Ronald Cartland

Ronald Cartland

Ronald Cartland, the son of Major Bertram Cartland and Mary Hamilton Scobell, and the younger brother of Barbara Cartland, was born on 3rd January, 1907. His father was killed in May 1918 at the age of forty-two during the last German counter-offensive of the First World War. (1) Ronald, aged eleven, wrote a letter to his mother saying, "I feel so awfully proud of him and in a way it's lovely to remember him so young and cheery." (2)

In 1920 Cartland entered Charterhouse. He took an interest in politics and was active in the Debating Society. Although both his father and grandfather had been active in the Conservative Party he became a supporter of the Labour Party and argued "that Socialism is the right policy". His housemaster reported: "If he can curb his revolutionary tendencies I expect him to do well." (3)

The financial health of the family became difficult and and Cartland was unable to go to university. In 1925 he became a cashier at the trading house of Edward Boustead & Company. In 1926 he joined the Young Conservatives. After meeting Sir Henry Page Croft the MP for Christchurch he was offered a job working for the Empire Industries Association. He did this for only a couple of months before becoming the personal assistant of the director of education at Conservative Central Office. (4)

Cartland became close friends with Antony Bulwer-Lytton and worked for him in his campaign to become the Conservative MP for Shoreditch in the 1929 General Election. Both men saw themselves as left-wing Tories who distrusted the tribal nature of partisan politics. Bulwer-Lytton was beaten into third place. Bulwer-Lytton later told his friends that the Shoreditch Labour Party people were much nicer than their Conservative counterparts. (5)

Ronald Cartland and Appeasement

In 1935 the Conservative Party MP for King's Norton, Major Lionel Beaumont-Thomas, became involved in an adulterous affair that had led to a messy divorce. As this was the second time this had happened he was asked to retire from the House of Commons. Cartland became the new candidate and won the seat in the 1935 General Election, beating the Labour Party candidate, Gilbert Mitchison by 5,875 votes. (6)

Cartland was one of those Tory MPs who opposed the government's policy of appeasement. The Tory loyalists, Harry Chips Channon, named Cartland as one of the "insurgents" that were making things difficult for Neville Chamberlain. The list included Winston Churchill, Leo Amery, Harold Nicolson, Katharine Stewart-Murray, Robert Boothby, Harold Macmillan, Brendan Bracken, Edward Spears, Jack Macnamara, Victor Cazalet, Duncan Sandys, Ronald Tree, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Paul Emrys-Evans, Derrick Gunston, Leonard Ropner and Vyvyan Adams. (7)

Neville Chamberlain wanted to negotiate a peace agreement with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. However, he was aware that his Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, was opposed to this and he instructed Major George Joseph Ball to have the telephones of Eden and his supporters tapped. (8) Ball also spread the rumour amongst his newspaper friends that Eden was very ill and that he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He suggested that Eden might resign so that he could take a three month holiday from politics. (9)

Eden made it clear to the prime minister that he was unwilling to force President Eduard Beneš of Czechoslovakia, to make concessions. William Strang, a senior figure in the Foreign Office, also urged caution over these negotiations: "Even if it were in our interest to strike a bargain with Germany, it would in present circumstances be impossible to do so. Public sentiment here and our existing international obligations are all against it." (10)

On 4th February, 1938, Adolf Hitler sacked the moderate Konstantin von Neurath as Foreign Minister, and replaced him with the hard-line, Joachim von Ribbentrop. Eden argued that this move made it even more difficult to get an agreement with Hitler. He was also opposed to further negotiations with Benito Mussolini about withdrawing from its involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Eden stated that he completely "mistrusted" the Italian leader. (11)

David Low, Evening Standard (8th July, 1936)
David Low, Evening Standard (18th February, 1938)

At a Cabinet meeting Chamberlain made it clear that he was unwilling to back down over the issue. Anthony Eden resigned on 20th February 1938. He told the House of Commons the following day: "I do not believe that we can make progress in European appeasement if we allow the impression to gain currency abroad that we yield to constant pressure. I am certain in my own mind that progress depends above all on the temper of the nation, and that temper must find expression in a firm spirit. This spirit I am confident is there. Not to give voice it is I believe fair neither to this country nor to the world." (12)

Major George Joseph Ball persuaded the BBC to relegate Eden's resignation to the second story on the evenings bulletins and to say nothing at all about Germany or Italy. The Daily Mail, the Evening Standard, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph all supported Chamberlain against Eden. (13) The Times claimed that "his policy of appeasement, which is also the policy of peace." (14) The Manchester Guardian, not under the control of Major Ball, noted that although a resignation of this kind might have precipitated a major government crisis, the press had "preserved a unity of silence that could hardly be bettered in a totalitarian state." (15)

Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary: "Not that I mind the calm jubilation of Lord Londonderry or Sir Arnold Wilson. After all, they have for years waved the swastika aloft and have the right to shout aloud in joy. Nor do I mind the wild-west cries of Lady Astor. She also has fought bravely for Hitler and Mussolini and is entitled, during her fleeting visits to the House of Commons, to indulge in her whoopee. What I mind is the glow of unctuous relief which illuminates the features of the average Tory. That, again, is hard to bear." (16)

Harold Nicolson
Harold Nicolson

Tim Bouverie, the author of Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War (2020) has pointed out Nicolson reflected public opinion. "In early March, one of the first national opinion polls ever held in Britain found that 71 per cent of voters thought Eden right to resign, with 58 per cent opposed to Chamberlain's foreign policy. Left-wing and liberal opinion was particularly outraged. One hundred and sixty-three university dons signed a petition attacking the Government and there were protests from the League of Nations Union, Welsh miners, the National Peace Council, the Trade Union Congress, the New Commonwealth Society and the Youth Peace Assembly." (17)

