions that must be drawn from the findings
of the Technical and Scientific Sub-Committee.
It has now become clear that there is no possibility of making atomic
energy available to the world for peaceful purposes, with all the benefits
that mankind could derive from it, without at the same time making atomic
weapons equally available to any nation wishing to possess or use them.
The raw materials, industrial processes and the fissile products of these
processes are identical, whether they are required for peaceful industrial
purposes or for weapons of war. The fundamental issue can therefore be
quite simply stated. There are only two alternatives to a race in atomic
armament with all that this implies for the future of civilization. One is
that the nations must be prepared to forbid not only the manufacture of
bombs but also all the manufacture of fissile material. This would mean
that the great economic benefits which might flow from the peaceful use
of atomic energy would have to be sacrificed. This must surely be dis-
missed since it would mean that no industrial development of it could
take place, no research could be devoted to its use for medical purposes
and the large body of scientific knowledge which already constitutes one
of the most remarkable feats of the scientific genius of man would have to
be laid on one side and renounced. And even so the world would not feel
secure, since there would be no certainty that somewhere atomic research
and development were not secretly being pursued and that somewhere on
the earth's surface scientists and industrial organizations had not succumbed
to the temptations offered by this new and devastating source of power to
prepare a sudden overwhelming access of strength for their country or them-
selves. The other alternative is for the nations of the world to agree to
some system of international control. This would only be possible if all
countries were willing to open their frontiers and permit freedom of access
to the extent necessary to enable control to function. That is the simple
issue which faces humanity.
The report of the Scientific Committee points strongly to the conclusion

British Speeches of the Day ([M. NOEL-BAKER
that a system of international control will only eliminate fear and suspicion
if it is so comprehensive that it covers all stages of the industrial processes.
By this means alone can the people of the world be certain that atomic en-
ergy and the creative genius of scientists are directed into peaceful channels
and that the menace of atomic warfare has been banished.
This therefore is the choice that confronts the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion and the world-complete international control of atomic energy for all
purposes, with safeguards at every stage, or a renunciation of the use of
atomic energy for any purposes whatever, or the present position, namely
an atomic armaments race. Both the latter alternatives involve the pros-
pect of fear and suspicion dragging the world down steadily into chaos.
There may be differences of opinion about the methods of giving effect
to a system of international control. But they are consequential matters,
and they must not be allowed to blind our eyes to the simple, fundamental
decision that confronts us. His Majesty's Government think that the time
has come to state the issue in those stark and simple terms; faced with this
choice, His Majesty's Government have no doubt which course the Atomic
Energy Commission should adopt. They are confident that a system of
international control can be worked out which will provide full safeguards
at all stages described as dangerous by the Scientific and Technical Sub-
Committee. Moreover they believe, that at the moment, the best contribu-
tioh that the United Kingdom can make to the solution of this all-impor-
tant problem as a whole will lie in their delegation devoting their scientific
and practical knowledge and their resourcefulness to the construction of a
draft convention by the Atomic Energy Commission, which is the purpose
of the discussions and studies now proceeding in the Commission under
their terms of reference.

Mr. President, may I summarize what I have tried to say? Our work is
of supreme, long-term importance. We have made a good start since Janu-
ary last. We have real results to show. We have now the chance in this
Assembly to consolidate the gains we have made. We can put new power
behind the people who will carry on until we meet again. But we must
face the fact that the world is still full of fear. If, in this supreme deliber-
ative body, we can confront the three great controversial issues of which I
have spoken, if we can reach agreed conclusions, lay down principles on
which we can proceed, we may bring back our work into true perspective
and we may begin to dissipate the fear.
Why do fear and despondency prevail throughout the world? Do peoples
or .governments still believe that because we have differing social systems,
war must come some day? Surely, we put all that behind us when we signed
the Charter. We shall never make our peoples understand it if we revive
that doctrine now. They think in terms not of differing social systems but
of aggression against our common law. They expect our Governments,
all our Governments, to fulfill the solemn pledges of Articles 1 and 2. They
cannot understand why Governments find it so difficult to agree. They
are longing for the end of fear. They are longing for simple things: homes

Britain and the United Nations
for their families, a job of work, sufficient food. They want to leave their
children a happier world than they themselves have kndwn. They want
to end the things which have made life bitter during these long, tragic years.
I hope that this Assembly and the Governments for whom we speak will
hear the voice of these anxious waiting men and women who ask for rest
and peace.
[Oficial Release]

RT. HON. HUGH DALTON, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
at the Dinner to the Bankers and Merchants of the City of London
London, October 16, 1946. I returned last week, in the company of my
good friend and trusted counsellor, the Governor of the Bank of England,
from the first annual meeting, in Washington, of the International Mon-
etary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel-
opment. As you may have read in the press, I have now followed the
example of some of my late colleagues in Mr. Churchill's Coalition Gov-
ernment and become a banker. Indeed, I seem to have joined the illustrious
company of bank chairmen, though in an honorary capacity.
I hope, and I believe, that these two new international institutions,
arising out of the Bretton Woods Agreement, will prove their worth to
the world in the years which lie ahead of us; the one by promoting a reas-
onable stability in foreign exchange rates, and the other by financing loans
to Governments for prudent and productive expenditure within their
I have great confidence in the experienced and able men whom we have
put in charge of these two bodies, and especially in Mr. Eugene Meyer,
the President of the International Bank, and M. Camille Gutt, the Man-
aging Director of the Fund.
I had the opportunity, outside the Conference, of frank and friendly
talks on many matters with leading members of the U. S. Administration,
particularly with Mr. John Snyder, Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr.
Clayton, the Assistant Secretary of State. I was also very glad to make the
personal acquaintance of M. Schumann, the Finance Minister of France,
and to discuss with him the financial and economic relations of our two
On the way to Washington I spent some days in Ottawa in consultation
with Canadian Ministers, and at Washington I was also in touch with rep-
resentatives of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Such personal
contacts never fail to give me a heartening sense of the warm family in-
timacy of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I found everywhere, both in Canada and in the United States, a most
satisfying desire for constructive co-operation in the difficult tasks confront-
ing us. all, and much good will and mutual understanding.

British Speeches of the Day [Me. DALTON]
Lord Catto and I flew back most comfortably across the Atlantic under
the efficient auspices of B.O.A.C., one newly nationalized service, thus
lending wings to another.
Since I addressed this distinguished gathering a year ago, much has
happened. The City of London has begun to get used to His Majesty's
present Government. The Bank of England has been nationalized, and
seems none the worse, so far. The Stock Exchange, with minor fluctuations,
has moved steadily upwards. The national credit, measured by the yield
on Government securities, has notably improved. Many other things have
gone much better than some of us expected a year ago. But we still face
severe shortages and heavy burdens and some perplexing problems. None
the less, the reconversion of our industry from war to peace has taken
place with a surprising speed and smoothness. We have avoided serious
dislocation and heavy unemployment in this transition. We have demobi-
lized, in most orderly fashion, nearly four million men and women from
the Forces and released more than three million others from munitions
production. Our export drive so far has beaten all the estimates, and the
deficit on our overseas trading account will certainly be less in this finan-
cial year than we anticipated, though we still have a long, hard road to
travel before equilibrium is securely established.
In the two Budgets which I have presented I have been able to effect
net reductions in taxation of more than 500 million a year, and, in spite
of shouldering large new expenditures for social improvement, I hope,
if things continue to go well, to come within striking distance-if it should
seem wise to strike-of a balanced Budget next year.
The first six months of this financial year show good results-though it
is rash to argue from these to those of the full year-both as regards revenue
and expenditure. When I presented my last Budget, I was told that I was
being unduly optimistic in my estimates of revenue. Now some critics
think I have made serious underestimates. I hope they may be right.

As I announced in the House of Commons this afternoon, I have de-
cided to call S per cent Local Loans Stock. It will be repaid on the next
interest date, namely 5th January, 1947. But holders will be invited to
reinvest their redemption money at par in a new Government stock, that
will also be on tap at par to the general public for a limited period. The
new stock, like the Local Loans Stock it replaces, will not have a final re-
demption date: it will be irredeemable, subject to the right of the Gov-
ernment to repay it on or after 1st April, 1975, but the rate of interest is
the rate that, with the march of our cheap money policy, is now appro-
priate for an irredeemable Government loan on issue at par-namely 21V
per cent.
Its name will be 21/ per cent Treasury Stock, 1975 or after. I commend
it to you, as an investment, as a landmark, and as a sign of the times.
Nearly 60 years have passed since a British Government converted its
3 per cent Securities. I am referring, of course, to the operations of Mr.
Goschen in 1888, when I was one year old. But consider the difference
between 1888 and 19461

Government's Financial Policy
In 1888, the total of the 3 per cents outstanding was 548 millions,
rather more, it is true, than the 429 millions of Local Loans outstanding
now, but the amounts are roughly comparable. It-was an operation that
had been dreamed about and schemed about for over a generation. Mr.
Gladstone said in 1853, "In approaching the great phalanx of 3 per cents,
we must deal with it as a prudent general would, when approaching a
fortification of the first rank." And there is no doubt that he and his suc-
cessors in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer so approached it. When
the time came, the operation required two years-it started in March, 1888,
and ended in July, 1889. It required three Acts of Parliament. Conversion
of the greater part was encouraged by a bonus of 5s. per cent (not taxable)
and other minor inducements were included: and the new security, today's
"little Consols," carried interest for 14 years at 2% per cent, not falling
to 21/ per cent till 1903. The 2/4 per cent rate of interest did, in fact,
accurately reflect the national credit in those days.
Now our turn has come to deal with the 3 per cent fortification. I
hope I have approached it with all the prudence which Mr. Gladstone
enjoined. But I can claim that we have improved upon the Victorian siege
technique in two respects. We have certainly taken less time about it,
both in Parliament and outside. And whereas Mr. Goschen's credit was
represented by a security yielding 2/4 per cent, this Government can com-
mand-I think I am justified in using this military term-the rate of 21/2
per cent, as the rate at which it can raise money and replace debt by the
issue of an irredeemable stock. Not only that: we need offer no bonuses
or other inducements in order to carry through this operation with success.

