631
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Foreign Affairs [MR. PICKTHORN.] over the world, it is a matter of immense principle that these things should be talked out in this House.
There is a similar individual matter, already mentioned in the House, on which I want to say a word and that is what is known as the Sylvester case. There ought to be someone on the Gov- ernment Front bench who knows the technical terms and names used in a Debate of this kind. It is obviously diffi- cult for anyone to make such a speech when it is clear that one is speaking to people who are not technically qualified to deal with it.
was
The second case to which I refer is the Sylvester case. Mr. Sylvester was in Jerusalem upon, I think, U.N.O. terri- tory, but under His Majesty's protection, in the sense that he was one of His Majesty's subjects abroad doing work which everybody would
agree socially desirable. He was, what was called, arrested or, at any rate, he was seized. I do not at all, for my argument, accept the accounts in the papers of how he was treated. At least, I think, there is no doubt he was treated roughly, and indeed no doubt he was subjected to con- siderable torture, though nothing very much in comparison to the torture of which we are accustomed to hear in this age of the common man. After a con- siderable time and the expenditure of a great deal of his money, Mr. Sylvester was released. 1 should explain at this stage that I have absolutely no kind of what is called interest to avow in the matter, but I ought to say perhaps that the predominant person concerned with his firm is a personal friend of mine, with whom I had at one time some business connections. Let me add that he did not ask me to refer to the matter, nor am I doing or saying anything at his suggestion.
The question I want to put is has His Majesty's Government considered, and if they have considered with what conclusion, whether in such circumstances there ought to be compensation for pain suffered, loss of prospects endured and all that? I think that ought to be con- sidered if it has not been considered; and moreover, His Majesty's Government should át least consider whether the out-of-pocket expenses in regard to getting a release in a case such as Mr. Sylvester's ought not to be guaranteed by
109 N 4
632
Foreign Affairs His Majesty's Government, whether eventually to be paid out of the Ex- chequer, recovered from the Zionists or from U.N.O., or what not.
Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston): Will the hon. Gentleman permit me--
Mr. Pickthorn: I will give way in a minute. This question clearly ought to be considered. We are rapidly getting into a position as if we were in an un- christianised, barbarous middle age, in which Governments do nothing whatever to protect people if they get a furlong outside their own immediate bailiwicks; and unless each time a new point of such principle is raised, the Government is questioned with all the emphasis that can be found, that degeneration will be even more rapid.
Mr. Wyatt rose--
Mr. Pickthorn: I shall go on all the longer.
Mr. K. Lindsay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge three or four persons connected with the Foreign Office are in this House at the present moment. There is also a Colonial Secre- tary and
an Under-Secretary in the House. It makes a farce of these Debates -with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson) that we cannot have on the Government Front Bench people who can listen and answer any point.
Mr. Wyatt Is the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) de- veloping an argument for the recognition of Israel, as it will not be possible to make any representations to Israel unless diplomatic relations exist?
Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the resources of civilisation is less exhaustive than he
assumes.
Mr. Eden: Further to that point of Order. I must protest that there is not present one of the three Ministers who could listen to some part of the Debate, and I hope that some effort will be made to procure a Minister who is able to deal with these matters.
Mr. C. Davies: We all realise that the Foreign Secretary has only just come
63.3
9 DECEMBER 1948
Foreign Affairs back, but then there are three others who might be here. One ought to be here. It is not fair to leave it merely to the Minister of Education and the Joint Par- liamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Mr. Driberg (Maldon): I should like to support that from these back benches.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Gentlemen have raised a point of Order, but it is not a point of Order with which I can deal. It is not my business to say who ought to be on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Pickthorn : With the deepest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am in the same situation as you, and that is the most flattering thing that has ever happened to me. I do not know what can be done. We are on the Adjournment, so therefore one cannot move the Adjournment of the House. One cannot move the previous question when on the Adjournment. There is nothing one can do but hope that the Press will communicate to the public how His Majesty's Government treat com- plaints of failure to protect His Majesty's subjects.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Tom- linson): The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is to reply to the Debate, asked me to take notes for him for a few minutes because he wanted to go out and get something to eat. Surely it is not unusual for that to happen?
Mr. Pickthorn: We have half a dozen
of these Foreign Secretaries pantomiming all round the world, and that there are three or four of them in the precincts of the House is well known. We have listened to the longest and dreariest speeches by the Ministers, in charge of external affairs, and we have listened quietly, and even occasionally said,
66
Hear, hear," which is more than Gov- ernment supporters do, and occasionally we make a speech, and the least we should expect is that our complaints and questions should receive the same atten- tion. I should like to go on with my speech. I do not mind how long it goes on but I should like to have dinner at about 8 o'clock.
The things to which I have referred have been each in itself comparatively small. There is another thing which at first sight the House may regard as not strictly relevant, and that is what has
109 N 5
634
Foreign Affairs happened recently about citizenship. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman oppo- site would like me to spell it for him? I should like that to go down on the notes. What has happened about citi- zenship recently? I should like to quote a sentence from a learned writer on these topics. He says:
"The exchange of such exclusive and dis- criminating privileges composes the distinction between the Commonwealth and foreign nations."
If you see a rabbit and a lettuce, you know where the rabbit ends and the lettuce begins: everything inside the rabbit's skin is rabbit and the rest is lettuce. The same thing, roughly speak- ing, is true about the Commonwealth. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman who is presumed to know something about agriculture wishes to discuss this topic, he must stand up and speak politely, in audible English, not mutter and interrupt continuously.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): If I am challenged on it, the point is this. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that foreign affairs is a secret only shared by him and the Foreign Secretary in this country. There have been very many references by him. He must take it when we ourselves decide to make some retaliation.
Mr. Pickthorn: I will take any protest, and I will enjoy any protest on any topic of which the hon. Gentleman is capable ing on his feet and within the rules of but he must make it properly and stand-
Order of this House. He must not sit muttering and shaking his nose at me.
The point I am trying to get at is that there has been this complete practical failure to defend His Majesty's subjects or their goods and property all over the world. I ask His Majesty's Government to consider that from the practical point of view, and I also ask them to consider this: what foreign state now knows which persons are in what sense His Majesty's subjects? Which Minister- which of these Ministers to whom foreign affairs are not secrets-can now tell us-- I will give way at once if one of them can tell us what the Court at The Hague would be likely to decide about whether Irishmen are or are not His Majesty's subjects? It is no good His Majesty's Government deciding by an administra- tive decree that they are not going to