Major Ball and Homosexual Smears

Major George Joseph Ball now attempted to undermine Anthony Eden by suggesting he was a homosexual and that while he was at university he had attempted to seduce Eddie Gathorne-Hardy. Ball also pointed out that most of his close friends were bachelors or well-known bisexuals (Ronald Cartland, Robert Boothby, Harold Nicolson, Harry Crookshank, Jack Macnamara, Jim Thomas, Noel Coward) etc.). As a result of these relationships Eden's marriage to Beatrice Beckett was in difficulty and she was having affairs with other men. (18)

Ronald Cartland told Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, Hugh Dalton, that around forty Tory MPs would consider voting against the government if there had been some alternative combination in waiting. Another problem was the majority of his colleagues were "still terrified of the communist bogy" and, therefore, blind to the danger from Nazi Germany. Cartland was also also highly critical of Neville Chamberlain who was getting increasingly dictatorial and that "they had now a Führer in the Conservative Party." (19)

In a debate in the House of Commons, Cartland defended Eden against the smear campaign organised by Major Ball. He claimed it was wrong for The Times to suggest that Eden had resigned because of ill-health. Quite the contrary, he argued, Eden had taken the decision to resign "in the full possession of his powers and faculties, and... he had never been better in health since he went to the Foreign Office." Cartland added that Chamberlain was "employing methods, which are not in keeping with our traditions and which, even if they are successful, must spoil our good name." (20)

Ronald Cartland
Ronald Cartland

Ronald Cartland admitted that he could not support Chamberlain's policy of appeasement and at the end of the debate he joined twenty other Tory MPs in abstaining. This included Anthony Eden, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Brendan Bracken, Edward Spears, Jack Macnamara, Jim Thomas, Ronald Tree, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Paul Emrys-Evans and Vyvyan Adams. A junior member of the government, Robert Bernays, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, was tempted to resign but as he was paid £1,500 in addition to the £600 he received as an MP, the equivalent in 2020 prices to an additional £100,000 a year, he felt he could not afford to make this decision. (21)

Major Joseph Ball became an important figure behind the scenes. Hugh Dalton, the Labour Party MP, asked Ronald Cartland who influenced Neville Chamberlain. He replied that none of his colleagues in the Cabinet did, but "there was a queer figure, Sir Joseph Ball, now in the Conservative Head Office, who had been in the Conservative Head Office, who had been in MI5 during the war, in whom the PM had great confidence." (22)

Ball began a smear campaign against those members of the Conservative Party who opposed appeasement. Ball told sympathetic journalists that they were either gay or bisexual and gave them the derisory term "the glamour boys". Ball told the journalist Charles Graves, that these MPs that included Ronald Cartland, Anthony Eden, Harold Nicolson, Robert Boothby, Jack Macnamara and Jim Thomas, and "they are viewed with some suspicion by the party heads" and were providing a "smokescreen" for Winston Churchill. (23)

The Munich Agreement

On 12th September, 1938, Adolf Hitler whipped his supporters into a frenzy at the annual Nuremberg Rally by claiming the Sudeten Germans were "not alone" and would be protected by Nazi Germany. A series of demonstrations took place in the Sudeten area and on 13th September, the Czech government decided to introduce martial law in the area. Konrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten Germans, fled to Germany for protection. (24)

Chamberlain now sent Hitler a message requesting an immediate meeting, which was promptly granted. Hitler invited Chamberlain to see him at his home in Berchtesgaden. It would be the first visit by a British prime minister to Germany for over 60 years. The last leader to visit the country was Benjamin Disraeli when he attended the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Members of the Czech government were horrified when they heard the news as they feared Chamberlain would accept Hitler's demands for the transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany. (25)

On 15th September, 1938, Chamberlain, aged sixty-nine, boarded a Lockheed Electra aircraft for a seven-hour journey to Munich, followed by a three-hour car ride up the long and winding roads to Berchtesgaden, the home of Hitler. The first meeting lasted for three hours. Hitler made it very clear that he intended to "stop the suffering" of the Sudeten Germans by force. Chamberlain asked Hitler what was required for a peaceful solution. Hitler demanded the transfer of all districts in Czechoslovakia with a 50 per cent or more German-speaking population. Chamberlain said he had nothing against the idea in principle, but would need to overcome "practical difficulties". (26)

David Low, The Salute with both hands now (3rd July, 1934)
Neville Chamberlain, Neville Henderson and Adolf Hitler (30th September, 1938)

Hitler flattered Chamberlain and this had the desired impact on him. He told his sister: "Horace Wilson heard from various people who were with Hitler after my interview that he had been very favourably impressed. I have had a conversation with a man, he said, and one with whom I can do business and he liked the rapidity with which I had grasped the essentials. In short I had established a certain confidence, which was my aim, and in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word." (27)