I have noticed lately suggestions in several journals, which enjoy a
certain reputation for accuracy and expert knowledge of finance, that the
maintenance of present interest levels has been achieved only by persistent
and large-scale support of the gilt-edged market on behalf of His Majesty's
Government. Elaborate statistical exercises have been undertaken to try
to prove this. For the better information of these writers, and of any who
may have been unduly influenced by them, it may be useful thatI should
now state that over the first six months of this financial year the Depart-
mental Funds concerned, including the Bank of England Issue Depart-
ment, have, in fact, been net sellers, not net buyers, of marketable gild-
edged securities other than Treasury Bills.
Some of these people will now have to do their sums again. But I warn
them that I shall not make a habit of correcting their exercises. The cor-
rection of this particular error, however, may help to demonstrate that
the reserves of strength of the Treasury and of the Bank of England re-
main much greater than some of our critics have supposed. And. His
Majesty's Government intend to use the strength whenever necessary.
We have been gradually conditioning the capital market to a long-
term rate of 21/ per cent for gilt-edged. We have met some psychological
resistance, but I am convinced that it is in the national interest that this
should be overcome. The advantages of low rates of interest, both to the
Budget and to the financial operations of local authorities, public boards

British Speeches of the Day [MR. DALTON]
and private industry, and hence to our great aim of full employment, are
so clear that I am sure that our. cheap money policy should continue to
be resolutely pressed home.
A national debt of more than 24,000 millions is only endurable if
the average rate of interest is kept low. Indeed, this is a necessary con-
dition of any substantial future relief of taxation. Any appreciable rise
in the rate of interest would be the surest road to inflation, which would
then seem to the plain man the only way of escape from a burden which
would have grown beyond all bearing.
As regards the local authorities, the Government have decided that
they shall be enabled to borrow at 21/ per cent, for housing and other
purposes, on all terms over 15 years, and also that conversions of local
authorities' maturing debt shall be effected at approximately the same
rate. We shall not shift from these decisions. We shall see the local author-
ities through.
Some recent conversions of local authority stocks have not been fully
subscribed by private investors, so that the balance has been taken up, as
we undertook in advance that it would be, by the National Debt Com-
missioners. In view of this, some commentators have described these con-
version operations as "failures." I regard this as a misuse of language.
The National Debt Office is managed with great business ability. It has
charged no underwriter's commission, but I am glad to tell you that it
has made a profit on these transactions up to date. Indeed, for the year
ended 30th September last, it made a profit, on disposal of local authority
stocks taken up, of more than 3 per cent, and it had none of these stocks
left on its hands at this date. A friend, to whom I mentioned this happy
event, said "You have added a new Socialistic animal to the City Zoo,
the public stag."
Since, therefore, the local authorities have got their money at 2y, per
cent, with welcome savings for their rate-payers, and since the Debt Office
has made a profit in assisting them to do so, the only "failure" which I
can recognize is that of those private investors who have failed to take
advantage of a good opportunity.

I said on taking office, and I repeat now, that we must all be resolute
against inflation. Against this great evil we have six lines of defense. The
first, and best of all, is increased production; the second is the maintenance
of effective price control; the third is control of new access to the capital
market, under the Borrowing Act; the fourth is the maintenance of physical
controls over the use of land and materials; the fifth the continuance of
high taxation until the inflation risk is passed; the sixth is the continuance
of a high level of national saving.
All this is familiar. Tonight I wish to add one word on National
The National Savings Movement promised me new savings this year
of 520 millions, or 10 millions a week. So far they are a little ahead
of their target. In the first 26 weeks the total was 268 millions. Last

Government's Financial Policy
week the sum raised was nearly 12 millions. This is good showing and
I hope, aided by last week's income tax holiday and by the special savings
drive which begins next month, and by the knowledge that the present
savings certificates win be replaced at the end of this financial year by
new certificates with a lower rate of interest, that the Savings Movement
will substantially exceed its target for the year. This is a gross target, as
regards Defense Bonds and Certificates, and there have been-as is not un-
natural-large encashments of certificates in recent months. None the less
it is worth while to point out that these encashments, as a proportion of
the total sum invested through this particular channel, are very little more
than the pre-war figure-81/ per cent against 7 per cent. And, indeed, if
we take account, not only of Certificates, but of deposits in the Savings
Banks as well, the.present rate of withdrawals is definitely below pre-war.
Until production has increased still further, and there is more to buy
in the shops, it is both the duty and the self-interest of each individual to
continue to save all he can.
Having said so much on inflation I would add this, that, in my view,
the risk of inflation now is less than the risk of deflation later. And we
must equally be resolute against that risk should it arise, and be prepared
to launch heavy counter-attacks.
Our present situation, in the words of one of our financial writers, is
not inflation but a "suppressed inflationary potential." We must all strive
to weaken that potential and to keep it suppressed.

I will permit myself one further observation on international affairs.
The British taxpayer is being called upon to find more than 80 millions
a year to feed and to supply the Germans in the British zone, many mil-
lions of whom for many years, followed their leaders-some of whom were
executed at Nuremberg this morning-with intense and unashamed ardor,
until their wicked plans were finally frustrated. This British payment of
reparations to the-Germans-for that is what it is, and we are now threat-
ened with an increase of it-is a burden which the British taxpayer has
every right to resent. Moreover, the foreign exchange involved, including
a large quantity of dollars, is diverted, within our necessarily limited import
program, to pay for imports into Germany in preference to imports into
this country. This is one reason why our own people cannot have more
food-because we have to spend our scarce resources on feeding Germans
and getting practically nothing out of Germany in return.
Tonight I merely recite these facts, which should be widely known and
deeply pondered. I will only add that one of the first and most urgent
steps to be taken in dealing with Germany's future, must surely be to
put an end, as soon as possible, to this most intolerable imposition on
our humane good nature. As soon as possible this drain must end, and
Germans must be enabled, and required, to pay for necessary imports with
their own exports. And they must do this without, at the same time,
developing the power to start a third world war in Europe.

British Speeches of the Day ([M. DALTON]
But now I return you to London. Looking forward two or three years,
we may have to face problems of quite a different shape from those we
confront now.
A year or two hence we should have overcome all the worst shortages
which vex us now-of food and clothes, coal and steel, and, in large measure,
I hope, of houses. But the balance of our overseas trade, and the strength
of our reserves of foreign exchange, and the danger of a trade depression
starting somewhere in the world outside this island, may well preoccupy
us. As we move into the period when sterling will once more become freely
convertible in respect of current trading, we shall need large reserves of
gold and dollars. We must, therefore, keep such reserves well built up
now, even at the cost of continuing deliberate and sometimes severe re-
striction on imports.
On the other hand, these reserves must be nourished and sustained by
a steady expansion of our export trade. We have made a good start; we
must now show our staying power. Here is full scope for the skill and
experience of the City of London. You are a great trading community,
with deep roots in the past; but your oldest and most valuable tradition is
an adaptability to the ever-changing demands of world trade. There are
still difficulties ahead; but to you, I am sure, they will be a stimulating
challenge-a challenge to your courage, your industry, and your initiative.
The future ahead of us can be, and must be, an age of abundance; together
let us do all we can to make it so.
[Official Release]

HousE OF COMMONS, October 16, 1946
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rt. Hon. Hugh Dalton): I wish to
announce an important development in the Government's borrowing
As the House is aware, 429 millions of Local Loans stock have been
outstanding for many years. The rate of interest on this stock is 3 per cent,
which is more than can be justified by this Government's credit as it
stands today. I have, therefore, to exercise the powers granted by Parlia-
ment 11 years ago to meet this contingency, and I give notice that Local
Loans stock will be redeemed at par on the next interest date on 5th
January, 1947.
At the same time, I propose to make a new Government issue of 21/
per cent Treasury stock. This stock will not carry a final redemption date,
but will be redeemable at the option of the Government on or at any
time after 1st April, 1975. This new issue will be made at par; it will open
on 28th October and will be available for a limited period to investors
generally and to holders of Local Loans stock, who will be invited to re-
invest their redemption money in this new security.

The Government's Borrowing Program
This is an event for which Parliament provided by legislation enacted
in 1935. At that time there was no practical possibility of action; but
Parliament made due provision, in the belief that the time might come
when these powers could be used. That belief has now been fulfilled
through the steady advance of the national credit. A landmark has been
reached. For the first time in the history of the National Debt, His Ma-
jesty's Government are able to issue, for cash, an irredeemable security
yielding 2V/ per cent at par.
[Official Release]

RT. HON. HERBERT MORRISON, Lord President of the Council,
at a Press Conference
London, October 18, 1946. During the war, as one phase followed an-
other, we used to have opportunities to size up at intervals how the cam-
paigns were going. It was a useful practice and I hope we will keep it up
in peace, especially in this troubled aftermath which is so unpleasantly like
war minus the bangs and the bloodshed.
We have now a fairly complete statistical picture of the first year after
V-J Day. Looking back we can see that as soon as the bombers, the Vls,
the V2s, the Panzers, the E-boats and the U-boats ceased to be flung at us,
a whole group of new enemies were ready to go into the attack. There was
a great blow aimed at our stomachs by the threat of world famine. Another
blow was directed at our hearths by the world-wide shortage of coal and
other forms of fuel. A third big attack threatened to leave many families
without a roof over their heads as demobilized and evacuated people came
back to towns which had not enough dwellings to house them. A fourth
attack was aimed at the clothing on our backs, which threatened to wear
out before output could be stepped up enough to meet the people's needs.
Then there was a fifth attack on the money in our pockets, the threat of
inflation which aimed to drive prices sky-high and rob our earnings and
savings of a large part of their value. Even these were not all. The coun-
try,as a whole was threatened with bankruptcy in the sense that we would
be without the necessary money or credit to buy from overseas the food we
need to live on and the raw materials we need to work with. Finally, there
was the attack on our morale: the powerful forces of fatigue and shortage
and defeatism and disunity aiming to destroy our wartime sense of purpose
and capacity for achievement, and to persuade us that the struggle to make
something of our victory was not worth while.
Let us keep that picture in mind in considering the economic record
since V-J Day and how we stand for the next phase of the campaign to win
the peace. We cannot yet claim a conclusive victory on any front, but we
can claim that this most formidable array of economic and social threats
which have ever confronted Britain has been faced, held, brought under
control, and in some cases partly repulsed.

British Speeches of the Day [Ma. MoaRIsoN)
The impetus which is gathering behind reconversion and the progress
already registered are all the more remarkable because each shortage-grave
in itself-becomes even more dangerous by contributing to the rest. For
instance, people have found it hard to buy because production was so low,
but it was hard to increase production because there was so little to buy
with the earnings and profits. It was, therefore, impossible to tackle bottle-
necks and shortages separately one by one. The whole tangle had to be
considered at once so that efforts could be concentrated on those shortages
which were the cause of other shortages right down the line.
The Government's line of attack has been based on the following
a. Creating and maintaining suitable conditions. For example, use
of subsidies to hold down the cost of living; proper use of controls, and
where necessary rationing and priorities, to hold down prices and ensure
fair shares; the Chancellor's successful balance between restoring Budget
equilibrium and easing burdens all round; the maintenance of a very
high degree of industrial peace; assured markets for farmers.
b. Sm6oth and rapid transfer from the Armed Forces and munitions
to civil employment. About seven million men and women were re-
leased in the first year after V-J Day. This represented the most vast
human transport problem we have ever faced in time of peace.
c. Priority for export drive. We all grumble when we see stuff
labeled "Export Only," but what is now being achieved in exports-in
the third quarter of 1946 they have been running at about 110 per cent
of 1938 volume-is heartening evidence of what is coming forward for
the home consumer as reconversion is completed. The dividend on
putting exports first is already coming in in improved British credit and
larger supplies. In 1946 we are importing by volume 69 per cent of the
amount we imported in 1938. Next year it will be more, although on
exchange and supply grounds imports must lag a long time behind
exports in surpassing the 1938 level.
d. Production Campaign. I will come back to the production drive
later on. Since V-J Day for the first time we have got the beginnings
of a sound universally accepted national economic policy: instead of
talking about gold standards and how to find something for the unem-
ployed to do, we are now talking about real things, such as how to make
and distribute the maximum goods and services with our limited man-
power. This question of great output per person employed is funda-
mental. Just as bottlenecks in one place cause bottlenecks right down
the line, so increased production-due to greater effort and more scien-
tific methods-assists or stimulates greater production elsewhere. Even
in the inter-war period productive efficiency rose by an average of about
1!/ per cent a year. This was equivalent to a windfall of a million
extra workers over four years. As production teams get settled and
wartime lessons both in technique and in leadership can be applied right
through industry, we should see a much bigger increase in output per

