§ 9. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government now proposes to call a new conference on naval armaments; and whether the invitation will include any suggestion for an international conference on maritime law?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHis Majesty's Government have no intention of issuing invitations to a conference on these subjects. As I informed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 6th instant, all questions concerning our relations with America and the naval conditions of the two countries are under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I added that I was unable to make any statement until that inquiry was concluded. Our examination of these questions is being diligently prosecuted. As soon as it is concluded, the first step will be to communicate its results to the Governments of the Dominions and to receive and consider their views.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDo I understand from that answer that the communications now passing with the Dominion Governments are not as to the possibility of a new conference on armaments; and does that mean that the invitation of last September—the practical invitation by the American Secretary of State—is not going to be answered?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINCertain communications which have passed and are passing between His Majesty's Government and the Dominions are not in relation to the summoning by this Government of a new conference. The Note of the United States Government did not contain an invitation to His Majesty's Government to summon or to attend a new conference.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDid not the Note make a valuable suggestion for further agreement? Surely that can only be reached by a conference?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThat Note objected to proposals which had been made by His Majesty's Government, on the ground that the United States Government had already expressed its objection to them. The same Note ended by suggesting that the United States Government would be prepared to proceed with negotiations on a basis to which His Majesty's Government had previously expressed their objection.
§ 10. Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the statement of the British Ambassador at Washington to the effect that, after the General Election, the British Government would initiate fresh negotiations on the naval armaments question and if this statement was made on the instructions of His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
§ Mr. THURTLEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of the Ambassador and the subsequent contradiction here caused misunderstanding to arise in America; and will the Foreign Office be at pains to instruct our Ambassador as to the policy which the Foreign Office intends to pursue in this matter?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIf the hon. Members looks carefully at the statement issued here and the statement made by the Ambassador, he will see that there is no contradiction between them. The statement issued here was a correction of mistaken inferences drawn from the Ambassador's correct statement, in Washington.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDid not the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me a moment ago give an account of the matter totally different from that given by the Ambassador?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThere are further questions on this subject on the Paper, including, I think, one by the hon. and gallant Member, and perhaps he will await my replies.
§ 13. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations as to a renewed arbitration treaty with the United States of America included and embraced the settlement between the two Powers of what was to be mutually agreed to as understood by the freedom of the seas?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs I have already informed the House, the proposals made by the United States Government for an Anglo-American arbitration treaty to replace the Root-Bryce Treaty of 1908 are receiving the attentive consideration of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions. As these consultations have not yet been concluded, I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre these consultations the same consultations and considerations that have been given to the question of the freedom of the seas?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAll questions that arise out of the matters now open between us and the United States Government are being taken into consideration.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs this treated as the same question?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI will not say that it is the same question, but it is one of the questions which His Majesty's Government are considering.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am sorry to he pertinacious, but as the one trouble between us and America which might involve the use of this Arbitration Treaty arises through different interpretations of the rights of neutrals at sea, would it not be wise to avoid the expense and risks of arbitration by seeing that this question is settled in the treaty itself?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI cannot make a statement as to what will be the result of a review of these matters which has not yet been concluded. All that I can say—and I think the right hon. and gallant Member ought to be content with that—is that His Majesty's Government are examining all these questions with a view to coming to such conclusion.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI cannot say how long it will take. Some time further will be required, by His Majesty's Government here, and full time must be given to the Dominion Governments to express their views.
§ 14. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain the circumstances which led to the statement being made by His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Washington in connection with the increase in the American fleet and the possibility of renewed agreements on the fleet-strength of the United States of America and England?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHis Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has reported that on being approached by representatives of the Press for his views on cables emanating from this country suggesting the possibility of an imminent renewal of negotiations for the limitation of naval armaments, he issued a statement representing his personal opinion as to the probable course of events. It will not have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that in no part of the Ambassador's 1103 statement did he indicate that immediate developments were likely, although erroneous deductions in this sense seem to have been drawn from his remarks by certain sections of the Press.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAre we to understand that answers given in this House by the Secretary of State, with such explanations of them as may be necessary, are not communicated to His Majesty's Ambassadors abroad who are concerned, and in particular was the answer of 6th February not communicated to our Ambassador in Washington in time to check it?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHe would receive the answer of 6th February in due course, though exactly what "due course" may be I could not say without notice, but we do in the ordinary routine of our duties take all the measures we can to keep our Missions abroad fully informed, and I repeat that in this case the contradiction, if contradiction there be, between the communiqué which I issued on Saturday and what the Ambassador said, is not in that communiqué and is not in what the Ambassador said, but in incorrect inferences drawn from it.
§ Mr. HANNONIn point of fact, is there any substantial difference between the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and the statement made in Washington by our Ambassador?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have already said that in my opinion there was not.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that those erroneous deductions were very warmly received in Government circles in Japan and America?