Sir H. DALZIELThere has not been a Debate in this House for some time on foreign affairs, and I take this opportunity of asking the Government, in view of the considerable adjournment which is about to take place, for information on one or 2747 two points. In the first place, I would invite the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary, to clear up, if he can, the situation in regard to the rumours that have been persistent in neutral countries and in this country, believed in by many Members of this House, and promulgated, as he knows, throughout the whole German Press, that indirect overtures have been made to this country with regard to the termination of the War and suggested terms of peace. I attach no importance to these reports, but there is no doubt whatever that the Germans are using statement* to that effect to delude, if possible, still further the people they are supposed to represent. Therefore, I think, it would be to the advantage of the Government, and of this country, if my Noble Friend could give a clear and direct statement on that point. There is a great indication of desire to believe in these rumours. I sympathise with them, because only the other day I put a direct question to the Prime Minister on the subject, and he said that the only advances that he had heard of were published in the newspapers. Many people read into that reply, seeing that it was not definite enough, that there must be something behind the qualified denial which the Prime Minister gave. Under these circumstances I would invite the Noble Lord to give us any information at his disposal. I would also ask him if he can give us any information in regard to the position in the Balkans. He knows that the censorship at the present time is very severe, and any information we are able to get we must try to obtain on the floor of this House. I know the delicate character of the situation, and I do not propose to introduce any matters which may in any way be in the nature of a difficulty to the Under-Secretary. I think, however, that he might give us information about one or two things. For example, is it the case that the advance of the Bulgars has been connived at by the Greek Government, and does it indicate a further act of hostility on the part of that Government? I would like to know whether he has any information that the Greeks have been fighting Bulgaria during the last week, and if he can give an assurance that the recent advance on the part of Bulgaria will not interfere, so far as he knows, in any way with the elections about to take place in Greece. I also invite him, if he can, to 2748 give us any information generally with regard to our present relations with Greece.
Since our last Debate; on the blockade a new situation has arisen. The Declaration of London has been completely torn up, and all our Orders in Council have been cancelled by a new Declaration on behalf of the Government. I should like to know how far, in the opinion of the Government, that has affected the blockade. Has it made the blockade more severe, and can he produce proof that the blockade is being carried out more energetically than it was before. I would particularly like to ask him whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted in regard to the drawing up of the Order in Council which cancelled the Declaration of London. Can he tell us whether any Orders have been issued to the Fleet in connection with the cancelling of that Declaration, and, if so, can he tell us the nature of those Orders? Generally, how has the situation been altered by the cancelling of the Declaration of London? Obviously, the Government thought it was going to serve some useful purpose, and now, when the new situation has been in operation for some time, perhaps the Noble Lord will be able to tell us the result of the operation. In association with the blockade I would be glad if he could give us any information as to the working of the Denmark Traders' Association. We have not yet been able to see the secret documents connected with that commercial association. Has he reason to believe that that association is working loyally in accordance with the terms that were accepted when he made the agreement? Can he produce proof that the enemy is getting less through from that country than it did before the association was formed, because some figures in regard to the imports of Denmark are rather significant and somewhat alarming. Take cotton yarn. In June, 1913, before the War, 55,700 pounds; in June, 1916, 598,400 pounds. Is the Noble Lord quite satisfied that that enormous increase is not in any way finding its way into the hands of the enemy? I hope he will be able to give us some explanation of that enormous increase.
4.0 P.M.
I would also like to know whether the Noble Lord is satisfied with the recent working of the Netherlands Overseas Trust. Can he tell us how much money has been paid in fines? These fines go to the Dutchmen, and this country does not 2749 benefit from them. I think over 1,000,000 Gulden were paid in fines some time after the Trust came into operation. I heard the other day of a firm which does business in this country which was fined £25,000 by the Netherlands Overseas Trust for sending goods into Germany. Of course, they were very pleased to be fined £25,000, because, I am told, they had already made £75,000 on the deal. I would ask the Noble Lord to see that when any firm, whether it is a margarine firm or any other firm, is found defying the operations of the Netherlands Overseas Trust and has been deliberately fined for helping the enemy, steps are taken to see that that firm cannot carry on business in this country, directly or indirectly. There is no doubt whatever that there is ground for the belief that steady business in supplying the enemy from Holland is going on, notwithstanding the Overseas Trust. If you take the case of butter, for example, we find that, in the first six months of 1914, 7,000 tons went into Germany, and in the first six months of 1916 the amount was 19,000 tons. Cheese, the first six months of 1914, 6,000 tons; the first six months of 1916, 46,000 tons; meat, the first six months of 1914, 5,800 tons, and 40,000 tons in the corresponding period of 1916. I think that there is ground for asking for some explanation of these figures.
