8. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement made by the Home Secretary on the 23rd February that the Treaty of Versailles was a breach of the pre-Armistice agreement, on the strength of which Germany grounded her arms, is based upon documentary evidence in the possession of the Government; whether it is the intention of the Government, as indicated by the Home Secretary, to take steps to secure the revision of the Treaty through the medium of a world conference; if he will state what are the respects in which the Government propose 474 to press for a modification of the territorial aspects of the Treaty; and whether such territorial adjustments will cover proposals for the return to Germany of any of her former Colonial possessions?
§ 10. Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet ascertained from the Home Secretary whether the latter was correctly reported to have declared at Burnley that revision of the Treaty of Versailles is essential both in its economic and its territorial aspects; if he will say, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary's statement purported to be an authoritative announcement of the policy of His Majesty's Government, whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to such policy; in what respects the Government consider that the Treaty of Versailles requires revision in its territorial aspect; whether any and which of the Allied Governments have been consulted or officially informed of the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter; and what steps have been taken or are in contemplation for bringing about revision of the Treaty?
§ Mr. PONSONBYThese questions will be answered by the Prime Minister in replying to questions 49 and 54.
Sir F. HALLDo I understand that the Prime Minister will be here to answer these questions personally? Shall I receive an answer to my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"]
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order. Is it not an infringement of the rights of hon. Members for a Minister to say that questions are put off till later, when they may not be reached?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me his assistance, we shall be assured of reaching question 49.
Sir F. HALLI beg to suggest that the hon. Member who put down question No. 8 is entitled to a reply from the Minister, and that it is not fair or equitable to be put off in this manner by the Under-Secretary in connection with two or three other questions. This is a categorical question, and I suggest I am entitled to a categorical reply.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet is to have a reply from the superior of the Under-Secretary.
§ Mr. McNEILLDid not the Prime Minister say a little while ago that it was his intention to be here on Mondays and Wednesdays to answer questions as Foreign Secretary as well as Prime Minister? It will be for the convenience of the House if we can be told whether that custom is now going to be followed, because it makes a difference in putting down questions whether they are addressed to the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister?
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address that question to the Prime Minister at the end of questions to-day, and he will then doubtless get a reply.
§ Mr. PONSONBYMay I explain that the Prime Minister is here on Mondays to answer questions as Foreign Secretary, and on Mondays and Wednesdays to answer questions as Prime Minister? I thought it would be better for the two hon. Members to get their answers from the Prime Minister himself instead of from me.
§ Mr. McNEILLIs there any intention to make any alteration in the rule hitherto prevailing, that the Foreign Office questions should come first on Wednesdays, because, obviously, it is important that they should come first, so that they may be answered, if possible, by the Foreign Minister himself?
Captain BENNIs there any precedent for a Minister to say that a question put to him will be answered later? So far as I am aware there is no such precedent.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROh, yes, I have often heard Ministers say that.
Sir F. HALLOn this point and as to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—I have no desire to waste time, but I am under the orders of Mr. Speaker, and he will call mo to order if need be. I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will be here to answer his questions as Foreign Secretary also on Wednesdays. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf a question be put down at the end of questions, the matter can then be made quite clear.
§ 49. Sir LEONARD LYLElater asked the prime Minister whether the Government 476 proposes to recommend to the League of Nations the revision of the existing peace treaties; and, if not, whether he intends to try to achieve this result by any other means?
§ 54. Mr. REMERasked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department's statement at the Burnley bye-election, that the Treaty of Versailles must be revised, is the considered policy of the Government?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a private notice question by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. McNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that an exhaustive search through all his utterances since he became Prime Minister shows that he has never uttered a syllable with regard to the revision of the Treaty, and, in view of the alarm which has been caused on both sides of the Channel by the Home Secretary's speech, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the interests of straightforward dealing, which he desires, it is incumbent upon him to make his position absolutely clear on this matter without further delay?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am surprised that there should be any ambiguity about my position. I stated, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, that what I had said I had said, and that the Government was responsible for what I had said, and for nothing more.
§ Mr. McNEILLDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that on this point he has said nothing?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAnd, therefore, the Government propose to do nothing.
§ Sir L. LYLEDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while he may have said the same thing, other Members of the Government have said all sorts of things? We are only asking for a definite statement on the part of the Government as to what the Government policy is.
Sir F. HALLI have asked a specific question, whether the statement made by 477 the Home Secretary is based upon documentary evidence in possession of the Government, and the reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave the other day does not deal with that point at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty in which this House and the country are placed if we are going to have statements made by Ministers off their own bat without consulting the Prime Minister on the subject?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI quite agree. I have made a statement about the Government's foreign policy. That is the Government's foreign policy, and I am glad to say foreign Governments quite understand that that is so.
§ Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYIn all the Home Secretary's speeches in the Burnley division, has he made it perfectly clear that he was speaking as a private individual and not as Home Secretary?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREHas the right hon. Gentleman ascertained whether the Press reports of the Home Secretary's speech are correct or incorrect?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, I have not.
§ Sir L. LYLEWill the right hon. Gentleman make a definite statement that statements made by the other Ministers are not to be taken as representing the views of the Government?
§ Mr. PRINGLEHas the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to restrain the irresponsibility of his colleagues, particularly in view of the injurious effect of such speeches in other countries?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we cannot pursue the matter further.
§ Mr. McNEILLI beg to give notice that, at the end of Questions, I propose to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ At the end of Questions,
§ Mr. McNEILLI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the contradictory statements made by Ministers of the Crown in relation to foreign policy, and the failure of the Government to take adequate steps 478 to remove from the public mind of this and allied countries the impression created by a speech of the Home Secretary that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to propose revision of the Treaty of Versailles."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI had a little doubt as to the earlier part of the Motion of the right hon. Member, but I think he lays the stress on the effect which he says has been created in other countries, and I propose, therefore, to put the question to the House.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMay I raise a point of Order? May I ask you whether you do not take the view that the statement I have made, that the Government policy is what I have said, is not sufficient for the purpose, and whether the mere repetition of that, which is the only thing that can be given in the public interest at the moment, is going to help the House out of any difficulty in which it is placed?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes)On another aspect of the point of Order, may I ask whether it is competent for a Member to claim to move the Adjournment on a statement made outside this House, for which, it has been clearly stated, the Government is in no way responsible?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo; I do not think the statement made outside the House is the claim which is put before the House. The claim is that it was not made clear at Question Time to-day. It is only on this ground that I propose to put the matter to the House.
Captain BENNHave you, Sir, not constantly ruled that these Motions are not to be admitted unless the matter is definite and urgent? I submit that this Motion fails on those grounds.
§ Mr. POTTSIs not this matter raised at the moment in the interests of furthering a political campaign?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not for me to enter into hon. Members' motives.
§ Mr. SNOWDENHas it not often been ruled by your predecessor, if not by yourself, that a Motion for Adjournment is not valid unless attention has been called to the matter at the earliest possible moment? Seeing that this speech was 479 made last Saturday, and reported in the newspapers on the Sunday, three or four days have elapsed, and questions have been put on it during the last three or four days. Therefore I submit that on the point of precedent the Motion is not valid.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREIs it not the fact that it is only because such great attention has been paid to the speech of the Home Secretary by the French and Italian Press that the matter has become really of international importance, and that the attitude of the Government to the Treaty of Versailles here and now should be made clear?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is the ground on which I have decided to put the Question. On the question of urgency, I take it that the point is that the right hon. Gentleman claims that he did not get clear answers to his questions. It is on that ground alone that I think the right hon. Member is entitled to ask leave to move the Adjournment.
§ The pleasure of the House having been signified,
§ The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.