DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION). (Hansard, 17 February 1932)

§ Mr. MANDER

I desire to call attention to a matter of which I have given notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, one in which a great amount of interest is taken in this country, and not in this country alone. I raise it in no spirit of hostility, but in order to give the Government an opportunity of making clear to the public exactly what the position is. The question concerns the appointment of Lord Cecil as a member of the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference. It has come as a great surprise and a shock to many people in this country to discover that he has not found it possible to accept the invitation extended to him.

I venture to say that on this matter Lord Cecil occupies an almost unique position in the country. In very wide circles, in all three parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, he is regarded as the leader of the peace and disarmament movement in the country. More than that, for years past he has represented successive Governments on the Preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference. He has worked right through the technique and the details for a number of years past, and from that point of view is as well fitted as any living individual to be there to assist, to advise and to conduct negotiations. He knows the whole technique, he knows the personalities of the different individuals with whom one comes into contact there, and he knows exactly how far one could go in this, that, or the other direction. It is difficult enough to hope for the success of a Disarmament Conference when one finds the machinery of the League of Nations functions rather feebly in the case of open aggression, when there may be a tendency arising in the world once more to regard treaties 1784 as only scraps of paper. In those circumstances, I am sure it would be the desire of everybody in the House and the country to see the British delegation as strong as it is possible to make it.

What are the facts so far as they are known to the public? We know that Lord Cecil has been invited to be a member of the Delegation, and that he has not been able to accept, and the reason given by the Lord President of the Council in this House the other day, as I understood it, was that Lord Cecil felt that he would be of more assistance outside the Conference. If a person is not in accord with the policy of a certain group, he naturally would not feel very useful inside that group. It rather makes one wonder and ask questions to get information as to what exactly is going on inside. It is clear from the statements made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, both by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and by Lord Cecil, that there is a certain divergence of view. The statement of the Foreign Secretary, if he will permit me to say so, seemed to me to be in a great many respects a most admirable statement. All I would say about it is that I hope that it does not represent the last word on what the Government might be prepared to do, after negotiation with other Powers. Lord Cecil in his statement did go a good deal further. I do not know that in the long run there would necessarily be any complete divergence of view. I hope not. I hope that in due course it may be possible—and I trust that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make some indication of this kind tonight—that, although Lord Cecil is not able at the moment to join the Delegation, he is not without hope that at some later stage of the proceedings he may be brought in to the great satisfaction of all people in this country who are keen on this movement and on the promotion of the interests of the Conference.

There is only one other word I would say, that is that if it became known—and there is a chance of this in the minds of people in this country—that Lord Cecil was unable to serve the country in this 1785 capacity because he was out of sympathy or in disagreement with the policy of the Government, I feel, in all seriousness, that it would do as much as anything to damage the prestige of this Government as a truly national Government.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon)

As my hon. Friend has said, the circumstances in which Lord Cecil thought it best not to serve as an associate of the British delegation have been very clearly stated, in answer to a question put to the Lord President of the Council the other day. The statement that was then made was both precise and candid, and I do not think there is any need to embroider the matter. We are all of one mind in recognising the immense services which Lord Cecil renders, has rendered, and will continue to render, to the cause of international disarmament which we all have so much at heart.

I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that ever since I have held my present office I have been in the closest touch with him. I believe I may claim to enjoy his complete confidence, and he has been good enough to express himself to me in terms which make me think that he also has some confidence in my point of view. The question as to who should be officially connected with the Government delegation is, of course, a question which has to be determined by all the individuals concerned. Primarily, and rightly, the Government delegation at Geneva for this purpose consists, as is also the case with other Governments, of members of the Government. That, of course, is quite right, because you cannot have two policies or two separate presentations. It is a presentation of the view of the country, for which the Government of the country is responsible. An eminent French statesman, at any rate until recent events in France, was at the head of the French delegation. Dr. Brüning has made the principal speech for the German delegation. Signor Grandi has made a most striking and most important speech on behalf of the Italian delegation. And though it is true that the spokesman for America was one of the Ambassadors of the United States, and not a member of the American Government, that, I believe, is solely due to distance, and he is speaking under the instructions of the American Government.

1786 Therefore, it is clear that each delegation is presenting to the Conference the best contribution that it can, in the main, on behalf of its Government. As far as the British Government are concerned, I say, quite frankly, that we should have been very glad to have had the advantage of daily contact and association with so distinguished and sincere a friend of disarmament as Lord Cecil. I talked the matter over with him in the most friendly terms, and he came to the conclusion, without the smallest ground of quarrel, that in his special position he thought that he would be able to render more service to the cause we all have at heart if he retained his independence. I am not in the least quarrelling with that decision. It seems to have been arrived at, as we all know it would be arrived at in his case, on grounds of the highest patriotism and the most sincere desire to serve the cause of disarmament. It does not represent any division or quarrel, and the best proof of that is that at this very hour I am in the closest touch with Lord Cecil in all these matters.

I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend and this House and the country may rest assured that, although we should have been very glad to have had Lord Cecil formally as one of our members, the situation really ought not to be regarded as representing some defined cleavage of opinion. The truth is, of course, that it would be very foolish for any Government delegate to enter into a Disarmament Conference, with a cut-and-dried programme which no one is ever going to alter, which is incapable of being fluenced by any argument. That is not the spirit in which we went into the Conference.

I had the very grave and, indeed, very difficult responsibility of delivering the first address to the Conference. I was most careful to say, in putting forward a number of concrete proposals, as I did my best to do, that what we were saying at that stage was not exhaustive; that I took those matters as matters of illustration. A conference of this sort cannot succeed unless there is a certain amount of give-and-take as the result of the discussion as it goes on, and I am sure that, although Lord Cecil is not officially connected with the Delegation—which, after all, would have somewhat 1787 tied his hands—he none the less is, in his view and in mine, discharging a most valuable service by remaining, as he does, in control of the League of Nations' Union, and by being in free communication with myself throughout these proceedings. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point, but I would disabuse his mind, or that of anyone else, that we are in the presence of any sharp difference of opinion. Governments have great responsibilities. I do not know that any Government on this matter has had greater responsibilities than this Government has at this moment. I can assure the House that we have undertaken this matter and we will continue to try to dis- 1788 charge it, not with the idea that we have laid down narrowly our exact line of progress and refuse to listen to anything else. We want to go there, as we would on entering into any conference, to try to contribute what we can and to learn from them, and I hope we shall achieve good results in the end.