Neville Chamberlain called an emergency cabinet meeting on 17th September. Duff Cooper, First Lord of the Admiralty, recorded in his diary: "Looking back upon what he said, the curious thing seems to me now to have been that he recounted his experiences with some satisfaction. Although he said that at first sight Hitler struck him as 'the commonest little dog' he had ever seen, without one sign of distinction, nevertheless he was obviously pleased at the reports he had subsequently received of the good impression that he himself had made. He told us with obvious satisfaction how Hitler had said to someone that he had felt that he, Chamberlain, was 'a man.' But the bare facts of the interview were frightful. None of the elaborate schemes which had been so carefully worked out, and which the Prime Minister had intended to put forward, had ever been mentioned. He had felt that the atmosphere did not allow of them. After ranting and raving at him, Hitler had talked about self-determination and asked the Prime Minister whether he accepted the principle. The Prime Minister had replied that he must consult his colleagues. From beginning to end Hitler had not shown the slightest sign of yielding on a single point. The Prime Minister seemed to expect us all to accept that principle without further discussion because the time was getting on." (28)

Conservative MPs also began to criticize the proposed deal. Ronald Cartland said it was "peace with dishonour" (29) Anthony Eden told a constituency meeting that the "British people know that a stand must be made. They pray that it will not be made too late." (30) Leo Amery commented that the terms to which Chamberlain had signed up "amounted to nothing less than Czechoslovakia's destruction as an independent state." (31) Winston Churchill issued a statement that stated: "It is necessary that the nation should realise the magnitude of the disaster into which we are being led. The partition of Czechoslovakia under Anglo-French pressure amounts to a complete surrender by the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force." (32)

Despite his disagreement with the Munich Agreement, Cartland did not vote against it in the House of Commons. Cartland, like the other Conservative MPs who had been critical of the government appeasement policy such as Winston Churchill, Duff Cooper, Anthony Eden, Leo Amery, Harold Macmillan, Harold Nicolson, Louis Spears, Robert Boothby, Brendan Bracken, Roger Keyes, Victor Cazalet, Sidney Herbert, Duncan Sandys, Leonard Ropner, Ronald Tree, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Paul Emrys-Evans, Vyvyan Adams and Jack Macnamara. The main reason why Conservative MPs abstained rather than voting with the Labour Party was that Chamberlain threatened a general election if his motion was defeated. (33)

Neville Chamberlain

Cartland now became a constant critic of Chamberlain's government. On 14th November, 1938 he joined Labour MPs George Lansbury and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, to criticize the government over the high levels of unemployment in the country. "One thing at least is clear now, and it is that the Government have no unemployment policy as such... The principal and proper function of Government in relation to trade and employment is to try and create the conditions under which industry itself can carry on its enterprise with confidence and success, and it is to that end that the policy of the Government has been consistently directed.... First, I ask what are they doing to ensure that improved conditions of trade, if they arise in the next few years, will be immediately reflected in increased employment? What are they doing to see that this improved trade will result in better conditions of life for our people? What are they doing to increase production, to expand exports, to raise the purchasing power of the people at home?... It is not a problem of industries or individuals. It is a problem of both. It is a problem which affects every area in the country. In the last 12 months in Birmingham, which is the very centre of prosperity, unemployment has gone up by 20,000, and the hard core there has remained perfectly consistent over a series of years. I ask the Government, what are they going to do about it? When we consider the history of the past two years, it is useless to expect to solve this special unemployment problem by trusting to an improvement in trade.... I believe that what is really necessary is that we should harness and direct both industry and finance so as to maintain our markets abroad and extend our markets at home." (34)

Sir Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, arranged for Tory MPs like Cartland who had doubts about appeasement, to have their phones tapped by the security services. In a speech made on 27th January, 1939, Hoare claimed that those warning about the intentions of Adolf Hitler as "jitterbugs" and scaremongers". Hoare described them as "timid panic-mongers are doing the greatest harm". They were undermining public confidence and creating a fatal feeling of the inevitability of war. "Worst of all," he added, "they are showing cowardice in the face of a potential enemy." (35)

Major George Joseph Ball and the whips were keeping very close tabs on the group of anti-appeasement MPs. Jack Macnamara told Harold Nicolson that a friendly whip had admitted they were worried by their activities: "They know that we meet, and what they do not like is that we do not attack them in the House. If we came out into the open they would know where they stood. What they hate is this silent plotting." They respected the "big bugs" like Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden but the people they most distrusted were Ronald Cartland, Ronald Tree and Paul Emrys-Evans. (36) Cartland could not believe that most people seemed unconcerned by the prospect of war. "And so we go on playing cricket, waiting for the racing specials, planning summer holidays... But are we awake? Worse, have the gods sent us mad before destruction falls? (37)

Cartland like most of his friends on the left of the Tory Party became concerned by Neville Chamberlain's decision to close Parliament during the political crisis that was taking place during the summer of 1939. In a speech on the recess debate he gave in the House of Commons on 2nd August, Chamberlain admitted that he knew MPs would criticize him for trying to avoid "interrogation by the House" but he was determined that they should go on their summer holidays and return in October. He added that his critics were "very badly in need of a holiday as their reasoning faculties wanted a little freshening up." Chamberlain then infuriated anti-appeasers by saying "A vote against the Government on this occasion must be a vote of want of confidence." (38)

Cartland responded with a speech that shocked the House of Commons: "I am sorry to detain the House for a few moments, but I would like to say a few words as a backbencher of the Prime Minister's own party. It seemed to me, listening tonight, that there was a difference of view put forward by those who spoke from the Opposition side and those who spoke from this side, and perhaps the Prime Minister was quite justified in saying that many of the speeches made by the Opposition showed that Members lacked confidence in him. Hon. Members have every right to say it. They are here so that they can express their opinions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that everybody who spoke from this side put forward quite different arguments. All who have spoken from this side were meticulously careful to say that they did not regard this as a vote of confidence, and they welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, had most carefully not said that he regarded it as a vote of confidence."