I have often complained in this House of the Publicity Department of the Foreign Office. It has not been satisfactory from the very beginning of the War. It does not up to the present moment do the work which should be expected of it. Even in France the British point of view is not represented in French newspapers as well as it should be, notwithstanding the very able and numerous London correspondents. I would suggest that in every one of our Allied countries, and in every one of the neutral States, we ought to have someone directly in touch with the Foreign Office who would present at a proper moment the British point of view and deny statements made hostile to our interests. I refer to Italy in particular. It has been known for a very long time that the British point of view was never understood there at all. They have no conception of what we have done in regard to munitions or the raising of our great Armies. Hon. Members may have noticed the strong statements made the other day by Lord Northcliffe, who 2750 ought to be able to judge from his experience, in the dispatches which he sent from that country. Every Britisher who has any knowledge of Italy tells the same thing. Our accomplishments on the sea and in the field are not presented as they ought to be to the Italian people. They are most ignorant as to some of the most important things which we have done in this War. That ought not to be. We ought to report to the Press both in neutral and in Allied countries an account of our military operations. It is perfectly certain that if a smart man had had charge of Bulgaria and other countries their view point probably would have been different, and the result would have been much more satisfactory to us. With regard to America I admit that the position there is very much better than it was. But there is still a lack of prompt denial of lies circulated at the instance of the enemy, calculated to mislead public opinion there and injure the interests of this country, and I would ask the Noble Lord to say whether we cannot have more prompt contradiction of the statements made to our detriment in the American Press?
I desire also to refer to the question of the Black List. How do the negotiations now stand? I was amazed at the length of the Black List. I do not know whether hon. Members have got a copy of it. It is procurable in the Vote Office, I believe. It contains an enormous number of firms in all parts of the world. What I would like to know is, is it really necessary that publication should take place? I have looked up the Act. The House will remember the Debates we had upon it, and that publication is not necessary. I understand that so far as America is concerned we were able to get on without publication for a very considerable time, so that any Britisher desirous of doing business with an American firm had simply to ask the Foreign Office if this firm was a prohibited firm. If the answer was satisfactory, of course he could go on doing business with the firm. The publication of the list has given rise to a great deal of irritation and controversy, and I would like to know the state of the negotiations at the present time. I am not complaining in any way of the publication of that list. If the Noble Lord thinks that it serves the purposes of the War, even America, as well as every other neutral, must be inconvenienced at a time like this if it is for our highest interests. We are fighting their fight as well as our 2751 own. I am not complaining in any way what the Noble Lord has got to publish, but what I ask is: Was not the working as satisfactory before publication was decided?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil)My right hon. Friend has asked a very large number of questions, and I hope he will not think I am in any way wanting in respect for him at this time of the afternoon, and at this time of the Session, if I try as briefly as I can to answer them. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether any overtures of peace had been made to the British Government. I can say quite definitely and explicitly that no such overtures have been made. There is only one way in which overtures of peace can be made, and that is by communication of the enemy Governments to this Government. If any such communication had taken place the first thing we would have had to do would have been to consult our Allies. No such overture has taken place of any kind.
§ Lord R. CECILNo; no overture of any kind has taken place; and if and when it does take place, it will be our duty to consult our Allies upon it. I do not think it would be desirable for me to go any further into this question beyond that simple statement. As to the Balkan position, I venture to think that what is most interesting about it at present are the military operations that are taking place at Salonika. It is quite obvious, even if I knew anything about them, which I do not, that it would be very improper for me to say anything in this House. As to our attitude towards the Greek Government, the House is aware that a little time ago it became necessary and proper for us to put certain demands before the Greek Government, and those demands were put to them in concert with our Allies, and they were accepted, as the House knows, and the Government over which M, Skoloudis presided was dismissed. A new Government was called into power under M. Zaimis, a gentleman who commands universal respect in Greece, a gentleman not engaged in party politics, and who mainly owes his position to the great respect in which he is, and his authority, 2752 and our relations with the Zaimis Government are, as far as I know, thoroughly satisfactory. My right hon. Friend then passed to a survey of the Declaration of London, and he asked me in effect why we have taken the step, with our French Ally, of issuing an Order in Council by which we declare that we withdraw our adoption of it, and what the effect of that action has been. There were several reasons why we took that step. In the first place, the Declaration of London was, as the House is perfectly aware, a compendium of rules governing belligerent rights and duties of nations, or purporting to govern the belligerent rights and duties of all nations. It was supposed to be founded on rules of international law which prevailed before it was made, subject to certain alterations which were made by it. In some respects it introduced changes in regard to what was unfavourable to our position as belligerents; in other respects it purported to introduce changes which were not unfavourable.