Britain's Production Drkie
person employed. We have barely yet scratched the surface of the op-
portunities of increased production which exist. We have, however,
nearly got over the most difficult period of demobilization, of releasing
factories and other premises to civil industry, of retooling, retraining
and rebuilding production teams. We have also gone far in refilling
the pipe-line between factory and consumer which was drained after
1939. The dividend on all this will begin in the second year after V-J
Day, the year which we have just entered.
e. Economic Planning. I spoke on this at some length yesterday
elsewhere and will not repeat what I said then, except to remind you
that without the economic planning machinery which is being devel-
oped there will be no reasonable hope of maintaining stable economic
I have reminded you of the many varied and grave threats which faced
us after V-J Day and the Government strategy for countering them. Now
let us look at the actual progress of production.
In fuel and power coal is, of course, the difficult spot. Our fuel and
power industries, except perhaps electricity, were starved of capital before
the war and we are paying the price now. Few people even now realize that
the consumption of coal in this country is running well up to pre-war rates.
The fall in output has almost wiped out exports, but the shortage here is
due to the fact that the nation needs more coal than before the war because
of greater activity, not because the coal available at home is less. The home
supply of electricity is, of course, greatly above pre-war, in fact about double
what it was ten years ago-this is another form of shortage which is due to
increased demand rather than to reduced supply. The bottleneck in build-
ing materials, which threatened to bring the building industry to a halt,
has been met by an increased production-e.g., brick production up from
101 million in July, 1945, to 305 million in July, 1946; cement, in the same
period from 373,000 tons to 682,000 tons; clay tiles from 21,000 squares to
54,000 squares.
Now take heavy industry. How many people realize the scale on which
British heavy industry is producing? In no single month this year has pro-
duction fallen as low as the average month of 1935 for any of the following
products-steel ingots and castings, heavy rails and sleepers, heavy and me-
dium plates, cold rolled strip, wire, and steel castings. Even in the holiday
month of August steel ingots and coatings were 18 per cent above the 1935
monthly average and 13 per cent above even the level of the rearmament
year of 1938. Yet steel is very short. Why? Because organized demand,
in spite of all we have to do to throttle it down, is out-running the present
capacity of the industry.
Or turn to another shortage-aluminum. How much did we make in
1935? 1,250 tons a month. How much are we making now? More than
twice as much (2,700 tons average for 1st half year). If we only used as
much aluminum now as in that "normal" peacetime year 1935, we would

British Speeches of the Day [MB. MORuISON]
be about self-supporting in it; actually while our output has doubled, our
effective demand has tripled.
Let us look now at some engineering products. Take machine tools of
all types. In 1935 we made 714 millions worth; in the 12 months up to
the end of July, 1946, we made 18 millions worth. Allowing for the rise
in prices, there is a good 50 per cent increase in output. We are making
locomotives steadily at the rate of 700 a year, which is an improvement on
1935 output. Or railway wagons: in 1935 we made over 1,500 a month;
this year, after conversion to tank production during the war, we started
at only 1,300 a month, but the industry is well set to beat the 1935 figure
on the whole year. Electric lamps: here is an industry, deconcentrated just
before V-J Day, which is now making 180 million lamps a year against 100
million in 1935. Exports of lamps are up 50 per cent on 1935, and we only
need to import a small fraction of the pre-war figures.
New industries are also starting up. Alarm clocks, which we did not
make before the war, are now coming out at a rate of 50,000 a month. In
August we made clocks and watches worth nearly four times the 1935
monthly average. Monthly production of motor cars has tripled since the
beginning of this year although it is still only two-thirds of the 1935 level.
Even in the textile field, rayon production has recovered to slightly
above pre-war level, although production of wool cloth is only about 75
per cent of pre-war, and cotton is another black spot.
Kettles and saucepans were among the quickest articles to benefit from
reconversion and are coming out at an annual rate over 50 per cent above
1945. There is still a bottleneck in footballs; the output is not yet up to
three-quarters of pre-war. But tennis balls are being served from the fac-
tories at the rate of 7 million a year or 15 times as many as this time a year
ago, and two-thirds of these are for home use. Toys, once a notorious
shortage, are again in fair supply. Tobacco is being used for cigarettes at
120 per cent of pre-war: in August we produced about 8,100 million cig-
arettes against 6,300 million monthly in 1939.
Even some raw materials, such as rubber, are beginning to come back
into free supply.
So much for individual cases.
What is the general picture?
First: A record of impressive output in many lines-which should be
enough to satisfy everyone that Britain can make it. We want an all-out
effort for greater production. But the reason we want it is not because of
any general failure by both sides of industry to get down to the job. It is
rather because the magnificent and encouraging record of the first year
after V-J Day shows what great things industry can do when the difficulties
and discouragements of reconversion are left behind. Let us not be de-
pressed by defeatists who harp on falling productivity and shortages. How
can productivity soar and shortages disappear while millions of people are
entering and learning new jobs, hampered at every stage by legacies of the
war? On this, by the way, it is worth noting that the number of demobil-

Britain's Production Drive
ized men not yet at work fell last month from 725,000 to 540,000, which
means a further 180,000 added to productive strength.
Second: The many-pronged attacks launched since V-J Day against our
stomachs by world famine, against our hearths and jobs by lack of fuel,
against our shelter by lack of houses, against our clothing by textile bottle-
necks, against our money by the danger of inflation, and against our sup-
plies from abroad by our adverse balance of payments and against our
morale by general shortages and fatigue. These attacks have not beaten
down our defenses. All have been held, often at heavy sacrifice, and some
are visibly being repulsed. Our base for the counter-attack stands firm and
our morale is high.
Third: The many shortages which still press so hardly on us are not
all of the same kind. Many are due to war devastation or enforced neglect
here and overseas. Food and raw materials are not being grown enough
on the ravaged fields of Europe and South-East Asia. Damaged mines and
factories and railways are a drag on the resumption of world trade and of
supplies which we need from many countries. Until the damage and neglect
are made good the flow of output will not recover. That is a physical,
rather than a political problem.

Other types of shortages are due to lack of manpower, aggravated by
the reluctance of workers to join industries which have fallen behind others
because they were backward in peace or inessential in war on the scale of
present requirements. This type of shortage is particularly difficult to bear,
especially since it affects essential clothing, fuel, and building materials.
The leeway lost over several years cannot be made good in a month or two,
but those industries which cannot meet requirements without more workers
must be treated as a special and urgent problem by all concerned. Inci-
dentally, America, with its much greater resources and its free enterprise
system, is experiencing much the same troubles.
The third type of shortage is the shortage due to intense demand press-
ing on even a high level of supply-in fact boom conditions. That is in its
way a healthy type of shortage and within limits we must get used to it.
There never was, and there cannot be for quite a time, enough of every-
thing to satisfy everyone. There only seemed to be surpluses because the
failure to distribute purchasing power before the war was so tragic. Pur-
chasing power in fact was shortage No. 1 of the pre-war economy, and em-
ployment was shortage No. 2. These shortages were so vast that they
swamped all others. Now there is no shortage of purchasing power and
only a localized shortage of jobs. Therefore all the other shortages are
seen in true perspective and the only way to break them is by much more
output. It is a truth which we must face that with the expansion and better
distribution of purchasing power the country can have much more milk,
or beer, or cigarettes, or steel, or electricity than before the war and still
be desperately short of all these things. Industry and agriculture have been
crying out for years for more demand. Now the challenge is for them to
satisfy it.

British Speeches of the Day [MR. MonmIsoN]
Now a word about the production campaign, in which British news-
papers have already played a valuable part, and, I am sure, will wish to
go on. I can assure you that both industry and the Government Depart-
ments concerned have appreciated the good and faithful reporting which
the newspapers have given the production conferences; and, I would add,
it shows good journalistic sense, because there is no news of such vital im-
portance to the nation today as news of production and productivity. Suc-
cess or failure in production will affect every reader of every newspaper in
the land; upon its success depends their standard of living and their hopes
for the future.
The production campaign was opened by the Prime Minister's broad-
cast in March. It has consisted, in the main, of necessary foundation work
in the way of conferences between employers and trade unionists.
Following the first two big conferences in Central Hall in March, there
have been 22 conferences, each addressed by Cabinet Ministers, and attended
by over 25,000 representatives of employers and workers.
The policy of the Government on increasing production has been en-
dorsed by representatives of both sides of industry at the conferences. We
must now begin to think as individuals along the same lines, and to help
to bring this about we can rely upon employers and factory managers, trade
union branches and shop stewards. They will need all the help we can
give them-perhaps, above all, the help you can give them in the news-
papers by reporting progress fairly and explaining how the statistics of
progress fit into the economic pattern.
[Oficial Release]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, October 11, 1946 [Extracts]
The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Clement Attlee): I beg to move, "That
the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope and believe that the Second Reading of/this Bill will receive
the unanimous support of the House. Early in 1945, soon after the grievous
news of the death of President Roosevelt was received, the present Leader
of the Opposition proposed the erection of a memorial in this country.
He did so not only as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but
as one who had been the close friend of the President for many years, and
everybody knows what inestimable advantage accrued to this country and
to the Allied cause from the intimate comradeship of these two leaders of
their peoples.
The Measure now before the House is designed to enable the proposal
then made to be given tangible form. I am glad to know that it has the
approval of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and that he will be speak-
ing in support of the Motion. Here, in London, we already have statues
in honor of the memories of two great American Presidents, George Wash-
ington and Abraham Lincoln. It is altogether fitting that we should pay