He then turned to the issue of closing Parliament during a political crisis: "I am profoundly disturbed by the speech of the Prime Minister. We are going to separate until 3rd October. I suppose the majority of us in this House are going down to our constituencies to make speeches. A fantastic and ludicrous impression, as everybody on both sides of the House, with perhaps one exception, knows, exists in this country that the Prime Minister has ideas of dictatorship. It is a ludicrous impression and everybody here on both sides of the House knows it is ludicrous, but it does exist in the country... I do not know how many meetings I have addressed in the last year, but over and over again, I have had to deny the absurd impression that the Prime Minister in some way has ideas of dictatorship.... The speech which he has made this afternoon and his absolute refusal to accept any of the proposals put forward by Members on both sides of the House will make it much more difficult for those of us to try and dispel that idea."

The right hon. Gentleman is the head of a strong Government. He has an immense vote and he knows that he can carry anything through the Lobby. He has only to consult his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, and he can get anything through. How easy it would be for him, when the whole of democracy is trying to stand together to resist aggression, to say that he had tremendous faith in this democratic institution. Personally I cannot see why he could not come down and say, "We will decide to meet on 21st August, or on a certain date, and if, after consulting with the Opposition Leaders, we are all agreed that there is no reason to meet, then do not let Parliament meet."

Cartland finished his speech by considering the possibility of war: "Everybody would accept that. We are in the situation that within a month we may be going to fight, and we may be going to die.... There are thousands of young men at the moment in training in camps, and giving up their holiday, and the least that we can do here, if we are not going to meet together from time to time and keep Parliament in session, is to show that we have immense faith in this democratic institution. I cannot imagine why the Prime Minister could not have made a great gesture in the interests of national unity. It is much more important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, to get the whole country behind you rather than make jeering, pettifogging party speeches which divide the nation. How can the Prime Minister ask for real confidence in himself as Prime Minister, and as Leader of the country rather than Leader of a party? I frankly say that I despair when I listen to speeches like that to which I have listened this afternoon." (39)

Tory loyalists were furious with Cartland and several MPs shouted "nonsense" and urged him to sit down. They were especially upset when Cartland quoted a letter from a Conservative-voting constituent who said she was very upset because "so many people think the Prime Minister is a friend of Hitler". When he finished his speech Winston Churchill thumped him on the back and said, "Well done, my boy, well done!" Cartland also received support from other anti-appeasement MPs." (40)

However, he was strongly attacked by other Tory MPs. Sir Patrick Hannon, who had previously been a supporter of the British Fascist Party. He made a nasty speech claiming that since he was partly responsible for getting Cartland his seat and that he wanted "to make it clear my regret and disappointment that I had anything to do with his selection as a Member of Parliament." (41) John Morgan, the Labour MP for Doncaster defended Cartland: "It was not the speech of a man who was stabbing his own party in the back... but the speech of a man who has consistently... tried to gather together all the elements in this House... for the purpose of facing the situation which we have to face." (42)

The following day The Evening Standard reported that Chamberlain had demanded the list of names of Tory MPs who had abstained at the end of the debate so that they can be "blacklisted". It added that: "The indications are that they will not be disciplined beyond being remonstrated with the Whips. I understand, however, that the case of Mr. Ronald Cartland is regarded as being different because of his criticism of the Prime Minister." (43)

Cartland was attacked by the local newspapers and there were calls for him "to be hanged as a traitor, expelled from the party and removed from Parliament." One newspaper reported that twenty Tory MPs were trying to get Cartland expelled. It later became clear that Neville Chamberlain was behind these moves. He wrote to his sister Ida Chamberlain after the debate: "As for Master Cartland I hope he has effectually blotted his copybook in King's Norton and I am taking steps to stimulate local opposition." (44)

In the weeks following the debate, almost all the rebellious Tory MPs faced the threat of deselection. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the MP for South Dorset, wrote to his uncle Viscount Robert Cecil: "I am in great trouble with my local Blimps but have extracted from them, after a very long wrangle, a free hand to say what I like about the Government's foreign policy. They think, all the same, that I am (a) a socialist, (b) a war-monger and (c) a poison-pen against the PM. I don't know what has happened to the Conservative Party. They seem to me insanely shortsighted and wrongheaded." (45)

Death at Dunkirk

After the declaration of war Cartland became a full-time member of the 53rd Anti-Tank Regiment of the Royal Artillery. On 10th September 1939, Cartland went to dinner at Sissinghurst with Harold Nicolson and his family. Ben Nicholson commented that Cartland brought his boyfriend (Second Lieutenant Michael Shewell). Harold wrote in his diary that "Ronnie was brave but gloomy. He thinks they will all be killed for nothing." (46)

At dinner with Robert Bernays and Guy Burgess at the Savoy Grill, he attacked David Margesson (Secretary of State for War) for the shortage of ammunition in every branch of the army and said he would like to see "Margesson and Chamberlain hung upon lamp-posts". (47) He criticized the way the government was dealing with the crisis and wrote to his mother that "bombs will have to fall before the House appreciates the vast changes which itself and the Nation will have to undergo if we are to win." (48)

On 8th January 1940, Cartland and his regiment joined the British Expeditionary Force under General John Gort in France. On 30th May the regiment was forced to retreat to Dunkirk. Anti-tank gunner Harry Munn later reported that: "Major Cartland who together with Mr Hutton-Squire and Mr D Woodward had observed this action from the very exposed position at the rear of the gun pit, came to me with new orders... At dawn we found ourselves under heavy fire from infantry and tanks. Very heavy casualties were inflicted on our battery and to save further losses Major Cartland gave the order to surrender. At this point heavy firing was going on and Major Cartland was killed." (49)

Primary Sources

(1) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (22nd February 1938)

It has been assiduously rumoured - I saw it in the Times this morning by no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer - that my right hon. Friend (Anthony Eden) resigned and took the action which he did on account of ill-health. I do not believe there is an element of truth in that. I believe that when he took the decision which he did... he took it in the full possession of his powers and faculties, and that he had never been better in health since he went to the Foreign Office.

