CO537-3702 — Page 39

727

<6

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. CHURCHILL.] period of suspicions, of abuse and counter- abuse and of opposing policies would be a disaster hampering the great developments of world prosperity for the masses which are attainable only by our trinity."

I wrote:

"I hope there is no word or phrase in this outpouring of my heart to you which un- wittingly gives offence. If so, let me know.

But do not I beg of you, my friend Stalin, under-rate the divergencies which are opening about matters which you may think are small, but which are symbolic of the way the English- speaking democracies look at life." That was my outlook and hope then, in April, 1945. It was my dearest wish. I believe that trinity of co-operation and the efforts of these three Powers would have opened to mankind a golden age of productivity and peace, and moral and intellectual well being. That was my out- look then. I only deeply regret the reasons that exist-and they are known to us all-which make it difficult to share it and express it fully now.

12.21 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dalton): The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech full of deeply interesting material. Whether we agree or not with all he has said, it is good that we should have in this House such speeches casting a backward light also on the very important historical events in which he played, as I have con- stantly maintained, a most dominating and essential part in the welfare of our country and the world.

I am only going to speak about one of the many matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I am going to speak about the Committee sitting in Paris to study closer European union, and how we are getting on. I am also going to quote from the speech which was quoted from yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in order to make quite clear my own view as expressed some months ago, and to put this matter into better perspective than the Press at a time when they are beset, on the one hand, with a shortage of newsprint and, on the other hand, with a preference for misrepresent- ing Labour speakers, have so far been able to give to the public. I will reserve the quotations to the latter part of what I have to say, and shall make them then. The Committee in Paris is meeting in a very friendly and harmonious atmo-

110 A 14

Foreign Affairs

728

sphere, which not even the Continent

Daily Mail" has been able to disrupt, though it has tried hard. I could also quote from that, were it worth while, but I think it would be a waste of space in HANSARD. Vicious attacks have been made upon myself--these I do not care about, they are water off a duck's back. But vicious attacks have also been made by the Continental "Daily Mail" on the various persons associated with me in the British Delegation, Lord Inverchapel, Sir Edward Bridges and Professor Wade. These attacks are not worth quoting and not worth noticing. The dog will return to its vomit by and by in the offices of the "Daily Mail.”

We are conducting very friendly and constructive discussions in Paris. At the first meeting, at my proposal M. Herriot, that very distinguished French man of State, was appointed President. It was universally approved that he should occupy that position. We have been studying in our discussions in Paris the practical and detailed aspects of the problem, and various proposals that have been made from various quarters. There is a British proposal for the creation of a Council of Europe. There is a French proposal for the creation of a Consultative Assembly. There are other intermediate proposals, other suggestions made by private organisations, with some of which the right hon. Gentleman is connected.

I have made it quite clear that so far as the British Delegation is concerned- and the other delegations have agreed with us we are happy to hear witnesses, to listen to statements of opinion, and to receive memoranda from private bodies which have views on this matter. Only yesterday Mr. Duncan Sandys and various of his colleagues were giving evidence. I was very sorry that I could not be there, but I had to be here. The day before my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. Mackay), who has played a great part in these affairs, and some of his colleagues were giving evidence. I men- tion these facts merely in order to illustrate our procedure. We are willing to receive evidence from responsible quarters where it is offered.

But, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained yesterday. we are a fact-finding body.

We are, if one cares to use the term, a working

Foreign Affairs

10 DECEMBER 1948

party. I would like to quote the words which the Foreign Secretary used yester- day about this matter. He quoted the terms of reference of the Committee, about which he said there had been some misunderstanding. The terms of reference

were:

"To consider and report to Governments on the steps to be taken towards securing a greater measure of unity between European countries.

"

and he went on to quote in detail. Then he said:

"This Committee is exploratory. It is fact- finding. It is endeavouring to find out what is in everybody's mind. It was decided at the Consultative Council-

"

That was of Foreign Ministers-

"-that the Committee's report should come before them at the next meeting. It is at this stage that the Governments will have to make their decisions as to what is the best form in which to develop this organisation."- [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 586.]

Our purpose therefore is to prepare the way for

that consideration by the Governments.

I must say a word at this point about what has been said about my colleagues there. Politicians are fair game for the flicking of cherry stones at any time, but it is, I think, rather deplorable that public

attacks-

Mr. Churchill: Why does the right hon. Gentleman bring them in?

Mr. Dalton: May I go on? It is rather deplorable for public attacks to be made upon distinguished public servants.

Mr. Churchill: I made no attack of any sort or kind upon any civil servant or public servant. I have attacked the Government for bringing them into the arena of controversial policy.

Mr. Dalton: It is wrong to describe this as controversial policy. Not at all. I repeat, the purpose of the Committee is to consider all the proposals that have been put forward and to consider them in a calm, rational and friendly atmosphere, and that is being done. I would say this about Sir Edward Bridges, who served the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary to the Cabinet.. Sir Edward Bridges is a most valuable member of our team, be- cause there is no man in this country-- and when I say this I say it deliberately, having in mind all the politicians as well

110 A 15.

Foreign Affairs

730

as civil servants-who has a better know- ledge of the details and machinery of Government and how it works. He has seen it working in successive administra- tions. He knows what administrative possibility exists for carrying out this or that rhetorical politician's formula. He can bring it down and relate it to the expert, capable, practical work of our British constitutional machinery. We should be very much poorer in these dis- cussions without this expert and impartial knowledge which he brings. That is his qualification. He is an expert, and as such he is, of course, adviser to me.

to

Mr. Churchill: He is a delegate.

Mr. Dalton: Not at all a delegate. We are there, the five of us, in order jointly to contribute to the technical considera- tion of this matter. If I may be allowed

one quote

French word it is éclaircissement, what the British call in their clumsy language "studying all the implications." I call it éclaircissement. The right hon. Gentleman speaks heroic French I know, and he will understand.

Something has been said about Sir Horace Wilson, and I regret to have that ghost of the past brought up. It is cer tainly most unfortunate to speak of him in the same breath as Sir Edward Bridges. But the complaint that was made about the activities of Sir Horace Wilson--and here I think the right hon. Gentleman and I were in complete agreement--when Mr. Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister was that he was taken about by Mr. Chamberlain and allowed to usurp the functions of Foreign Office experts. He was taken to Berchtesgaden and else where to séances at which neither the

Foreign Office experts were present. Foreign Secretary at that time nor any

But that is not the position here. The position here is that we have with us in Paris as a colleague Lord Inverchapel, who has a wider range of diplomatic knowledge than any other diplomat now living. He was Ambassador at Moscow. I think the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for his going there and, in my view, Lord Inverchapel performed a very fine task there bearing in mind all the difficulties and limitations which we all know about. More recently he has been Ambassador in Washington and he is, therefore, well aware of American feelings on these matters. Before that