Roosevel Memorial Bill
a similar tribute to Franklin Roosevelt. He whom we desire to honor
was, first and foremost, a great American. In peace, he was the man who, in
the dark days of trade depression and unemployment, initiated and carried
through bold and original policies of reconstruction. In war, he was the
leader and inspire of a great nation fighting in defense of the principles
on which it was founded.
But he was also a great international statesman who saw his own country,
not in isolation, but as a leading actor on the stage of world affairs. He
recognized that the great position obtained by the United States among
the nations brought with it great responsibilities. Months before America
was in the war, he defined five freedoms which set before the common
peoples of the world the aims to be realized when peace had been attained.
In August, 1941, while America was still at peace, he and the right hon.
Gentleman opposite drew up the Atlantic Charter, the text of which I had
the privilege of reading to the people of Britain on the wireless. Perhaps
the greatest example of his foresight and wisdom were the arrangements
that he made to ensure that the representatives of the United Nations
should meet at San Francisco while the war was still raging in order to
lay the foundations of a new organization for the prevention of war in the
future. This action illustrates two of his outstanding qualities, courage and
faith. He combined the qualities of the fearless idealist with those of the
far-seeing and prudent man of affairs. That same courage which had en-
abled him to overcome the crippling effects of serious illness, enabled him
to reach bold decisions in world affairs, while his practical appreciation of
what was possible never hampered the breadth of vision which showed him
what was desirable. His political philosophy was simple and straightfor-
ward, based on the principles of liberty and social justice which are the
foundations of our civilization. He opposed with unflinching tenacity ag-
gression whether of individuals or States in any guise and devoted himself
to serving the common man. He died at his post before final victory had
been achieved, but not before he had the certitude that the cause for which
he worked would be triumphant.
Here, in this House today, we think of him mainly as a great upholder
of freedom and democracy, and as the loyal and true friend of this country.
No one saw more clearly than did he that our fight against Hitlerism was
a fight for freedom all over the world, and he recognized that in the dark
days of 1940, Britain was holding the outpost line of liberty before that
realization had come to many of his countrymen. We may recall today
how in 1939 he established the Cash-and-Carry plan in order to admit the
sale of armaments to the Allies, how, early in 1941, when we were in
mortal peril and when many doubted the possibility of our survival, he
secured the passage of the generous Lend-Lease Act and pushed the Amer-
ican patrols further and further east into the Atlantic Ocean. They were
the acts of a faith that demanded that we should not fail, and we did not
fail. Any one of these would surely be enough to earn the undying grati-
tude of our people. Yet they were only the prelude to many similar deeds.
Let us recall, too, the energy with which he pressed forward with the
preparations for the entry of American troops into the North African and
European theaters of war. Let us remember the courage with which he

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ATTLEE]
undertook difficult journey in order to concert plans with the other leaders
of the Allies. I did not myself meet the President often, but I well recall
when I visited him in 1941 only a few weeks before Pearl Harbor, how
much he impressed me with his broad human outlook, his practical sagacity
and his strategic insight. He stood emphatically for the common man in
all countries, and it is, therefore, very fitting that this memorial to be
erected in London should be derived from the contributions of the ordinary
men and women of this country.
It is the desire of the Pilgrims Society, under whose auspices these funds
are being raised, that the Memorial shall represent the feelings of the
British people as a whole and not merely of sections of it. This desire is
entirely in line with the views of His Majesty's Government. While, there-
fore, the Pilgrims will accept contributions small or large, they hope that
as many people as possible will subscribe not more than 5s. each and thus
raise the sum required, now estimated at 40,000. This is the sum which
is estimated to be necessary to provide a worthy memorial in Grosvenor
Square, a locality in which so many Americans worked during the war.
The Duke of Westminster has generously made the site available, and His
Majesty's Government will be proud to maintain the statue and the Square
as a public garden in perpetuity. It is in order that the Government may
carry out their share of the scheme that this Bill is introduced.
The Memorial will be a spontaneous gesture of the respect and admi-
ration of the ordinary men of this country for one who was their friend
in the time of great need. All the people of this country, and especially
the people of London, regret that they did not have the opportunity of
greeting President Roosevelt in person and showing him the depth and
sincerity of their gratitude. We shall all be proud to take our share in
setting up a memorial to one of the greatest and truest friends that this
country ever had.

The Leader of the Opposition (Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill): I rise
to support the Second Reading of the Measure which the Prime Minister
has proposed to us in felicitous terms and with so much feeling. It was
my duty, 18 months ago, to address the House on the sad occasion of Pres-
ident Roosevelt's death, and I am sure I did not go beyond historical fact
and general conviction in describing him as the greatest American friend
we have ever known, and the greatest champion of freedom who had ever
brought help and comfort from the new world to the old. It is indeed
fitting that a memorial should be raised to him in this island, and that
old, mighty, war-scarred London should be the chosen place. I could have
wished that the House had taken upon it the charges to erect this monu-
ment, as I am sure it would have been most willing to do, but the method
chosen of raising money by a great number of small subscriptions has the
important advantage that it permits so many people to give effect, by an
individual act, to their heartfelt feelings, and it is, I think, in accordance
with what President Roosevelt himself would have wished.
I am obliged to the Prime Minister for the reference which he made
to the comradeship which grew between the late President and me during

Roosevelt Memorial Bill
the- war, and to the fact that this was of service to the interests of the
people of our countries and to the cause for which all the Allies fought so
hard and so long. This comradeship in great affairs was founded upon
friendship, and roused in my heart a sentiment of sincere affection for
this noble, august and charming personality, I received from him so many
marks of kindness and good will that I felt buoyed up in the ordeal of
the war by the fact of walking hand in hand with this outstanding chief
of the American people.
The Prime Minister has spoken of Washington and Lincoln, and who
can doubt that Franklin Roosevelt will take his place with them in the
history, not only of the United States, but of the world? We are so much
nearer to him in point of time that we cannot see his life's work in the
perspective and setting which belong to the famous figures of the past,
but already none can doubt his rank and stature. There are many tests
by which we may try to measure the greatness of the men who have served
high causes, but I shall select only one of them this morning, namely, the
favorable influence exerted upon the fortunes of mankind. In this, Roose-
velt's name gains pre-eminence even over those of the illustrious figures
we have mentioned. Reflecting on the past, one has the feeling that the
changes associated with Washington would probably have come to pass
in due course by the irresistible movement and evolution of events. Nor
can we doubt that slavery would have been abolished, even apart from
Abraham Lincoln, in the vast spread of the humanities which lighted the
19th century. Of Roosevelt, however, it must be said that had he not
acted when he did, in the way he did, had he not felt the generous surge
of freedom in his heart, had he not resolved to give aid to Britain and to
Europe in the supreme crisis through which we have passed, a hideous
fate might well have overwhelmed mankind and made its whole future
for centuries sink into shame and ruin. It may well be that the man whom
we honor today not only anticipated history but altered its course, and
altered it in a manner which has saved the freedom and earned the grati-
tude of the human race for generations to come. On this side of the House
we give our cordial support to the Measure which the Prime Minister has
just introduced.
[House of Commons Debates]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, October 8, 1946
The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Clement Attlee): I beg to move, "That
the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am quite sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognize
the unique military, economic and international importance of this sub-
ject, and that those very unique conditions require very exceptional leg-
islation. We have really no exact precedents to guide us in this matter.
The military significance of the discovery and the application of atomic
energy was demonstrated at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki. It was followed

British Speeches of the Day [MR. ArLE )
by world-wide concern as to the harmful possibilities of this development,
and also by the realization that there were possibilities of great good to
the human race in the discovery of this new source of power if it could
be ensured that it would be used for peaceful purposes only. The House
will remember that in November, 1945, accompanied by the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) I
went across to discuss with President Truman and with Mr. Mackenzie
King this problem of the atom bomb and other new methods of destructive
warfare. It was as a consequence of that visit that the United Nations
organization has now set up the Atomic Energy Commission to endeavor
to work out some form of international control to free the world from the
possibility of atomic war, while encouraging the industrial and commercial
application of this invention.

The full economic significance of atomic energy is not yet known. I
think there has been in some quarters a good deal of over-optimism, both
as to what could be accomplished and as to the time within which we
could see vast changes in our daily life. I do not think anyone has any
doubt that there is here a possibility of revolutionary changes. Therefore,
I think hon. Members of all parties will agree that development in this
country is a prime responsibility of the Government; that the Government
must have the powers to foster development, to guide it along the most
fruitful lines, and to ensure that the results are used in the best way for
the peace and prosperity of this country and of the world. Today, we are
not concerned primarily with the question of international control. That
is a matter which is being worked out in the Commission set up by the
United Nations organization, and we all hope that that Commission will
find an effective solution to remove the fears for the safety of mankind
which have been aroused. I do not think there is sufficient awareness,
perhaps, of the dangers in this country. I am quite sure that that aware-
ness is not quite so acute as it is on the other side of the Atlantic. But
we have been watching with anxious care the deliberations of the Com-
mission, and it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to do
their utmost to get an agreed scheme, and to co-operate fully in that scheme
when it has been agreed; and this Bill before the House, in one of its
aspects, is an earnest of the Government's determination that the United
Kingdom shall be ready to play its part, its full part, in any international
The military applications are, of course, largely affected by international
considerations; but, whether the United Nations organization succeeds or
not in getting a solution, we believe that the military applications must
be the subject of the closest Government control. We hope that we may
secure its prohibition for military use. If that were not so, or even if it
were so, we should still need to have powers in this country; and it is
important in this regard to remember that one cannot separate off exactly
the plants that may produce power for civil use and the plants that may
be used for military use. Power that produces for peaceful use may also
produce an explosive element in the atomic bomb. The knowledge of the

Atomic Energy BiU
possibilities of this invention, and of how far it can be applied to economic
and industrial exploitation, is not sufficient yet to produce a detailed
scheme or a permanent scheme.
This Bill has no background of political bearing. It is forced upon
us by the very nature of this new invention.. We are not introducing a
sudden Bill for nationalization. We are taking the steps which any Gov-
ernment must take in dealing with an invention of such immense potential
destruction; and whether there are private activities or public activities
they must be subject to close governmental supervision. In fact, the task
of development could not really be undertaken except by Government.
There is, first of all, the very large expenditure in money and materials.
It is really a major productive effort. There is uncertainty as to the results;
and there is, of course, a thing we must watch all the time-the danger of
disastrous accident if there were uncontrolled experiment.
As the House knows, the Government have already set up a large re-
search establishment, and we are arranging for the production of fissile
material for that establishment, and for other purposes; and the respon-
sibility has been placed with the Minister of Supply; and this Bill will
give him the necessary powers to discharge that responsibility. I cannot
tell the House exactly what will be the future cost. The program of work
already approved will cost something like 30 million, but the program
is being kept constantly under review, and it may well be that expenditure
on a far greater scale may be necessary if we are to play our proper part.
The Bill has been very carefully considered by our experts and by the
Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the
Scottish Universities, who has such a great knowledge of this subject. But,
of course, the Government take full responsibility for it. Therefore, I claim
that this Bill is necessary, both to fulfill our international obligations, and
for the protection of our people at home.