The present Debate has a far wider significance than is contained in the resignation of my right hon. Friend. It was originally suggested that he and my Noble Friend had resigned purely on a point of detail, a petty point. The divergence in yesterday's Debate was whether the resignation had taken place on a point of detail or on principle. If any of us had doubt when we started the Debate this afternoon whether a point of detail was all that was involved, the speech of the Prime Minister must have dispersed it once and for all. He revealed a wholly new conception of foreign policy. Speaking yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Anthony Eden) said: In international affairs can anyone define where outlook and methods end and principles begin?" I do not think that question arises only in discussing international affairs. Very often the biggest differences arise on this very question of whether outlook and methods are, in fact, principle, or only detail.

My right hon. Friend said in so many words that we were entering these negotiations under a threat, and my Noble Friend went further and used the word "blackmail." The Prime Minister put an entirely different interpretation upon the proposed conversations with Italy, but it must have struck the whole House that there was a wide difference between his interpretation of the assurances and the action of Germany and Italy and that of my right hon. Friend. There was a wide difference of interpretation between my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister of what, to many hon. Members, must seem the same fact, the same assurances and the same action.

Personally, I should have preferred my right hon. Friend to resign upon the initiation of what is called the Chamberlain-Mussolini correspondence. That was the moment when he should have said: "This is a new experiment and a new technique in diplomacy. We have a new Prime Minister. I disagree with it, and this is the moment when I resign." But who is to judge? The Prime Minister had just taken office and no doubt there were extenuating circumstances of one sort and another, and my right hon. Friend carried on. Another moment when he might have gone was when Lord Halifax went to Germany. There, again, one remembers the extraordinary circumstances in which that visit began, a mere hunting expedition, and so on. What concerns me is that the fundamental difference between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend is what my right hon. Friend described as a real difference of outlook and method. That difference is not confined to the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend, or even to different Members of this House; it seems to run right through the country. It exists, and deeply. It may be that sometimes the difference is a matter of age. Perhaps those who scan the horizon and have many years ahead of them look with rather different eyes at all the problems of to-day from those who have not so many years ahead. I know there are many people who sincerely say that to maintain a certain conduct in international relations at the present time is foolhardy, in face of the existing dangers, but expediency in foreign politics has never been a tenet of the Tory faith. I say frankly, as a Tory, that I believe that in all questions of foreign policy, or indeed of any policy, but particularly foreign policy, right should always come before expediency, whether it be dangerous, difficult or foolhardy.

I have always believed that fear has very little effect upon the conscience of our nation. Listening to the Debates yesterday and to-day, I cannot help feeling - one must speak one's mind on this subject - that the Prime Minister has been forced into the initiation of these conversations partly on account of fear. I agree that he has taken the brave course in coming to the House and stating his point of view, and that it will be much more difficult for the Prime Minister electorally. One should recognise the courage of the Prime Minister in coming here and putting forward his policy which, as he so rightly said, opens him 280to the danger of grave misrepresentation, and which will be very difficult to explain to the country. None the less, he has made use of opportunities, and is employing methods, which are not in keeping with our traditions and which, even if they are successful, must spoil our good name.

(2) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (14th November 1938)

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Frederick Pethick-Lawrence), in opening the Debate this afternoon, said that he thought the best purpose of the Debate would be served if hon. Members were to direct a searchlight on to unemployment and the various aspects of the problem. In the course of the Debate, the searchlights have wandered far, and I sympathise with my right hon. Friend who is to reply to the Debate in that he will have to cover so wide a field. I must also express regret that so few hon. Members have been in the Chamber this evening. I thought that by now it had been recognised and generally accepted on all sides of the House that the question of the condition of the people, and particularly of unemployment, is largely bound up with National Defence, in which the whole House takes such a burning interest. When there are Debates on Defence, the House is full, but this afternoon, on both sides, the House has been nothing like as full as it would have been if the Debate were on Defence or as it ought to be for a Debate on unemployment.

