QUESTION BEFORE BRITAIN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 6 December 1940, Page 5

QUESTION BEFORE BRITAIN

NOT PEACE OR WAR BUT CAPITULATION OR SURVIVAL I.L.P. AMENDMENT DEFEATED [British Official Wireless] (Received 6th December, 11.30 a.m.) RUGBY, sth December. The House of Commons debated the Independent Labour Party’s amendment to the King’s Speech regretting that the ‘‘Government has failed to set forth the terms upon which peace might be made,” and suggesting the calling of a conference by means of which “the war might be brought to an early conclusion.” Mr J. McGovern, moving the amendment, said that a growing number of British people believed that the conflict should be ended and could be ended if reason was allowed to supersede brute force. If Hitler made a speech in the Reichstag Mr Churchill should make a reasoned reply in the House of Commons plying Hitler with questions as to what kind of a world he envisaged after the war and what he intended to do in certain countries to-day under Nazi domination. Seconding the amendment the Rev. Campbell-Stephen said that the Independent Labour Party, just as memjbers of other parties, dreaded the | possibility of a German victory. The | time had come when Britain should !make a great moral gesture to the world and offer peace to the other side on the basis of justice for all people and thus give hope to the great mass of workers in every country.

The first speaker to oppose the amendment was Mr James Griffiths (Labour) who, citing the example of Marshal Petain’s actions, said that the question before Britain was not peace or war, but capitulation or survival.

Sir Percy Harris (Liberal) also opposed the amendment and Mr James Walker (Labour) said that if the amendment had been put before the National Labour Conference it would have been overwhelmingly defeated.

Winding up the debate in favour of the amendment Mr J. Maxton (leader of the Independent Labour Party) said that the majority of the people of the world desired peace. LIBERTY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Mr C. R. Attlee, Lord Privy Seal, asked those supporting the amendment whether they favoured peace at any price, or whether they believed in liberty and social justice. If Hitler refused to listen to what was called a point of reason and rejected a plea for liberty and social justice put forward by the supporters of the amendment would they fight or give way? Mr Attlee asked. He added that he had a great respect for those who hold absolute pacifist views, and spoke of the work done by Mr George Lansbury.

“There is no one in the House who is not impressed by the horror of this war or the sight of mangled bodies and broken homes, but there is something worse than the killing of the body, and that is the killing of the soul.” Mr Attlee referred to the great tragedy of a great talented race whose young men had been trained to go back to barbarism. “A great many of the German people have been corrupted by this abominable dictatorship. Hitler has this grip on Europe and his people, and it is not going to be loosened by a few nice words from the supporters of this amendment.”

The ideals for which Hitler and Mussolini stood were not those of highly civilised human beings. The great difficulty confronting the Government was that Britain was up against people who would not accept the foundations of the decencies of modern civilisation. The House must realise that the present war was a contest between two different conceptions of how affairs should be carried on. The Fascists and Nazis had destroyed every vestige of freedom of Europe. The British aim was to try to establish world peace of free people, peace such as civilised people understood. What Britain was asking for herself she was asking for other nations. It was not an occasion when the Government should have expected to give a detailed exposition of its war aims.” The King in his speech said: "Wj are resolved to continue the fight until liberty and social justice are secured. There is no order, authority, oi social justice on the Continent of Europe to-day.” Britain had got to replace the anarchy of the world. The amendment was rejected by 341 votes to four.