§ 8. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the German Government on the question of linking reparations and evacuation or on the question of his reading of Article 431, together with the letter of the three Prime Ministers; and will he make inquiries as to the views of the American Government on these points?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making the inquiries suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister advocated quite recently closer co-operation in ideas with America, and 2094 is it not vitally important that in our policy as regards reparations and evacuation, we should know what America. thinks and work in co-operation with her?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe right hon. Gentleman must remember that his question refers to the Treaty of Versailles. The United States of America never ratified that Treaty. They made their own treaty bi-laterally with Germany, and there is no reason to suppose that they wish to be consulted on these matters.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIf America did not take part in the Treaty of Versailles, is that any reason for inconveniencing ourselves and our own policy by not now securing their co-operation, particularly as America is represented on the Reparations Commission, and we are asked to send members to this joint Board?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONConversations are now going on between the various Powers at Lugano, and I hope that we shall arrive at an amicable settlement. So far as I know, America does not in the least wish to be consulted on the question of evacuation.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs it not obvious that a solution at Lugano would be infinitely more in our favour if we had the backing of a party which is not represented, but which is vitally interested in the question of reparations? I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, but he will not say so.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIs there any hope of the British Government arriving at any views of its own instead of constantly adopting the views of France and other countries?
§ 10. Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the conflict of opinion as to the legal interpretation of Article 431 of the Peace Treaty affecting 2095 the withdrawal of troops from the Rhine, he can see his way to recommend that the matter be referred to the World Court for a decision?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONNo, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 10th December to the questions asked by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).
§ Mr. SMITHArising out of this reply and the previous reply, and in view of the fact that the lawyers of the three countries concerned with the interpretation of this Treaty have all been quarrelling with one another as to its interpretation, is not His Majesty's Government prepared to submit this matter to an international Court?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI should have thought the best way of settling this question was in the way in which an attempt is being made to settle it now, that is, by friendly conversations and negotiations between the different Powers.
§ Mr. SMITHIn view of the fact that the decision of His Majesty's Government last week on this legal point has made the negotiations more difficult, and that it is purely an ex parte judgment of one Government out of three; and, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have always refrained from committing themselves to arbitration on the ground—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not abuse the privileges of Question Time.
§ Mr. SMITHI am not seeking to abuse the privileges of the House. I am seeking to put the point of view that His Majesty's Government have—
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members do not seem to understand that Question Time is not the time to put points of view.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre we to judge from the reply we have received that His Majesty's Government do not attribute much importance to the legal point of view, and think that the practical point of view is of more importance than the legal decision of these matters?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONMy right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has stated what in the opinion of His Majesty's Government was the legal point of view, and he went on to add that there was another point of view as to policy, and this is the point of view which is now under discussion at Lugano.
§ Mr. SMITHBut in view of the fact that the legal interpretation given by His Majesty's Government is hotly disputed and does require, therefore, some international interpretation, and in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have said over and over again that they were willing to submit all suitable cases—
§ Mr. SPEAKERMr. Duncan.
Captain CROOKSHANKIs it, in fact, true that there has been no difference of opinion between the Allied Powers on the legal point?