I found the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (George Lansbury) a little depressing as he pictured the long series of Debates which we have had since 1923, with hon. Members putting forward suggestions to the Government and always receiving from the Government more or less the same sort of reply. That is a little depressing. One thing at least is clear now, and it is that the Government have no unemployment policy as such. If we want an assurance of that fact, we can get it from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said last Tuesday: The principal and proper function of Government in relation to trade and employment is to try and create the conditions under which industry itself can carry on its enterprise with confidence and success, and it is to that end that the policy of the Government has been consistently directed. Later he said: I am sure that our industrialists … will take every opportunity which may present itself to them to increase their enterprise and to restore if possible, that international trade to which we must look forward in the future, largely for the resources to meet the demands which will be made upon us by our Defence programme." The Prime Minister was merely saying then what has been said over and over again, namely, that we have no unemployment policy. We are relying on the 616natural course of trade to solve the problem of unemployment. Then I think we are entitled to ask how far is the problem of unemployment considered by the Government in the operation of their trade policy. Their trade policy must be examined in that light. And trade policy is not made up only of relations with foreign countries. It is also very seriously concerned with operations of policy at home. I propose, therefore, to put some questions to His Majesty's Government. First, I ask what are they doing to ensure that improved conditions of trade, if they arise in the next few years, will be immediately reflected in increased employment? What are they doing to see that this improved trade will result in better conditions of life for our people? What are they doing to increase production, to expand exports, to raise the purchasing power of the people at home? These are questions which arise immediately out of the trade policy upon which the Government are relying to solve the problem of unemployment. It also seems to me that the logical outcome of relying upon trade is that industry's first duty must be to the community. If we do not accept that principle, then, quite frankly, I think if we rely upon trade to solve the problem of unemployment, we are bound to be disappointed.

I do not wish to bore the House with figures, but I would ask them to accept one or two facts. Take the case of production which is vital at the present moment. According to the index production is less in 1938 than it was in 1936 or 1937. There is a very considerable falling off in the building trade, and everybody knows that the building trade has an immense effect on every other trade. There is serious concern about the future of commercial shipbuilding. One has only to speak to a representative of a shipbuilding constituency, or to anybody connected with that trade, to find that that is the case. Then take the state of our exports. There is a heavy fall in the volume of exports of 1938 both as regards the total figure and also in manufactured goods. There is also what seems to me to be a very serious factor indeed, namely, that the price of exports has risen by over 24 per cent. in the last 10 years, and let it be remembered that we are relying on the sale of goods abroad to solve our unemployment problem. There is a heavy decline in the import of raw materials and a heavy rise in the quantity of imported foodstuffs.

In studying the variations in the unemployment figures from one period to another one finds that the figures are affected solely by changes in the middle-age group, that is the group between 25 and 45 years of age. It is the change in that group which sends the figures either up or down each month. The dangerous age, the age where you get very little variation except a gradual rise, is from 21 to 24. From the age of 45 onwards, of course, the rate of unemployment progressively increases. I wish to pay a tribute to the Ministry of Labour for their inquiries into this aspect of the subject. We find from the returns that unemployment is not only a question of areas, or even of industries which vary. It is a question of age groups within the separate industries and from the variations in these age groups one can draw certain deductions. One is forced to this conclusion, that just as we have recognised the Special Areas problem, so we have to recognise that there is a special unemployment problem and we cannot expect the normal course of trade to solve that special unemployment problem. The normal course of trade will do a great deal, but we shall always be left with "the hard core of unemployment," quite apart from the Special Areas. We have to recognise that special problem and seek to solve it by special methods.

It is not a problem of industries or individuals. It is a problem of both. It is a problem which affects every area in the country. In the last 12 months in Birmingham, which is the very centre of prosperity, unemployment has gone up by 20,000, and the hard core there has remained perfectly consistent over a series of years. I ask the Government, what are they going to do about it? When we consider the history of the past two years, it is useless to expect to solve this special unemployment problem by trusting to an improvement in trade. If this special problem has not been solved in that way in the last two years, it is not going to be solved in that way in the near future. There are two vital facts which we have to recognise. The first is the loss of markets. Let us face the fact that the loss of any market will seriously affect our power of purchasing foodstuffs and raw material and, as The Economist said the maintenance of our foreign trade is an essential measure of Defence.

I believe that what is really necessary is that we should harness and direct both industry and finance so as to maintain our markets abroad and extend our markets at home. We should utilise to the full the inventive genius to our people. I should like to have inquiry made into the Patent Office. I wonder how many patents are buried there which, if unearthed, would enable us to increase production and lead to an extension of employment. We cannot afford any waste either in industry or in social life. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Megan Lloyd George) mentioned transport. I was astonished at some of the figures which were given the other day on this subject. The average London family - I am not talking about private cars or taxicabs - spends £16 a year on ordinary daily transport. That is what it costs merely to bring the working members of the family to their places of business and home again. In Birmingham the average family spent £9 a year. That is an appalling waste and of course we know the waste that is involved in the way of ill-health. It must be something like £300,000,000 a year. We cannot afford it.

Therefore, the first factor in the situation is that of harnessing industry and finance to maintain markets. The second factor is that of men. It is no good talking about markets unless we do something about men. Frankly, I think we must face the fact that, in order to solve our special unemployment problem, we shall have to recognise that, at one end of the scale, work is no solution for unemployment. The only solution at one end of the scale is savings. The old age problem is not one of unemployment and work, but one of savings and the ability to retire. At the other end it is a problem of the recruitment and training of labour.

I am not suggesting that machinery is all-important, but it is very important, and I think we have neglected machinery far too long. It is very interesting to note the tendency of the authoritarian States and to contrast it with the tendency in the democracies. In the authoritarian States there is no distinction between politics and economics. Economics is there viewed as an instrument of foreign policy. There is no distinction at all in governmental machinery. But in the democratic States as soon as we are up against a difficult economic problem, we say, "We must take this out of politics. We must set up a statutory board, and remove it from the sphere of the House of Commons." I frankly believe that you cannot have, in the present state of the world, faced with the dangers of the authoritarian States, the economic problems of democracy removed from the political sphere. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Harold Macmillan) pointed out in a sentence that you cannot hope to leave individual businesses to meet the competition of nations. But that is what we are expecting them to do, and we are expecting the individual business men in their businesses to solve our unemployment problem.

