Foreign-policy issues were on the agenda. There were at most 100 or 120 people sitting on the red leather benches. They looked like flies in milk, since the chamber can house three times as many. But today was a ‘big day’! Normally, no more than 30 to 40 peers are present, while the quorum in the House amounts to… 3!

In the side galleries, I noticed some two dozen ladies, all dressed-up. The diplomats’ box was occupied by the Japanese envoy, the Belgian, the Swiss, and Agniya and me. Guo (the Chinese ambassador) arrived with Sun Fo,

Sun Fo (also known as Sun Ke), chairman of the Executive Yuan government of the Republic of China, 1938–39.

who is in London for a while, but on seeing the Japanese envoy they made themselves scarce and several minutes later I saw them in a vacant box on the opposite side of the chamber.

The session lasted from 4.15 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. Only three and a half hours! Not like the House of Commons, where a normal session starts at 2.45 p.m. and ends at 11 p.m. The speeches, too, were much shorter here than in the Commons – 15 or 20 minutes. Even Halifax, answering on behalf of the government, did not exceed 25 minutes. Well, lords do not like putting themselves to any trouble!

But what a session it was! It was opened by the leader of the Labour opposition, Lord Snell,

Henry Snell (1st Baron Snell), Labour chairman of London County Council, 1934–38.

with an attack on the government’s foreign policy. I had heard more or less the same things a few days ago from Attlee and Noel-Baker in the House of Commons. But what a difference, what a terrific difference in presentation! The speaker’s voice was subdued, his appearance expressly respectable, his gestures almost those of a preacher, and his words as though rolled in cotton. Snell was followed by a Liberal lord who spoke so quietly that I couldn’t understand a thing. He looked around 80. Then the archbishop of Canterbury took the floor and… gave his full and unconditional backing to Chamberlain! What had become of his old loyalty to the League of Nations? What had become of his anti-German tendencies? In his white mantle, which looked crumpled and unkempt from afar, the archbishop resembled a large bird with a hooked beak. After him spoke other lords, whose names I do not know, claiming that Hitler was a wonderful man who did the right thing by occupying Austria: after all, by doing so he saved the world from another ‘civil war’ in Europe – incredible! One speaker called for the publication in English of an unabridged translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf at the price of no more than a shilling per copy – so impressed was he by the profundity and foresight of the Führer’s writings. To unstinting cheers from the government benches, Ponsonby

Arthur Ponsonby (1st Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede), Labour MP, 1922–30; leader of the opposition in the House of Lords, 1931–35.

explained why England should not worry itself about the League of Nations and why it was against her interests to assist Czechoslovakia, a country whose whereabouts are unknown to 99% of her people. In the second part of his speech, losing all the enthusiasm of the Tories, Ponsonby demanded immediate disarmament, for the best policy was the policy of non-resistance. What a nutter! But that’s the way of all absolute pacifists, starting with Leo Tolstoy.

Page 432

In his speech, Lord Redesdale argued that ‘Austria had to relinquish her independence in favour of joining up with Germany’, as it reflected ‘the sincere desire of the large majority of the Austrian people’. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Hitler in Vienna, he claimed, ‘came straight from the hearts of a people for the man they looked upon as their saviour’. Lord Ponsonby dwelt on the artificial nature of Czechoslovakia, warning that ‘if the Government had committed us to fight for Czechoslovakia, who in this country would have had any sort of enthusiasm for a war of that description, when there is not one person in a hundred who knows where Czechoslovakia is?’ It was Lord Stonehaven, the former governor-general of Australia, who, fascinated by Hitler’s prophecies in Mein Kampf which ‘turned out to be correct, every one of them’, found it distressing ‘that Mein Kampf cannot be read in this country … it would be a very good deed and a very patriotic action if some prosperous man would have Mein Kampf translated word for word from the original edition … and made available at a price of not more than 1s. on every bookstall in this country’. However, the discussion was far more balanced; what seemed to have upset Maisky was the fact that all speakers, and particularly Lord Halifax, were dismissive of the idea of mobilizing the League of Nations and Russia to counter Hitler’s claims; Hansard, HL Deb 29 March 1938, vol. 108, cols 434–88.

Lord Samuel (a Liberal) declared in his turn that the policy of collective security was bankrupt, the policy of isolation impossible, and the policy of balance of power and alliance-making dangerous. Therefore, the best and only policy for the present time was merely one of peaceable opportunism, i.e. the absence of any policy and unprincipled day-to-day manoeuvring in an attempt to avoid war. Strabolgi’s

Joseph Montague Kenworthy (10th Baron Strabolgi), opposition chief whip, House of Lords, 1938–42.

closing speech, on behalf of Labour, was not bad – lively, forceful and sensible. Replying to him and to all the other speakers of the opposition (including Lord Cecil, who today attacked the government from the League of Nations’ point of view), Lord Halifax made the kind of speech that might have been expected of him. Straight out of Chamberlain’s book. Viewed strictly as a piece of oratory, however, it was a good speech and was even leavened by flashes of wit. Frankly, I hadn’t expected such agility from Halifax.

How can I sum up my impressions?

Never in my life have I seen so reactionary a gathering as this House of Lords. The mould of the ages lies visibly upon it. Even the air in the chamber is stale and yellow. Even the light through the windows is gloomy. The men sitting on these red benches are historically blind, like moles, and are ready to lick the Nazi dictator’s boots like a beaten dog. They’ll pay for this, and I’ll see it happen!

But we need to be as sharp-eyed as the devil. For today’s session of the House of Lords definitively convinced me that the British bourgeoisie, fleeing its historical nemesis, will make a new and resolute attempt to divert the lightning towards us. It’s harder than it looks!