Lesson in Immutability

Disraeli once observed that the nearest thing to a Tory in disguise was a Whig in office. In the debate on Empire foreign policy in the House of Commons last week, it was just as hard to tell the difference between the new socialists in office and the old Tories in opposition.

The issue was Hong Kong, Britain's Chinese crown colony. Did Britain mean to keep it or give it up? First socialist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin answered bluntly: "We have taken steps to receive the surrender of the Japanese forces in Hong Kong." Then Prime Minister Clement Attlee made the matter crystal-clear: "Plans for re-establishing British administration in the colony are fully prepared."

Many within the sound of Attlee's voice well knew that top British officials were prepared to negotiate with China about Hong Kong's future, that it might one day be returned to China. Yet at the Prime Minister's forthright statement, both sides of the House cheered.

Opposition Leader (and Britain's No. 1 Imperialist) Winston Churchill pressed the point: "May I presume that you recall that . . . the Government made it plain they did not contemplate modincation in the sovereignty of His Majesty's territories in the Far East?"

"Yes, sir," replied the Prime Minister. "I have very full recollections of those statements and I will bear them in mind."

The House cheered again. Obviously Socialist Attlee's Government was as little inclined "to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire" as Tory Churchill's had been.

Surprise & Understanding. The Hong Kong episode came before the dust had settled from Foreign Secretary Bevin's first forthright venture into the field of foreign policy (TIME, Aug. 27). His denunciation of Soviet-backed Balkan Governments and refusal to countenance intervention in Spain shocked left-wingers who looked for sweeping changes. Editorialized the Communist Daily Worker: "This is not yet the lead which millions of service and home voters . . . are waiting for." More sober and more traditional was the sizing-up of the Manchester Guardian: "British foreign policy, as Mr. Bevin expounded it, is not a matter of party."

Ernest Bevin's speech had served two important purposes. To the world it had underlined a fact often overlooked abroad: there is a continuity in British foreign relations that overrides party affiliations. To the Britons who were disappointed, it underlined a fact often overlooked: the general election was fought over domestic not foreign policies. Controversial decisions of the Churchill Government (e.g., armed intervention in Greece) were coalition decisions in which Labor Ministers concurred. With minor modifications, Labor alone proposed to carry on where Labor-in-coalition had left off.

The London man in the street seemed pleased with "Ernie's" showing--the Empire was as safe in his hands as in Anthony Eden's. In Parliament the majority verdict was about the same. Remarked Tory Oliver Stanley as burly Ernest Bevin sat down: "My, hasn't Anthony put on a lot of weight lately."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.