I do not mind whether you call it an economic general staff or a Ministry of Economics, but you have to have some form of central direction for the whole of the economic life of this country. Unless you do that, you will not solve the existing problem, and you will add considerably to that which already exists. It seems to me that there are four urgent problems which such a Ministry ought to look into. The first is that there is no question at all that slumps are considerably intensified by excessive stocks piled up and, having been piled up, got rid of without the renewal of equal stocks. Anybody who remembers what happened from September, 1937, to May, 1938, will find that the slump was very considerably intensified because of this using-up of excessive stocks. The second is savings. Anybody who looks at the possible sources of investment must be very seriously concerned as to whether they are not going to dry up in the future. You have an increasing number of savings, which are a source of capital investment seeking security and not going into private enterprise. Thirdly, how far can you go on increasing your imports without a corresponding expansion in exports? Fourthly - and this was touched on by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey what are we really doing to link up industry and agriculture? We are doing nothing at all. You have only to think of the Departments that are concerned. The Foreign Office, the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, the Colonial Office, the Dominions Office, practically every Government Department in some way is connected with unemployment and industry and, of course, vitally with the recruitment of men. Instance after instance can be produced of the Departments pursuing a haphazard and inconsistent policy.

(3) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (2nd August 1939)

I am sorry to detain the House for a few moments, but I would like to say a few words as a backbencher of the Prime Minister's own party. It seemed to me, listening tonight, that there was a difference of view put forward by those who spoke from the Opposition side and those who spoke from this side, and perhaps the Prime Minister was quite justified in saying that many of the speeches made by the Opposition showed that Members lacked confidence in him. Hon. Members have every right to say it. They are here so that they can express their opinions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that everybody who spoke from this side put forward quite different arguments. All who have spoken from this side were meticulously careful to say that they did not regard this as a vote of confidence, and they welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, had most carefully not said that he regarded it as a vote of confidence...

I am profoundly disturbed by the speech of the Prime Minister. We are going to separate until 3rd October. I suppose the majority of us in this House are going down to our constituencies to make speeches. A fantastic and ludicrous impression, as everybody on both sides of the House, with perhaps one exception, knows, exists in this country that the Prime Minister has ideas of dictatorship. It is a ludicrous impression and everybody here on both sides of the House knows it is ludicrous, but it does exist in the country...

I do not know how many meetings I have addressed in the last year, but over and over again, I have had to deny the absurd impression that the Prime Minister in some way has ideas of dictatorship. I happened to speak some time ago on the same platform as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I heard him say, on that occasion, what he has just said, that he has never challenged the personal work and the personal desire of the Prime Minister for peace. We have all said that, and yet there is the ludicrous impression in this country that the Prime Minister has these dictatorship ideas. The speech which he has made this afternoon and his absolute refusal to accept any of the proposals put forward by Members on both sides of the House will make it much more difficult for those of us to try and dispel that idea.

The right hon. Gentleman is the head of a strong Government. He has an immense vote and he knows that he can carry anything through the Lobby. He has only to consult his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, and he can get anything through. How easy it would be for him, when the whole of democracy is trying to stand together to resist aggression, to say that he had tremendous faith in this democratic institution. Personally I cannot see why he could not come down and say, "We will decide to meet on 21st August, or on a certain date, and if, after consulting with the Opposition Leaders, we are all agreed that there is no reason to meet, then do not let Parliament meet."

Everybody would accept that. We are in the situation that within a month we may be going to fight, and we may be going to die.... There are thousands of young men at the moment in training in camps, and giving up their holiday, and the least that we can do here, if we are not going to meet together from time to time and keep Parliament in session, is to show that we have immense faith in this democratic institution. I cannot imagine why the Prime Minister could not have made a great gesture in the interests of national unity. It is much more important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, to get the whole country behind you rather than make jeering, pettifogging party speeches which divide the nation. How can the Prime Minister ask for real confidence in himself as Prime Minister, and as Leader of the country rather than Leader of a party? I frankly say that I despair when I listen to speeches like that to which I have listened this afternoon.

(4) Paul Hunt, Rearguard at Dunkirk (26th February, 2004)

The story of anti-tank gunner Harry Munn of 209/53 A/T Regiment Royal Artillery:

Just before dusk the convoy started to form up. However while waiting to move off Lt.Col. Medley, Regimental Commander, and Major Cartland came walking down the road. I called the detachment to attention and Major Cartland said "I reported you missing some days ago". I replied that we were all in the convoy and that Mr Hutton-Squire was further down. Once again Major Cartland had his battery all together and after one day holding a position on the Belgian border he led us on to Cassel. Steep hills led in and out of the town and it was an ideal place to defend.

Brigadier Somerset who commanded the Brigade put Major Cartland in charge of the anti-tank defences of the town and A.B.C Troops, 11 guns in all, were dug in around the town. The rest of the Regiment were formed into a flying column under the command of Col. Medley and sent to deal with "a few tanks" that had broken through our lines... As the tanks got nearer we could clearly see the Swastika flags on the front of each tank. Mr Hutton-Squire came to the position with Major Cartland saying to me "Tanks in your area Bombadier". I replied "I see them sir" and from then on they did not interfere with our handling of the situation...