But we were in this position, that it had no force at all in this country, except such force as was given to it, if any, by the Order in Council, which was instituted shortly after the outbreak of the War—I think in October, 1914, or perhaps earlier, I am not sure; it may have been in August, 1914, that it was adopted. The effect of that was that the terms of the Declaration of London were taken to be included in that Order in Council. Then we were in this position. In the well known case of the "Zamora" the Court decided that by Order in Council the British Crown could not extend its belligerent rights, and that those belligerent rights were determined by international law of which the Court, of course, was the judge, and that therefore, so far as the Declaration of London purported to extend our rights, the Order in Council did not do anything, because the rules of international law would still have been administered by our Courts irrespective of that Order. But so far as it diminished our rights, then the Order in Council could be relied upon by the claimant in the Prize Court, because it was a definite statement by the Crown that they did not propose to rely on their extreme rights. That was the legal effect of it. The result was, when the Government came to consider the Declaration of London in connection with the rule of law, which was very clearly propounded in the "Zamora" case, 2753 it became perfectly clear that the Declaration of London might do us injury and could not do us good, and therefore it seemed quite clear that it was desirable to get rid of it.
That was not the only difficulty. Of course, it is a very difficult position I hold at present, because I do not wish to criticise my predecessor in any way. It would be very improper and very bad taste on my part if I did so. Therefore I hope I shall not be understood as passing any criticism on what he did. I do think that the experience of war has shown that an attempt to codify belligerent rights is not practicable at present, and I do not know whether it ever will be practicable. The circumstances of war changes so rapidly, the new inventions, the new developments of war are so numerous, that what might be a perfectly reasonable rule ten years ago might be an utterly unreasonable rule at the present moment. Therefore the Government came to the conclusion that even if the Declaration of London was an absolutely perfect code, and I do not for a moment suggest that it was, yet that it was undesirable really to attempt the codification of the rules of belligerent rights at the present moment. I doubt if any such codification will ever be possible. It was for those broad reasons and some others that the Government came to the conclusion that it was desirable to withdraw the Declaration of London. Personally, I am very glad that course was taken. My right hon. Friend asked me whether the Order in Council that was drawn up was settled by the Law Officers of the Crown. I am not quite sure, but it met with the approval of a very high legal authority indeed, and I think we took every possible precaution to secure that it was a sound, legal document. If he has any criticisms to present of it, I hope he will do so in private, and I trust to be in a position to answer them. I believe it to be a sound document.
My right hon. Friend went on to ask whether the withdrawal of the Declaration of London had in itself made any great difference in our blockade. I do not believe it has. If I thought it was really, in any serious degree, fettering our belligerent rights, I would not have carried on my duties under it so long. I do think it was desirable to get rid of it, and I do think it has made our way clear and exposed us to less misconception from neutrals in the future than we have had to bear in the past. Perhaps I may add a 2754 word on that point. It may sound absurd, but the reason is this: It became necessary, whenever we found there was a provision of the Declaration of London that really did hamper our belligerent rights, to issue a fresh Order in Council, saying that in that respect we did not propose to abide any longer by the Declaration of London. That is obviously not a very— what shall I say?—decorous position to adopt. It is perfectly sound, of course, but it looked as if we recognised the Declaration of London as being the higher law, but that whenever it happened to interfere with our interests we had to abolish it. That, of course, is not the true view to take, but it gave that opportunity for misrepresentation and misconstruction, and for that reason, among others, I was glad to see it withdrawn.
My right hon. Friend passed to Denmark, and asked me how the arrangements with the Denmark Association were working. He asked me to produce proof. It is not very easy to produce proof in these matters. If I were to read out a lot of figures showing, as I think I might, that imports into Denmark have been very materially reduced as a result of that agreement, and if thereupon I took credit to the Government for the great success with which the agreement was working, I think the only effect would be to embarrass His Majesty's Government and to make it more difficult to secure improved conditions. Even in what I am now saying I am conscious that it might be better not to say anything, but in a democratic country you must take the risk of being misunderstood in some respects. One must endeavour to hit the happy mean between the different dangers. All I can say is that I believe the association have carried out the agreement with absolute loyalty and fairness. No one can complain of their doing what they could for the good of their own country. Of course it is their business to obtain all they legitimately can under the terms of that agreement. I believe they have loyally carried it out; they have desired, above all, that its terms should be observed by the Danes in general, and whenever they have come across any breach of those terms they have enforced the agreement with the utmost vigour.