I should now like to turn to the Clauses. Clause I is a general Clause
which designates the Minister of Supply as the appropriate Minister re-
sponsible for controlling the development and use of atomic energy and
for exercising control. In Clauses 2 and S the Minister is invested with
statutory powers to produce and use atomic energy, to carry out research,
and give financial assistance to other persons engaged in this work. It is
very important that the work here should be co-ordinated with work being
done at the universities, and we are giving assistance to the universities.
In Clauses 4 and 5 there is power to call for information and to inspect
premises, and there is, particularly, the power of entry and inspection under
Clause 5, which, I think, if we were dealing with some other subject,
might appear very drastic. It is unusual: we are dealing with an unusual
subject. I think it essential the Government must be able to inform them-
selves fully of unauthorized activities, not, as I said before, only in the in-
terests of this country, but in view of the fact that we are working to try
to get international control in which we must play our full part.
Clause 6 empowers the Minister to search for the sources of minerals
and to compensate for damage done; and Clause 7 contains provision for

British Speeches of the Day [EM. ATTLEE)
the compulsory acquisition of rights to work those minerals. We put those
Clauses in for better security. I am bound to say that, as far as my infor-
mation goes, it seems unlikely we shall find in these islands any great stores
of minerals, either of uranium or anything of the kind, in order to produce
fissile material; but, obviously, the Bill would be incomplete if it did not
contain provision of this sort. The power may, as I say, never be used,
but we do not know what developments may come. Therefore, we have
only proposed the general powers for compensation to be exercised in
individual cases under Statutory Orders. In Clauses 8 and 9 we have powers
of compulsory acquisition of all sources of materials, minerals containing
them, plants and contracts, with, again, provision for compensation. Clause
10 provides, licensing arrangements to control the activities by private con-
cerns, and I call attention particularly to Subsection (2), which places on
the Minister the duty of securing, as far as practicable, by license, that the
necessary minerals, substances and plants are available for scientific and
ordinary commercial purposes. We are anxious that research should be
encouraged-not merely not impeded, but encouraged, and research is being
undertaken by universities and by commercial firms under contracts placed
and financed by the Government.

I draw special attention to Clause 11, which places restrictions on the
disclosure of information. The production of atomic energy involves very
complicated processes. It is really a major industrial effort, and until we
can get international control, what is sometimes called the industrial
"know-how" must be kept under control. When I was in America the
declaration made by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister
of Canada and myself laid down this policy: until we can get the introduc-
tion of effective and forcible safeguards, and we all hope that international
arrangements will make strict secrecy unnecessary, while we can meanwhile
encourage the dissemination of basic scientific information, there must be
power to prevent the dissemination of information as to what is called
the "know-how."
We are presented with a rather difficult drafting problem as to where
exactly to draw the line, where to get the security we need without impeding
scientific research, and the conclusion we reached was that we should define
in the Bill the information which should not be communicated concerning
the energy plants, what they do and how they work, with provision for
excluding information about plant in use for purposes other than atomic
energy provided that the connection with atomic energy is not disclosed.
Our Amendment is on the Paper, and will be moved by the Minister in
Committee, directing the Minister not to withhold consent to disclosure
where he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is
not of importance for purposes of defense. That will enable us to delete
Subsection (4). Our desire has been to make the thing watertight by giv-
ing the Minister full powers, including power to authorize a relaxation
in particular cases. Also we desire to take away the onus which, as the
Bill is drafted, rested on persons requiring them to give information with-
out knowing quite whether the information was right. As the Clause will

Atomic Energy Bill
be amended in Committee, that onus will be on the Minister. We also
provide that where information has once been made available to the gen-
eral public, if it is not in contravention of the Bill, it is freed from further
control. We expect that in course of time there will gradually emerge
classes of information which may be published, and then exemption orders
can be made under Subsection (2). As a matter of fact today the great
bulk of the technical information is necessarily in Government hands. It
has been the result of work in Government establishments or under Gov-
ernment control, and there is, therefore, the additional safeguard of the
Official Secrets Act. If hon. Members will examine this Clause I think they
will find that it hits the mean between not giving away information that
will endanger our security and, at the same time, not being unduly re-
strictive of scientific research. . .

Clause 12 deals with inventions and patents, and gives power to control
and restrict the publication of information about atomic energy patent
applications, pending notification of the Minister of Supply, who can in-
spect documents and decide whether the subject matter is of military im-
portance. If it is, the prohibition on publication will stand, if not the
inventor will be free to exploit his invention and the inventor, if there
is a ban, can still offer his invention to the Government. Subsection (4)
deals with the application outside the United Kingdom, and Subsection
(7) enables the Government to use for the purposes of the Crown any
atomic energy invention or patent on terms to be agreed or arbitrated.
That is in line with existing legislation on other inventions. Since the
Bill was introduced and printed, consideration has been given to the ques-
tion of whether some compensation should be paid to inventors who de-
velop inventions which the Crown finds it necessary to suppress, but does
not itself use, and an Amendment will be moved in Committee empower-
ing the Minister to pay such measure of compensation as will ensure that
the inventor is not out of pocket.
I think the remaining Clauses are of a general and formal nature. Since
the Bill was published we have had the benefit of a good deal of informed
criticism. It has been very carefully considered, and this is reflected in
Amendments which are mostly of a very minor character, apart from those
to which I have referred, and the Government will propose those at the
proper stage. I do not think there is need for me to say more on this
Bill except to commend it to the House. The House is in the presence of
an invention, a discovery, of most far-reaching possibilities, and in those
circumstances it is quite clear that its development must be guided in the
national interest. The Government must have adequate powers of control,
they must not hinder the freedom of scientists, indeed they must facilitate
it. It is on those broad lines, of ensuring safety for this country and at
the same time not unduly hampering research, that this Bill has been
[House of Commons Debates]

HOUSE OF COMMONS, October 29, 1946 [Extracts]

Mr. Maurice Webb (Labor): I am glad that the hon. and learned Mem-
ber for Exeter (Mr. Maude) said he was fighting to retain the independent
mind in this matter. I hope to be able to persuade him, and those who
think with him, to give this Motion* a unanimous vote. I see no reason
why there should be any Division in this House upon the terms of the
Motion, or upon the proposition that the Motion contains. It has been
argued that this is a political matter, and that the Government intend to
interfere with the freedom of the press, because Ministers are annoyed at
the way in which their work has been criticized by newspapers. It is diffi-
cult to see how that argument can be sustained, alongside the other ar-
gument that the whole project is meaningless, cannot produce anything
useful, and is likely, moreover, to embarrass the Government. Both argu-
ments cannot be sustained together. Those hon. Members who are opposed
to the proposal must make up their minds to which argument they adhere.
In fact, neither argument has any substance at all. It is no doubt true
that Ministers are annoyed by criticisms of their work. All Ministers and
all Governments have been annoyed by criticisms of their work. Earlier
in the Debate an hon. Member gave this House evidence of it from the
lips of Lord Baldwin. I recollect that in the last Parliament, in the days
of the Coalition under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Wood-
ford (Mr. Churchill) the right hon. Gentleman was at variance with the
press even more than are the present occupants of the Front Bench. The
language used by the right hon. Member would make the language used
by the Lord President of the Council seem tepid and insipid. I remember,
in my capacity as a journalist, having to preside over a function attended
by editors and other executives, and at which the right hon. Member for
Woodford was to be the principal speaker. There was some difficulty in
getting the journalists from the drinking to the other part of the function,
and I said to the right hon. Gentleman, "We are rather like a lot of sheep,
aren't we?" The right hon. Gentleman stuck out his jaw, glared at every-
body and said, "Yes, bloody black sheep."
This is nothing new. There is no new phenomenon about the sensitive-
ness of Government Front Benches. The most sensitive instrument I know
-and I know it from inside and outside-is the press itself. Every time
anybody dares to answer back, it really will not do to denouce that person
as one who wants to limit the freedom of the press. The freedom of the
press is important, but the freedom to answer the press is no less important.
What has been going on in recent months is the kind of thing that has
been going on for many years in this country. It has nothing at all to do
with the proposition in the Motion before the House.
"That, having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic
tendencies in the control of the press and with the object of furthering the free expression
of opinion through the press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation
of news, this House considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire
into the finance, control, management and ownership of the press."

Press Control and Ownership
The demand for an inquiry would have come before this House what-
ever government had been in power and whatever party had been elected
at the last Election. It is not a sudden development at all. It has been
maturing over many years. I happen to be a member of the Executive
Council of the National Union of Journalists and can speak iith some
authority on the history of this matter. I know it was considered long ago
when nobody ever dreamt that there would be a Labor Government in
this House at this time. As a member of the Executive Council I recollect
that some years ago we were instructed by the members of the Union to
prepare a report on our postwar policy. We prepared such a report. We
took it to our delegate meeting. They threw it out and referred it back
on the ground that we had left untouched the basic question of the trend
towards monopoly in the industry.
The following year I, myself, was given the job of trying to prepare a
new and more acceptable report dealing with the economic trends in the
industry. I and those who shared the investigation with me, came to the
conclusion that it was quite impossible for us to arrive at any accurate
estimate of the economic trends in the industry unless we had available
much more information than was then at our disposal. So, the next report
was put before the annual delegate meeting with the explanation that if
the Union wanted more information about monopolies, some form of wider
independent judicial inquiry must be undertaken in order to get that in-
formation accurately to assist us. That report went through.
The following year-that is, this year-the Union itself unanimously
adopted a motion which requested the Executive Council to approach the
Government with a request for the appointment of a Royal Commission.
That is the inception of the matter. If the Party opposite had been elected
to power at the last election, the Motion would have come before them.
I am bound to think, knowing their philosophy and point of view, that
they would have adopted it and we should have heard none of the things
we have heard today about political interference and interfering with
the press.
I must declare that the National Union of Journalists is not a political
union. Its members are not all star artists who appear in this House but
for the most part the ordinary hard-working journalist whom hon. Mem-
bers see week-end after week-end reporting their speeches in the provinces.
That type of man is on the whole neutral politically. On the whole, he
is not inclined to dabble in politics because he feels it is at variance with
his job. He is the type of man who has formed this opinion and made
this request. He is very apprehensive about his future if something is
not done to stop the trend towards monopolies. When next in their constit-
uencies hon. Members opposite should consult that type of man and see
what he feels about this proposal, because he really is the National Union
of Journalists and it is from him and'his colleagues that this proposal has
come. He and his colleagues are not concerned with whether or not this
Government gets a fair show in the press. They are concerned with ten-
dencies and developments in the industry which in their view and in their
experience threaten to destroy the independence and integrity of journal-

British Speeches of the Day [MB. WnBB)
ism. They see very grave dangers to the high traditions of their profession
in the gradual commercialization of the press and the gradual diminution
of the small concerns.
All of us as journalists are profundly concerned about the growing
disbelief of the public in newspapers. Hon. Members on all sides are
conscious of it. In many respects the public does not believe in newspapers
any more. The public sees in the newspapers one morning that Goering
has gone boldly to the scaffold, and later they hear that he committed suicide.
They see in one newspaper that the Duke of Windsor lost 100,000 worth
of jewels, in another newspaper they see it is 50,000 worth and in another
25,000. Only this week they saw two identical photographs in separate
newspapers of Pandit Nehru, one covered with bloodstains and the other
not, and they ask questions about it. They ask questions about them and
there is this growing disbelief in newspapers about which all journalists are
really concerned. The House cannot lightly dismiss the opinion of men
who are in the business and who are, in fact, constructing the newspapers.
We are told that the Conservative Party is the sole custodian of the inter-
ests of the little man. Well, if they are, they should vote for this Motion
tonight, because this Motion is designed to protect the little man in jour-
nalism against predatory commercial interests in Fleet Street. We are told
that the Conservative Party are out to destroy monopoly. The right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) an-
nounced that at Blackpool, and I believe that they are. Now here, at least,
is an opportunity to investigate an incipient monopoly; here, at least, is
an opportunity to investigate a trend which, in our judgment, will end
in monopoly unless something is done about it.
It has been argued that there is no need for anxiety because the mono-
poly has not arrived, but the time to deal with monopolies is when they
are developing, not when they have arrived. Once they have arrived, there
is only one solution if the public interest is at stake, and that is a solution
that hon. Members will not take, that is, to apply to them the principles of
Socialism and make them publicly owned undertakings. That is something
we cannot do with the press; we simply cannot have State ownership of
newspapers. If ever there were any attractions in that idea, the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Woodford destroyed them in 1926 in the
British Gazette. No, I am wholly against the State running newspapers
but, if we do not come in a few years' time to something near an absolute
monopoly, then we shall seriously have to consider what we shall do about it.
What we are asking is that we should now, in the light of the known
facts, try to assess how far this trend will take us, how far it is going, and,
if we are satisfied that it is a dangerous trend, try to discover some adequate
and some reasonable remedies. No Government can do that. It would be
quite improper for the Government itself to interfere with and to examine
the work of the press. A Royal Commission is an ideal instrument for this
purpose; it is the most independent and judicial body we have ever had in
this country and, having that type of body, completely free from any re-
straint or duress or interference from the Government, we can have com-
plete confidence that its findings will be honest findings, acceptable findings,

Press Control and Ownership
judicial findings, findings that may offer us some solution of the problems
that are admittedly before us in this great industry.