Major Cartland who together with Mr Hutton-Squire and Mr D Woodward had observed this action from the very exposed position at the rear of the gun pit, came to me with new orders. However the damaged wheel proved difficult and it took both Frank and myself to get in on the axle leaving the whole crew and vehicle out in the open. Next day I returned to the gun pit which had been heavily mortared shortly after we left. Bill Vaux who was with me counted the empty shell cases, twenty-one in all. He considered it was too many for the net result of only, at that time, three confirmed tanks destroyed. He buried 17 empty shell cases in the slit trench. He then invited over the next few days all he could find to come and see our three tanks bagged with four shots...

At dawn we found ourselves under heavy fire from infantry and tanks. Very heavy casualties were inflicted on our battery and to save further losses Major Cartland gave the order to surrender. At this point heavy firing was going on and Major Cartland was killed. Mr Hutton-Squire, Tommy Bunn who was the Major's driver and myself were some distance from the rest of the battery. Mr Hutton-Squire said that he was not going to become a prisoner and shouting "Follow me Bombadier" stormed out of the ditch we were in firing a Bren gun at a nearby tank and was killed by the answering burst of fire. Tommy Bunn and myself reached a ditch on the far side of the field and came under heavy fire from the same tank. We knew we would not be taken prisoner by this tank crew and crawled along the ditch towards a gate into the next field. We jumped from the ditch and ran through the gateway right into the middle of a German patrol who already had several of our battery prisoner. "Halt!" shouted their N.C.O. and Tommy and I went into the bag.

Student Activities

1832 Reform Act and the House of Lords (Answer Commentary)

The Chartists (Answer Commentary)

Women and the Chartist Movement (Answer Commentary)

Benjamin Disraeli and the 1867 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

William Gladstone and the 1884 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

Richard Arkwright and the Factory System (Answer Commentary)

Robert Owen and New Lanark (Answer Commentary)

James Watt and Steam Power (Answer Commentary)

Road Transport and the Industrial Revolution (Answer Commentary)

Canal Mania (Answer Commentary)

Early Development of the Railways (Answer Commentary)

The Domestic System (Answer Commentary)

The Luddites: 1775-1825 (Answer Commentary)

The Plight of the Handloom Weavers (Answer Commentary)

Health Problems in Industrial Towns (Answer Commentary)

Public Health Reform in the 19th century (Answer Commentary)

Walter Tull: Britain's First Black Officer (Answer Commentary)

Football and the First World War (Answer Commentary)

Football on the Western Front (Answer Commentary)

Käthe Kollwitz: German Artist in the First World War (Answer Commentary)

American Artists and the First World War (Answer Commentary)

Sinking of the Lusitania (Answer Commentary)

References

(1) John Ezard, Barbara Cartland : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (23rd September 2004)

(2) Ronald Cartland, letter to Mary Cartland (May, 1918)

(3) Barbara Cartland, Polly, My Wonderful Mother (1956) page 27

(4) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 37

(5) Neville Bulwer-Lytton, Anthony Viscount Knebworth (1935) page 349

(6) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 153

(7) Harry Chips Channon, diary entry (21st March, 1938)

(8) Martin Pugh, Hurrah for the Blackshirts: Fascists and Fascism Between the Wars (2006) page 267

(9) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 219

(10) William Strang, memorandum (November, 1937)

(11) Keith Middlemas, Diplomacy of Illusion: British Government and Germany, 1937-39 (1972) page 151

(12) Anthony Eden, speech (21st February 1938)

(13) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 219

(14) The Times (22nd February, 1938)

(15) The Manchester Guardian (24th February, 1938)

(16) Harold Nicolson, diary entry (12th March 1938)

(17) Tim Bouverie, Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War (2020) page 168

(18) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 220

(19) Hugh Dalton, diary entry (7th April, 1938)

(20) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (22nd February, 1938)

(21) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) pages 222-224

(22) Hugh Dalton, The Political Diary of Hugh Dalton (1987) page 226

(23) Charles Graves, The Daily Mail (30th June, 1938)

(24) Robert A. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement (1993) pages 160-161

(25) Frank McDonough, Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War (1998) page 63

(26) Telford Taylor, Munich: The Price of Peace (1979) page 740

(27) Neville Chamberlain, letter to Ida Chamberlain (19th September, 1938)

(28) Duff Cooper, First Lord of the Admiralty, diary entry (17th September, 1938)

(29) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 259

(30) The News Chronicle (22nd September, 1938)

(31) Leo Amery, letter to Neville Chamberlain (17th September, 1938)

(32) Winston Churchill, statement (22nd September, 1938)

(33) Clive Ponting, Winston Churchill (1994) page 177

(34) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (14th November 1938)

(35) The Birmingham Mail (27th January, 1939)

(36) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 277

(37) Tim Bouverie, Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War (2020) page 349

(38) Neville Chamberlain, speech in the House of Commons (2nd August 1939)

(39) Ronald Cartland, speech in the House of Commons (2nd August 1939)

(40) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 288

(41) Sir Patrick Hannon, speech in the House of Commons (2nd August 1939)

(42) John Morgan, speech in the House of Commons (2nd August 1939)

(43) The Evening Standard (3rd August 1939)

(44) Neville Chamberlain, letter to Ida Chamberlain (August, 1939)

(45) Neville Thompson, The Anti-Appeasers: Conservative Opposition to Appeasement in the 1930s (1971) page 193

(46) Harold Nicolson, diary entry (10th September 1939)

(47) Harold Nicolson, diary entry (20th September 1939)

(48) Chris Bryant, The Glamour Boys: The Secret Story of the Rebels who Fought for Britain to Defeat Hitler (2020) page 310

(49) Paul Hunt, Rearguard at Dunkirk (26th February, 2004)