My right hon. Friend referred to the question of cotton yarns. I am quite aware that there has been an increase in the import of cotton yarns, although I 2755 do not think it is so great as my right hon. Friend stated. These things are very difficult. We do not believe that we have allowed to go into Denmark any more cotton in any shape than is required for the internal consumption of Denmark. You must take not only yarn, but raw cotton, cotton manufactures, and cotton waste; you must take the whole cotton industry together. Even so, it is a considerable increase on what they had before. But you must remember that these goods are to some extent interchangeable, and if the people are unable to get as much mixed goods as they used to get, they will probably want more cotton. Of course, they used to import considerable quantities of finished garments from Germany. You must allow for all that. All I can tell my right hon. Friend is, that the amount which we have thought it safe to allow into Denmark was very carefully considered upon the best expert advice that we could get, and I have no reason to believe that it has been materially exceeded within the past seven months. I hope my right hon. Friend will think that a satisfactory answer, arid will recognise the great difficulty there is in going into details in these matters. There have, from time to time, been attacks upon the Netherlands Overseas Trust. I do not mean to say that the Netherlands Overseas Trust, more than any other human institution, is perfect. I say we have every reason to be satisfied with its working as a whole. I do not believe that any quantity of goods is being consigned to the enemy. I do not mean to say that you may not find a little leakage; you cannot avoid that. Having a perfectly flat frontier and no natural obstacles, and in view of the very large prices ruling on the one side of the frontier, and the supplies of goods on the other side of the frontier, whatever precautions you take there will be a certain amount of smuggling. Of course, we cannot dictate to the Dutch Government what precautions they shall take. It rests with them. But I am bound to say that I think their laws are well conceived for the purpose of checking smuggling, and it rests upon them to show that those laws are properly administered and carried out. If there is any great defect in the administration which my right hon. Friend comes across and brings to my notice, I shall be very grateful to him, and shall 2756 do my best to see that; it is brought to the notice of the Dutch Government. Speaking generally, I believe the Netherlands Overseas Trust has worked well.
There is an aspect of the Dutch situation which has caused us great anxiety. Holland is, of course, a producing country so far as agriculture is concerned. Before the War Holland exported a very considerable amount of its produce in various forms. Undoubtedly before the War it sent to this country a very much larger share of its produce than it has sent since. The Dutch are a commercial people. They can get very large prices from Germany, and they can get smaller prices from the United Kingdom. It is not a satisfactory situation from the British point of view. In respect of some of the articles mentioned the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. In the first six months of this year we almost lost the whole production. That is not satisfactory. It is obviously a situation in which it is not very easy to deal. I am not able to tell my right hon. Friend and the House exactly what we have done, but I can assure him—and he can have this satisfaction—thfngs are very much better than they were, and that in the last few weeks a very decided improvement has taken place. I have reason to hope that this improvement will be no less in the future than it has been in the past, and that we have every reason, I will not say to be satisfied—because so far as I am concerned, I will never be satisfied while any kind of foodstuffs are going into Germany—but to be able to say that, on the whole, we have not so very much of which to complain having regard to what went on before the War. It is a very difficult subject. We have had to consider it in a number of different ways. We have been engaged, for instance, in trying to limit the amount of fish that goes through to Germany both from Norway and from Holland. I think the measures which have been taken have been, on the whole, wonderfully satisfactory. My right hon. Friend will recognise how undesirable it is to discuss these things in detail, but I shall be pleased, if he cares to know, to show him the documents on the subject, and I think he will agree with me that the matter has been well dealt with. I desire to take this opportunity of expressing my great obligation, or rather, the great obligations of the country, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. 2757 Leverton Harris) for the admirable work that he has done in connection with the subject. He has really done very remarkable and very admirable work. It would not be right of me, standing here and speaking for the first time since I have taken over the blockade, not to express my great obligation to all those who work with me in this matter, and not least to Lord Emmott, who has had a most thankless task in administering the. War Trade Department, which deals with the issuing of licences, a most difficult and thankless position. Whatever he does is certain to be criticised by one side or the other. He has worked with the utmost loyalty and devotion. The organisation which has been created under his auspices is one of the most remarkable achievements in the whole war, and I think some day or other, when the whole story can be dealt with in detail, the country will recognise the great debt it owes to him for the work he has done.