Hon. Members opposite may agree that that is all very well, but they
may then ask, but are there any tendencies? Is it true that there is this
tendency towards monopoly in this industry? The hon. Member who
opened the Debate gave certain figures; no answer has been given to those
figures in this Debate, and those figures are very relevant and very im-
portant. He has shown that in the last 25 years half the morning papers of
this country have vanished and a quarter of the evening papers have van-
ished. I have not the latest figure for the disappearances in the field of
weekly newspapers but they are, as I know quite well, the worst of all.
Perhaps the best example known to me is that in my own native city of Lan-
caster. Some years ago there were two very good independent newspapers
in that city, one run by a Conservative family, one by a Liberal family;
excellent newspapers, carrying on a tradition, and built into and integrated
with the life of the community. A combine from London managed to buy
up the Liberal newspaper, and it ran that Liberal newspaper all the time
seeking to get control of the Conservative newspaper. Two or three years
ago it bought up the Conservative newspaper, not for the purpose of carry-
ing it on, but for the purpose of putting it out of business. All that is left
now of that Conservative newspaper is the title on the heading of the Lib-
eral newspaper with which it is now incorporated. The important thing
about that is that this city now only has one newspaper, and that newspaper
controlled by a chain operated here in Fleet Street in London.
I see it weekly, and rarely do the leading articles deal with local issues.
More frequently, the type of leading article is the identical leading article
which I see in other parts of the country. Journalists have a vivid recollection
of the war to establish a monopoly in Bristol, and the war to establish a
monopoly in Newcastle. The technique is well known. The predatory in-
terest comes along, and tries to do a deal. If the paper on the spot does
not come in and play the game, war is declared to bring it to its knees ....
Does the Party opposite really think that this is a good thing? Do they
feel satisfied that we can sit back and allow this kind of thing to continue
without asking about it, without inquiring about it, to try to find out just
what it means, and where it is leading us? Journalists are concerned about
this matter for wider interests, because monopoly means that they themselves
become increasingly subject to interference with their work. I could bring
before the House considerable evidence of the kind of directives that are
issued from the headquarters of chain newspapers, but I will content myself
by quoting one directive sent to a reporter on a Northcliffe newspaper in
Newcastle in 1931. It says:
"Every line you write must be aimed at strengthening Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's
candidature in Seaham, and increasing his majority. Nothing which can possibly
adversely affect Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's candidature is to be allowed."
Other journalists can produce scores and scores of similar directives. We
are profundly concerned about this. If the newspaper world were to remain

British Speeches of the Day [Mn. WEBB)
an open market where there was free competition, this particularly insidi-
ous development of personal control and personal interference would,
perhaps, on the whole, not be a dangerous thing. But, when we get mon-
opoly, when competition disappears, when there is no really free market
among newspapers, then this kind of personal power, this kind of personal
dictatorship over the work of journalists becomes absolutely indefensible
and dangerous. It is for these reasons that we are asking the House to adopt
this Motion, and unanimously declare that it is at least in favor of inquiry
and investigation.
There are many proposals which require investigation, and many types
of ownership which might be considered. The National Union of Journal-
ists have many proposals to put before a Commission, if it is appointed. We
ask the House to look at this matter, not from the point of view of politics,
but of public interest, and the welfare of the people of this country. As a
journalist, I want this Commission, as a citizen I want this Commission, as
a Member of Parliament, I believe it my duty to vote for this Commission.
[House of Commons Debates]


The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Rt. Hon. John Hynd):
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) re-
ferred to tales that are coming out of Germany which he classified as, first,
the lack of a clear-cut policy on the part, presumably, of the British Au-
thorities, or of the Allied Control Council generally. I do not mind which
it is. Secondly, he referred to tales of administrative weaknesses. In regard
to the lack of a clear-cut policy, I do not think there is justification for repeat-
ing that tale. It has been repeated often. The policy that has been enunci-
ated is surely sufficiently clear. The difficulties have arisen from the fact
that that very clear-cut policy has not been fully implemented by all the
parties to that policy. The clear-cut policy was laid down in the Potsdam
Declaration. It provided for certain fundamental things to be done in
Germany, and included the recognition of Germany as a single economic
unit. Germany may have been recognized as a single economic unit, but
it has not yet been worked as such.

The Potsdam Declaration also lays down the establishment of a central
German administration. Neither of those things have been realized, but
that is not a matter which can be laid at the door of His Majesty's Govern-
ment. We have consistently pressed for those things to be established. In-

British Administration in Germany
deed, our very persistence in following that policy and in demanding its
full implementation can fairly be said to be the cause of quite a large
amount of our troubles. It is because of the fact that we are not realizing
that objective that the Foreign Secretary upon the Council of Foreign Min-
isters in Paris made his statement last July with regard to the necessity for
the implementation of those clauses of the Potsdam Agreement, or for the
linking up of those zones which were prepared to take that step then and
there. The American zone and the British zone have accepted the principle.
We are still hoping that the French and Russian zones will come in and
join us, and therefore secure the implementation of those very important
aspects of the Potsdam policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon asked me what were
the effects of this fusion. In the very limited time at my disposal I will try
to give at least some indication. In the very short space of time that has
elapsed, we have already set up certain German executive administrations,
bi-zonal administrations, covering economics, transport, agriculture, tele-
graphs and postal communications. These German executive bodies will
operate bi-zonally. They will be under the control of the British and Amer-
ican authorities in Berlin, for purposes of policy. As speedily as we can
safely permit, we propose to hand over full executive powers to those ad-
ministrations, retaining for ourselves control of policy.
My hon. Friend is perturbed in case this might mean that the operation
of the fusion arrangements, and the establishment of these bi-zonal econ-
omies might modify or endanger the policy which he assumes the British
Government would like to follow in the British zone, namely a policy of
socialization of the basic industries. I do not think he need have any fear.
We have already nationalized, in so far as that is possible to an Occupying
Power in parts of a country which has no native Government for that part
or for the whole of the country. We have nationalized the coal industry in
the Ruhr. We shall continue to take into our control other key industries
pending the establishment of German administrations.

It is no use asking us to nationalize, in German terms, any industry or
to municipalize any industry, if there is no municipal or national authority.
We have gone as far as we can, until German authorities are established, to
take control of these industries into our own hands.
Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Conservative): What does the Min-
ister mean by "nationalizing"? I am not trying to be pernickety. Does he
mean nationalization as we understand it in this country, or does he mean
operation as opposed to ownership?
Mr. Hynd: What I have been trying to explain, probably in rather a con-
fused way, is that so far as we can nationalize a concern where there is no
native national authority, we have done it. We have dispossessed previous
owners of these industries and taken them under our custody, and their
final disposal will depend upon the establishment of democratic German

British Speeches of the Day [MR. HYND)
administration capable of dealing with economic policy for themselves and
upon the type of German administration and the representations they may
make to us. It has been our consistent policy all along in these matters
not to support the Social Democratic Party in particular or any particular
parties, but to make possible the development of democratic political
parties, trade unions and other organizations and finally democratic admin-
istrations which themselves will represent the political feeling of the Ger-
man people in the zone with whom we can consult, without necessarily
committing ourselves in advance to accepting everything they may care to
advance. But it must be the German administrations who will have to
make their policies and be responsible for the implementation of whatever
policies they make. It is not our purpose to tie them down to any policy.
Mr. Stokes (Labor): What about the link-up with the American policy?
Mr. Hynd: The zonal fusion, as it has been called, is purely economic.
The German executive bi-zonal committees are purely concerned with the
execution of the policy which is laid down either by the Joint Anglo-Ameri-
can Committee in Berlin or, where there is no agreement, by the Control
Commission for the particular zone. In other words, we will be free to
carry on our own policy within our own zone so far as we consider it
desirable to do so and where we can find no compromise with our colleagues
on the American side.

I should like to say a few words about the administrative weaknesses to
which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon referred. Here again
is the old question about the short-term complex of the Control Commis-
sion. I have never denied that this is a difficult question. It is a difficulty
that is inherent in the type of administration we have to manage in Ger-
many. It is not the kind of administration that we can say will last for
any particular time. Certainly we cannot say that any particular branch
of activity within that administration is likely to last for 10, 12, or 15 years
or less. We can only judge as events develop how long the administration
in a particular direction will be necessary. Therefore, we cannot say at the
beginning that everybody taken on in the Control Commission will have a
10, 12, 15 or 20 year contract with a pension at the end. We are conscious
of the difficulty and the deterrent effect it has on recruitment of staff. We
are therefore examining it very closely in conjunction with the Exchequer
and with the Civil Service Commission in order to try to find a solution.
I rather resent the implications that have been made by some hon. Mem-
bers who have suggested that we are getting no men of quality in the Con-
trol Commission, that there is no satisfactory standard being maintained,
and that since the establishment of the Control Commission and the devel-
opment of the civilian side as against the military side there has been a
constant deterioration. The facts and the evidence are all to the contrary.
Since the establishment of the Control Commission, and since we have
developed the civilian side of it, we have at the same time been able to
develop a much closer and careful screening of the personnel who apply for
the jobs in Germany. That position was not possible 12 months ago when

