§ 34. Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that the German Government has carried out the terms of Article 431 of the peace treaty; and, if not, whether the particulars in which Germany has not complied can be stated?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)There are two aspects of the question raised by the hon. Member. His particular inquiry relates to the interpretation of the treaty and is a question of law. There is also a question of policy. On the question of law, His Majesty's Government are advised that there is no legal justification for the contention that Germany has complied with all the obligations imposed upon her by the treaty, so as to entitle her as of right under Article 431 or otherwise to demand the withdrawal of the forces at present occupying the Rhineland before the expiry of the period laid down in the treaty. The chief obligation with which Germany has not yet complied is that of reparations. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the concession provided for in Article 431 could only take effect when Germany has completely executed and discharged the whole of her reparation obligations. It is not sufficient that she should be carrying out regularly her undertakings in the matter of current reparation payments. The phrase applicable to the punctual performance of current obligations is that used at the beginning of the Article providing for the quinquennial reductions in the area under occupation, Article 429:
If the conditions of the present treaty are faithfully observed …As to policy, which is equally important though decided by different considerations, I repeat that His Majesty's Government would welcome an early evacuation of the Rhineland by the French, British and Belgian forces, irrespective of the legal right of the ex-Allied Governments to continue their occupation until the expiry of the period fixed by the treaty.
§ Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYWith regard to the question of law, the 824 first aspect, does this mean that His Majesty's Government now consider that the question of reparations and the occupation of German territory are linked together?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI think I have given a considered answer in which I have dealt fully with the question on the Paper; and, indeed, I have added to it, because I thought it was necessary to distinguish between the mere question of law and the question of policy which His Majesty's Government desire to pursue. To that answer, I am not prepared to add anything.
§ Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYI do not wish to catch the right hon. Gentleman at all—if he will allow me to use that term—but is he aware that on the 8th of last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave quite a different version of the views of His Majesty's Government on the matter and said most definitely that the questions were distinct and separate?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. I have read the answer that was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that he was dealing with a different aspect of the matter, and I do not think that there is any contradiction between the view which he then expressed—though it shows the difficulty of dealing with such matters in reply to a supplementary question—and the considered opinion which I have just given.