Then my right hon. Friend passed to the question of publicity, a difficult subject also. I am surprised he thinks we have not done enough in France. After all, I believe that in this question of publicity, which is a very difficult one, there are two main lines which you can pursue. There is the line which the Germans are pursuing, which is to create elaborate State organisations, because that is really what they are. They are recognised to be State organisations, supported by State money and directed by the German Foreign Office and all that kind of thing. It makes a great show. They flood the country with leaflets and the papers with communiqués of various kinds. They have all the devices which are open to people who proceed on those lines, but I must honestly say I think the effect has been extremely, small. I do not believe the German publicity campaign in any country has been successful, and in some countries, notably the United States, it has been a dismal failure. I am sure any course of that kind would have been disastrous if we had attempted to pursue it. I believe the best form of publicity is this, and it is not an easy one to carry out; it is to give every opportunity to journalists of neutral countries to learn the facts, and to distribute them themselves in their own country.
§ Lord R. CECILMy hon. Friend may think not, and I dare say if he were in my place he would do it very much better, but we do our best, and I venture to think that, so far as the United States are concerned, we have not been unsuccessful. I know a great deal of criticism was made some months ago about the amount we communicated to the American correspondents. I can only say, if the House will forgive me for speaking of myself for one moment, that I have made great efforts to place at the disposal of the American correspondents all the information at all capable of being published. I see them every week on Friday, and we have a most—at any rate to me—interesting conversation, and I hope and believe that, on the whole, they have no ground— certainly I do not think they have the least ground—of complaint as to the amount of information they get from the Foreign Office.
§ Mr. KINGWill the Noble Lord answer one question, namely, whether in this information given to the Americans a good deal is conveyed which is not given and made public in this country?
§ Lord R. CECILSo far as the Foreign Office is concerned they are always ready to give any information that they can give to a British journalist, to a British Member of Parliament, or to an American journalist, or any other neutral journalist.
§ Lord R. CECILEqually; and if my hon. Friend comes to me and asks me any question, as he has once or twice, I think he will agree that I have always tried my best to satisfy him and to give him the information he has sought. At any rate, that has been my desire, and I have often said to the House, and I will repeat it now, that in foreign affairs, especially blockade matters, I am always anxious and always ready to give all the information to any Member of Parliament, or any group of Members of Parliament, who care to come and ask me. The only other question with which I have to deal is the Black List. My right hon. Friend did not quarrel with the Black List, which was passed by the House of Commons unanimously. I rather think my right hon. Friend took some part in the discussion on the Bill, and I do not think any criticism was passed on it. After all, what is the policy? It is only this: That this country thinks it reasonable that its property, consisting of credit and of shipping, should not be placed at the disposal 2759 of its enemies, and if a man, quite clearly an enemy of this country, whether he is technically or nominally a German, Austrian, or Turk, as long as he is clearly an enemy of this country, we have a right to say to our own countrymen, "You are not to trade with that man because by doing so you are assisting the enemies of our country and increasing the power of the soldiers of the enemy to deal with our own soldiers." That seem to be a broad principle, and I do not think there is any other country, including the United States, who, if they were engaged in such a contest as we are now engaged in, would hesitate to carry out a policy of the name kind.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we should publish these names, and I will tell him why. He will remember that by the Act it was made an. offence for any British subject to deal with anyone who is on the list or with a person declared to be of enemy nationality or enemy association. It is quite clear that if you are to make this a criminal offence you must give public notice of it, and you cannot leave it to them until they receive a summons from a Police Court informing them that they have transgressed the law. You must tell them plainly beforehand that they are not to deal with those people, and that is the reason for the publication. I am satisfied that when the whole of this policy comes to be understood the criticisms made upon it—and I am quite aware that in certain quarters criticisms have been ma.de—would seem to be quite misconceived and unsubstantial, and I am sure those who made them will be ready to recognise that in what we have done we have only carried out our plain duty as Ministers of the Crown in a country engaged in war.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNAre the Consuls being notified to inform the captains of British steamers entering American ports of these facts, and telling them of the list of people they are not to trade with? I know one or two cases where lawsuits have occurred through captains not being notified.
§ Lord R. CECILThat is the difficulty, and I will look into that matter. My impression is that this list is sent to all the Consuls in the leading ports, and they are given some such instructions as those indicated by my hon. Friend.