British Administration in Germany
the staff were recruited almost entirely from the Army. There is no shortage
of candidates. On the contrary, we find it difficult to cope with the number
of candidates coming forward, in many cases of very high quality.
There is no evidence at all which would bear out the allegation made
by my hon. Friend, and I would like to point out this to him and others
who make these charges: that this is not very fair on the people who are
carrying out this very difficult job. It does not add to British prestige; it
does not add to the confidence of the Germans, or any one else, in our
representatives who are working in these very difficult conditions. It is
extremely discouraging; and it is not only discouraging to those on the job,
but it is discouraging to the best type of person we would like to get on the
job if they feel they are going into a service from which they cannot expect
to get any credit when they come back. Therefore, I would ask hon. Mem-
bers to be very careful in making allegations of that kind without being
very sure of the facts. . .
We have to balance carefully the humanitarian aspect, the effect upon
the German people, and the necessity for our own people being there. I
think I am on sure ground because I have discussed these matters with
Germans of many political complexions in many parts of the zone and they.
appreciate the necessity for our own men being there at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said we were doing the same as the
"Beast," meaning the Nazi occupiers of other territories during the war.
Is that really fair? What are we doing? The Social Democratic Party in
the British zone have publicly announced that the British administration
has saved millions of lives during the past year through the contribution
we have made because, without our contribution and without our control
and our influence, Germany could not possibly have lived during the past
winter. . .
May I describe what has been done in Brunswick? There you had
thousands of refugees pouring in from the East during the past 12 months,
ridden with disease in many cases, with very few clothes, no blankets, very
little food, very little personal belongings of any kind. Yet there has been
no epidemic in the Brunswick area or anywhere else. That, where there has
been a shortage of medical equipment and supplies such as is probably
unprecedented in Europe. I have been in these transit hospitals where they
have not had a bandage, and I asked one nurse what she would do if she
had somebody to bandage? She said, "I would tear a piece off my dress
and make the best of it." There has been no epidemic because of our
personnel in Germany, and I suggest that men doing work of that kind
require to have their families there if they stay for a prolonged period, and
require as reasonable accommodation as we can provide after giving the
maximum consideration to German interests.
[House of Commons Debates]

The first hour of every sitting day in the House of Commons is
devoted to answering questions which Members of Parliament put
to Ministers. A selection of some of the questions asked during
October, 1946, is included below, together with the Ministers' answers.
Sir Ralph Glyn (Conservative) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the
economic changes in Germany resulting from the negotiations between the
British and U. S. elements of the Allied Control Commission; and to what
extent the French Government, not being bound by the Potsdam Agree-
ment, propose to co-operate in so far as the French zone in Germany is
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): As a
result of the negotiations referred to by the hon. Member, a joint Anglo-
American Board has been established and has accepted certain basic policy
principles. There is to be established as nearly as practicable a common
standard of living in the British and American zones, with common ration
scales. To achieve this, the resources of both zones will be used to their
common advantage. There are to be common import and export policies,
and imports into each zone will be limited to agreed items and quantities
required in addition to indigenous resources, to provide the agreed stand-
ard of living. The execution of this agreed policy will be in the hands
of representatives of German authorities in the two zones, subject to the
direct supervision of British and American officials. So far the French rep-
resentative in Germany has not been authorized to join in the new arrange-
ment, although the British and American representatives have several times
made it clear that we would welcome his participation and also that of
the Russian representative.
[October 10, 1946]
Mr. Gammans (Conservative) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster if he is in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy
towards de-Nazification in the British zone in Germany.
Mr. Hynd: Our policy is to grade Nazis into categories: to intern the
dangerous Nazis; and to remove from office all who were more than nom-
inal adherents of the Nazi Party. Considerable progress has been made in
examining and reviewing individual cases, and it is hoped that this process
may soon be concluded. De-Nazification is effected mainly through German
panels, on which, particularly in industrial regions, trades' unions and
workers' interests are fully represented. Nazis at present interned are to
be classified and penalties or sanctions applied according to the merits of
each case. Sanctions take the form of a further period of internment for
the more dangerous cases and for other cases restrictions on movement,
financial property, employment and political activities. It has been decided
that, except in the more flagrant cases, all German youths born after Iet

Question Time in the House of Commons
January, 1919, should be exonerated with a view to encouraging their
speedy reintegration into German democratic life.
[October 15, 1946]
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Labor) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, how many Germans have been removed from their jobs in the
British zone of Germany under the de-Nazification program and how these
people are now employed.
Mr. Hynd: Up to Ist September, 1946, some 156,000 persons had been
removed from office or employment and a further 86,000 persons, who ap-
plied for employment of a prohibited nature had their applications refused.
It is impracticable to trace how each one of such persons are now employed,
but they are excluded from public office and positions of influence.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that, in some cases at least,
there are ex-Nazi intellectuals who are the center of life and discussion in
the various cafes which they frequent, and would it not be better to em-
ploy them under some proper supervision and control, as our Russian Allies
are doing in their zone?
Mr. Hynd: Certainly; they are subject to direction to appropriate em-
ployment. The directive issued bans them from particular employment
involving supervisory or other responsible positions.
[October 21, 1946]
Major Beamish (Conservative) asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he will remove the restriction which limits the number of gift
food-parcels from well-wishers overseas that may be received by any one
person in this country in any month.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir S. Cripps): I have considered,
in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, the cir-
cumstances in which gift parcels may be received by people in this country
without the need for an import license. In agreement with him, I have
now decided to dispense altogether with the limit on the number of gift
parcels that may be sent to individuals, and to increase the limit on the
maximum weight of such gift parcels, whether sent by post or otherwise,
to 22 lb.; this does not, of course, affect the lower weight limits imposed
by certain countries on the dispatch of parcels. Within this maximum no
further weight restriction will be imposed on the amount of individual
foodstuffs or other goods that parcels may contain. These concessions only
apply to parcels which are bona fide unsolicited gifts and not imported
as merchandise or for sale, and on condition that they are clearly marked
as gifts. They do not apply to parcels containing arms and ammunition,
plumage, dangerous drugs, or other articles the import of which was, before
the war, subject to special legislative prohibition or restriction. Parcels
which do not comply with these conditions are liable to seizure by the
Customs unless covered by an import license.
[October 14, 1946]

British Speeches of the Day
Mr. W. Shepherd (Conservative) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster the present average prices at which German coal is being ex-
ported by the North German Coal Control Commission, and the present
average costs of production.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The
average export price of coal is forty-five shillings per ton free on board,
deep sea port or free on rail, German frontier station. The average cost
of production in Germany is estimated at Reichsmarks thirty-two per ton.
Mr. W. Wells (Labor) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
how much coal extracted in the British zone in Germany was exported
from Germany in the three months ended 30th September last; to what
countries it was consigned; and how much each of the importing countries
Mr. Hynd: Exports of coal, coke and brown coal briquettes from the
British zone to other countries amounted to 3,268,246 metric tons in the
three months ended 30th September last.
Following is the list of exports to the various countries:
Solid fuel exported from the British zone of Germany in the three
months ended 30th September, 1946.
Receiving Country Metric Tons
France ............................................ 530,186
French North Africa .............................. 33,437
Belgium ................................. ...... 292,659
Belgium (Bunkers) ................................. 16,793
Netherlands ...................................... 362,838
Netherlands (Bunkers) ............................ 62,927
Denmark ................................ ...... 380,438
Norway ........................................ 155,803
Luxembourg ...................................... 416,004
Italy ............................................ 287,422
Switzerland .......... ............................. 6214
Sweden .............................................. 24,231
Finland ................. ......................... 19223
Greece ............................................ 23,781
Portugal ........................................... 28,850
Yugoslavia ...................................... 30,016
Austria ............................................ 597,424
Total............ 3,268,246

Mr. W. Wells asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many
tons of coal were extracted in the British zone in Germany in the three
months ended 30th September last; and whether these figures show an in-
crease or a decrease compared with the three months ended 30th June last.
Mr. Hynd: The production of coal, including brown coal briquettes,.
amounted to some 16,730,000 metric tons. This represents an increase of
about 2,050,000 metric tons over the output in the preceding quarter.
[October 17, 1946]
Sir W. Smithers (Conservative) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
why, in view of the critical food situation, part of the U. S. Loan was used
to buy U. S. films,

Question Time in the House of Commons
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)s Because the British
people like United States films. [October 19
[October If, l94S\
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (Conservative) asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether he will give any further indication of the national gold
and dollar holdings.
Mr. Dalton: Our official holding of gold and U. S. dollars on the 30th
June, 1946, was 545 millions, as compared with 595 millions on 30th
June, 1945. [October 15, 1946]

Mr. Janner (Labor) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
the rule of Habeas Corpus now runs in Palestine; on whose authority per-
sons are detained or deported without trial; whether orders for deportation
or detention are subject to review by an independent judicial tribunal;
and whether persons deported or detained have themselves the right of
appeal from such orders or the decisions of the tribunal.
Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The answer to
the first part of the Question is that Habeas Corpus proceedings lie in
Palestine. As regards the second part, persons may be detained and de-
ported from Palestine by order of the High Commissioner under the Pales-
tine Defense (Emergency) Regulations, if he considers it necessary for
securing the public safety and the maintenance of public order. As regards
the third part of the Question, cases are subject to review by an Advisory
Committee appointed by the High Commissioner under the Chairmanship
of a British judge. Each person when detained is given a notice stating
the regulation under which he is detained and the grounds of his detention,
and informing him that he may lodge an objection with the Advisory
Committee. As regards the last part of the Question, such persons may
appeal to the High Commissioner by petition in the usual way.
[October 16, 1946]
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Conservative) asked the Under-Secretary of State
for India whether he has any statement to make about the state of public
order in Bengal.
The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson):
During the weekend, the Governor with his chief Minister made two ex-
tensive flights over the affected area of South-East Bengal. He reported
last night to the following effect:
There has been no general rising of Muslims against Hindus. The
disturbances have been caused by a body of hooligans, who have exploited
the existing communal feeling, and who, as they range the countryside,
are temporarily joined in each locality by belligerent Moslem roughs.
No reliable figures showing the extent of their depredations can yet
be given.

British Speeches of the Day
The restoration of order is hampered by bad communications, which
make it difficult to establish contact with the main body of rioters. Op-
erations have for some days been in progress with the object of localizing
the disturbances; five companies of troops and some 300 armed police
are participating. There is reason to believe that the actual disturbances
are now confined to the extreme north-west corner of the Noakhali dis-
trict and the three south-western police station areas of the Chandpur
Subdivision of Tippera District. Leaflets issued by the Bengal Ministry
have been widely scattered from aircraft, deprecating lawlessness and
appealing, especially to the Moslems, for peace.
The damage caused to property will probably prove heavy; but the
evidence available supports the conclusion that the estimate of 5,000
dead quoted in the Calcutta press is a great exaggeration. The Gov-
ernor thinks that the number will certainly not be in the four-figure
category and expects it to be low in the three-figure category.
The panic caused by the roving bands has spread far beyond the areas
actually affected and there are at least 30,000 refugees in the Government
relief centers, a large proportion having come from places where there
have been no disturbances. Arrangements are in hand for providing
these people with food and medical relief. With the object of establish-
ing conditions in which the refugees can return to their homes without
fear, the Governor has secured the services of two additional battalions
of troops for local protection duties. In the town and district of Dacca
the situation has been definitely quieter since 15th October. During the
past week there have been only four serious incidents, with three fatal
casualties. The previous extreme tension is lessening, but there is still
very great suspicion between the two communities.
In Calcutta, after a quiet week with a few isolated incidents, there
was an increase of incidents on 19th October. Rapprochement between
the two communities is making only slow progress because of the news
from South-East Bengal and some amount of reciprocal economic boy-
cott. Tension is still high, though generally the normal life of the city
is proceeding. Police in large numbers, as well as the military, are still
patroling the city. [October 21, 1946]
[October 21, 1946]
Mr. Ernest Davies (Labor) asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether it is permissible to favor imports from countries whose economies
have been disrupted by war provided that there is no substantial departure
from the general rule of non-discrimination; and whether he will make a
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir S. Cripps): Yes, Sir. The
following statement explains what the Government are doing and how it
fits in with thegeneral need to restrict imports to protect the balance of
payments: -
1. The protection of our balance of payments makes it necessary that for the time
being import licenses should normally be granted only for essential goods not avail-
able in adequate quantities from home production. This basic policy Is not sub-
stantially modified by the arrangements made with certain overseas countries
under which "token imports" of certain goods not hitherto permitted may be allowed

Question Time in the House of Commons
to be imported within a strictly limited percentage of the value of imports of like
goods in a pre-war period. These arrangements have been made to allow overseas
traders to maintain their pre-war connections with our home market.
2. It is, however, possible as a temporary measure, to adopt a somewhat more
liberal policy towards imports from certain countries than our overall balance of
payments position at present permits us to adopt generally. These countries' econ-
omies have been severely disrupted by the war and certain of them are very short
of sterling. Increased purchases from them serve the dual purpose of providing
more supplies for United Kingdom consumers and assisting these countries to get
back on to their feet. Since some of the countries whose economy has been severely
disrupted through the war have available for export certain goods of a non-essential
and sometimes even of a luxury type, it will be necessary to admit some of these
for importation to this country if the aim of assisting those countries is to be achieved,
but the emphasis will be placed wherever possible upon the consumer goods and
foodstuffs which are now urgently required by the people of this country.
3. Arrangements have already been made in accordance with this policy to allow
certain imports from France, Holland and Czechoslovakia and the policy is being
extended to Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy and Austria. Further extensions may be con-
sidered from time to time. Each class of goods will have to be considered on its
merits and the policy will need to be subject to review in the light of changing
conditions. The fact that production in this country of a particular class of goods
may be claimed to be adequate for the needs of consumers will not necessarily con-
stitute a reason for excluding imports, but in considering the level of imports to
be allowed of particular types of goods regard will be had to the extent to which
production of like goods for the home market may be limited by control measures
or may be subject to price or quality restrictions.
4. As has been frequently stated, the purpose of import restrictions is to protect
the balance of payments. Manufacturers must realize that they cannot rely on
protection for their products by import restrictions continuing longer than is necessary
for balance of payments reasons.
[October 21, 1946]
Mr. Parker (Labor) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he will propose to the Government of the U.S.S.R. that a specified
number of British newspaper correspondents should be allowed to enter
the Soviet zone of Germany on a specified date and should be free to travel
there unaccompanied; and that a corresponding number of Soviet corres-
pondents should be allowed identical facilities in the British zone.
Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): His Majesty's Government have always
been in favor of the greatest possible freedom of movement for all Allied
journalists between the various zones of Germany. Visits to the British
zone have been arranged for as many Allied journalists as have wished to
come. Soviet journalists have exactly the same facilities when visiting the
British zone as those accorded to the other Allies. Reciprocal visits have
been paid by British journalists to the Soviet zone. Conducting officers are
provided for Soviet and other journalists in the British zone solely to assist
the parties in overcoming difficulties of transport and accommodation, and
in effecting necessary introductions. Their function does not include the
supervision of correspondents' work. It does not appear possible in present
circumstances in Germany for unconducted visits to take place.
[October 21, 1946]
Mr. Collins (Labor) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
he is now in a position to make a general statement about future policy in

British Speeches of the Day
Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. His
Majesty's Government have recently had under review the question of their
future policy in regard to Cyprus, with a view to seeking opportunities
to establish a more liberal and progressive regime in the internal affairs
of the island. With this object, I propose to invite the Governor, Sir
Charles Woolley, who is in full accord with this policy, to call together
a Consultative Assembly, drawn from representative elements in the island,
to consider the framing of proposals for constitutional reform, including
the re-establishment of a Central Legislature. It is hoped that the result
will be the creation of a Council which will bring representatives of the
Cypriot people into full consultation with the Government in the conduct
of their local affairs.
His Majesty's Government are also determined to press on with vigor
the program of economic development and social welfare, which has been
successfully initiated during recent years. I have had before me a systematic
and detailed plan of development covering the next 10 years. It has been
under close examination in the Colonial Office and is being published in
Cyprus today. This plan deals with every aspect of the island's life and
economy-agriculture and irrigation, the forests, medical and education
services, the expansion of the ports, the provision of tourist facilities and
so on.
There are two further matters on which I can also announce decisions.
The first relates to the situation at present existing in the Church of Cyprus,
of which the Archiepiscopal See has now been vacant for many years. There
seems little doubt that the three local laws enacted in 1937 with the object
of controlling certain aspects, of the election of a new Archbishop have
impeded the settlement of this problem. The retention of these laws would
seem no longer to be justifiable, and, on the advice and with the full con-
currence of the Governor, His Majesty's Government have now decided that
they should be repealed as soon as practicable. It is to be hoped that, as
a result of this action on the part of the Government, the Church of Cyprus
will find itself able to make an election to the vacant See and thus resolve
a situation which, so long as it continues, must be prejudicial to its spiritual
authority and influence.
Finally, the Government consider that the time has now come to per-
mit the return to Cyprus of those persons who were deported from- the
island for their part in the disturbances of 1931. His Majesty's Govern-
ment earnestly hope that these measures will inaugurate a new and hap-
pier era in the relations between this country and the people of Cyprus,
and that they will now wholeheartedly join in the task of developing the
island's resources and bettering their own conditions.
[October 23, 1916]

Mr. Callaghan (Labor) asked the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment how far, and under what conditions, he permits immigration of
foreign husbands of British girls, foreigners who served in His Majesty's
forces, the Merchant Navy and Allied forces based in this country and
desirable ex-prisoners of war who wish to return.

Question Time in the House of Commons
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede:) Subject to
exceptions which it may be proper to make for special reasons personal to
an individual, the general policy of His Majesty's Government is as follows:
1. Foreigners who, while they were in the United Kingdom during the war, married
British women are admitted provided that they satisfy me that they are desirable
2. Foreigners who have served in His Majesty's forces on British service engagements
may now be discharged in this country. Those already discharged abroad receive
special consideration if they apply for visa facilities to return here.
5. Foreign members of the British Merchant Navy Reserve Pool who are not res-
ident in this country are allowed to continue to serve in British ships but not, as
a rule, to take short employment.
4. While I am prepared to give members of Allied forces special consideration if
they have genuine ties with this country (for instance, if they have married British
women), I do not regard the fact that for operational reasons these forces were based
on this country as in itself giving them a stronger claim to be allowed to settle
here than their civilian compatriots.
5. I do not regard as having any special claim to admission for settlement here
persons whose only qualification is that they were captured in arms against this
country and happened to be brought here for detention.
[October 23, 1946]

Dr. Segal (Labor) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
the promise given by the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem to the Egyptian Prime
Minister, not to take part in any political activity during the period of
his stay on Egyptian soil, has been strictly observed.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bevin): It is unfortunately
clear that the Mufti of Jerusalem has not acted in accordance with the
assurances which he gave to the Egyptian Prime Minister. His Majesty's
Ambassador brought the Mufti's recent activities to the attention of Sidki
Pasha who now has the matter under consideration.
[October 23, 1946]

Mr. Driberg (Labor) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
make a statement on his recent visit to America, and the results thereof.
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): My right hon.
Friend attended at Washington the first annual meetings of the Interna-
tional Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, in his capacity as Governor for His Majesty's Government
in the United Kingdom. These meetings determined the lines on which
the future work of these two new international institutions should proceed,
and an interpretative declaration was secured from the Board of the In-
ternational Monetary Fund in the sense desired by His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the United Kingdom, to the effect that steps which are necessary
to protect a member from unemployment of a chronic or persistent char-
acter, arising from pressure on its balance of payments, are among the
measures necessary to correct a fundamental disequilibrium for the purpose
of the consideration by the Fund of a claim for an adjustment of the

British Speeches of the Day
exchange rate of the country concerned. My right hon. Friend was also
able, during his stay in Washington, to establish personal contact with
leading members of the United States Administration, particularly with
Mr. John Snyder, Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. Clayton, the Assistant
Secretary of State, with both of whom he had a frank and cordial exchange
of views on many matters of common concern to our two countries.
On his way to Washington, my right hon. Friend spent some days in
Canada, at the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister, and took this
opportunity for a no less cordial exchange of views with Canadian Min-
isters. In Washington, my right hon. Friend also discussed matters of com-
mon concern to the British Commonwealth with the Australian Ambas-
sador, the New Zealand Minister, and the representative of the Union of
South Africa at the meetings above referred to. He was also able to discuss
with the French Finance Minister, and other representatives of European
countries, various questions of future economic and financial co-operation.
[October 24, 1946]


Texts can be consulted in the Library of British Information
Services: those speeches delivered in the House of Lords or the
House of Commons are published in full in "Hansard," copies of
which may be bought through B.I.S. For prices see inside back cover.

House of Commons, October 17. Mr. Hynd.
House of Commons, October 10. Mr. Westwood.
House of Commons, October 29. Mr. Morrison.
Sir Stafford Cripps. London, October 3.
Mr. Churchill. Blackpool, October 5.
Mr. Bevin; Mr. Alexander. Paris, October 8-14.
Mr. Attlee; Mr. Dukes. Bournemouth, October 24.
Mr. H. Wilson. Washington, October 29.


Official Report of Parliamentary Debates

$.15 per copy or by subscription

Annual Subscription . . .

Annual Subscription . . .

Joint Annual Subscription . .

. . $17.85

. . 14.05

. . 27.85

40 Issues (Commons or Lords) . .
100 Issues (Commons or Lords) . .

(Daily Parts stitched together with cover)
Weekly Edition . . . . .
Weekly Edition Index . . . .
Annual Subscription . . . .
Annual Subscription with Index . .

(All rates are inclusive of postage)


I I a m-



^ Pi ;_II_ II


THE Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire is a quar-
terly publication issued by the Empire Parliamentary Asso-
ciation, giving a summary of the proceedings of general
interest in the various legislatures of the British Common-
wealth. It provides not only an account of the views of
representatives of various parties in the different Parlia-
ments on international affairs and other important subjects,
but also an account of legislative enactments of general
interest. It thus provides information, in a condensed form,
on legislation and the points of view of leading men in
various parts of the British Commonwealth upon many
matters which are of common interest to those in the
United States of America who are concerned with parlia-
mentary and international affairs.
The Journal is obtainable in North America from the
Oxford University Press, 480 University Avenue, Toronto 2,
Ontario, Canada. Price: $1.25 per copy, plus postage,
$5 per annum post free.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs