GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES. (Hansard, 20 June 1938)

§ Mr. Mander
I rise to call attention to certain authoritative statements that have recently appeared in the American and Canadian Press with reference to the differences disclosed between the Prime Minister and the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Perhaps I may recall precisely what the late Foreign Secretary said on 21st February: 852 I should not be frank with the House if I were to pretend that it is an isolated issue as between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. It is not. Within the last few weeks upon one most important decision of foreign policy which did not concern Italy at all, the difference was fundamental." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; cols. 48–9, Vol. 332.] No information has ever been supplied to this House or the country, so far as I am aware, on what that difference was about, though various suggestions have been made that it touched matters in different parts of the world, but more recently some light has been thrown upon the subject in an authoritative interview which has appeared in the American and Canadian Press. The document, a portion of which I shall read, is a very interesting one, and it sets out what, I imagine, are the views of the Government in a very clear way, rather illuminating and disturbing, perhaps saying nothing very new but putting it in rather a blunter manner than it is accustomed to be put in this House. The information is new only on one point, and that is the point to which I shall refer.
This document is a cable sent from London on 14th May by Joseph Driscoll to his paper the "Montreal Daily Star." It also appeared in the "New York Herald-Tribune," and a number of other interviews appeared about the same time in the American and Canadian Press. These are the words upon which I rely to show the authoritative nature of the communication—the interview covers a whole series of subjects concerned with foreign affairs, and I can only quote a short portion of it: London, May 14th.—This correspondent is now privileged to shed what can truly be called official light on the real British attitude 853 towards Czechoslovakia, Spain, Abyssinia, not to forget those axis twins, Hitler and Mussolini. The accuracy of what follows cannot be disputed, and the fact that it can be released for publication in the form of background information is a testimonial to the growing desire over here for Anglo-American understanding and co-operation in world affairs. There is only one further extract which I will read before coming to the actual matter. This is interesting though perhaps not new: It is admitted that Britain would like to swing Germany and Italy into a working agreement with Britain and France to keep the peace of Europe. Soviet Russia is excluded on the ground that it does not work well in harness, with the proviso that some day Russia, if she behaves, may be admitted to membership. Now I come to the passage: It is admitted that the United States was the country cryptically referred to by Captain Anthony Eden in resigning the Foreign Secretaryship when he said that, apart from his differences with Mr. Chamberlain over Italy, there was one other source of fundamental disagreement between them. However, Whitehall does not feel at liberty to disclose the nature of the disagreement over America, since Washington is preserving silence, too. All that can be said is that Mr. Chamberlain, as well as Captain Eden, has a high opinion of American friendship and co-operation. The difference, it is implied, was one of method rather than principle, and history will vindicate the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] That may be so, but it is not the point that I am dealing with to-night. I cannot believe that it will be suggested by the Prime Minister that any experienced and responsible journalist would dare to use language of that kind in a despatch to the United States and Canada unless he had some authority for it, and high authority too. I do not know how far it may be desired to go in this matter, and I do not for a moment believe that the Prime Minister will take refuge in throwing it upon the Press and saying that he cannot be responsible for what the Press says. He knows very well that that is not the case in this instance.
No one, on behalf of the Government, has ever before made a statement such as is referred to here. If information about this fundamental difference is to be given at all, it should be given to this House first, and not to the American Press. I am going to ask whether we may have information on that subject to-night. I am not suggesting that there is anything in the least improper in the 854 Prime Minister, or any Cabinet Minister, or anyone else on their behalf, seeing journalists and conveying their views. It is a perfectly proper and natural thing. My point is as to the disclosure of fresh information that has not been made known to anybody before. There are at the present time, as we well know, two views on foreign policy in this country and in the House, one associated with the Prime Minister and one with the late Foreign Secretary. They are widely different, each commanding substantial and considerable support in the country and considerable support in the Conservative party. In order that we and the country may be able to make up our minds as to which is right—[Interruption.] Certainly; the country is entitled to know what is the nature of the difference between the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary. It may be that they have made up their minds but my own belief, without saying which is right, is that as much information as possible should be supplied on this matter.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
May I interrupt the hon. Member?

§ Mr. Mander
I cannot give way because the time is exceedingly limited. In view of the clearly authoritative nature of this interview—[HON. MEMBERS: "With whom?" "What interview?"]—I do not think the Prime Minister will dispute it, as he well knows the circumstances of it—I ask him to say why this disclosure was made to the American Press and not to this House, and what the precise nature was of the difference in regard to America. I hope he will do it, and I hope that the American Government will take similar action on their side of the water.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)
We have known for a long time that the hon. Member likes to pose as the enfant terrible of this House. His sense of humour is extensive and peculiar. He indulges it by endeavouring to stir up mischief, if possible, with other countries with whom he ostensibly desires that this country should retain friendship. In the present case he is hardly as innocent as he has made out. He tells us that no responsible journalist would ever dare to say in any paragraph purporting to give official in- 855 formation: "This cannot be denied" or "This represents exactly the views of official bodies." I must say that he has had very little experience of the manners and methods of journalists if he can really believe that.
In this particular document, of which, for the sake of greater accuracy, I also secured a copy, no statement is made about an interview, although certainly the author does purport to have obtained information which he describes as official. As to the particular passage to which the hon. Member has drawn attention, what is the gravamen of the charge? Apparently it is that a phrase in a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) some four months ago has now been illuminated—although nothing has been said about it during more than four months—in this interview, and that information has been given which the hon. Member declares should have been given to this House. The hon. Member, as he does not know who is the person who provided the information to the journalist—

§ Mr. Mander
I do know.

Hon. Members
Who?

§ The Prime Minister
—has no right to assume that that person is in a position to give the information to this House. What is the passage to which he refers? After referring to this phrase, the journalist goes on to say: However, Whitehall does not feel at liberty to disclose the nature of the disagreement. Therefore, it appears that the journalist did not get the information after all.

§ Mr. Mander
It seems to me that the Prime Minister is trying to evade the issue. The information which the journalist got was that the difference was over America. Is that true or not?

Hon. Members
Quite wrong.

§ The Prime Minister
I do not feel called upon to confirm or deny anything that appeared in a newspaper, without any authority. The hon. Member hoped that by taking up this interview he was going to obtain some information which would satisfy his restless and, I think, rather mischievous curiosity. I do not feel disposed to satisfy him, but to let him go on 856 guessing whether it is correct or not correct to say that it was in reference to some matter connected with the United States of America. What is quite clear is that, whether or not the information was given to the journalist, and although the hon. Member interrupted me just now to say that what he wanted to know was whether it was or was not correct that the statement referred to America, that is not what he said in his speech. What he said was that he wanted to have full particulars of the whole difference. That is precisely what I call exercising a restless and mischievous curiosity.
The hon. Member is not entitled to have full information about every subject discussed between the Government of this country and the Government of another country. In the course of our relations with other countries, a great number of subjects are discussed and a great number of proposals are put forward, sometimes from one side, sometimes from the other. Sometimes they come to fruition and result in action. Sometimes further reflection leads one or other country to the conclusion that it is not desirable or worth while to proceed with the original proposition. Are we to be told that every time something of that kind happens, it must be brought out into the public eye hereafter in order that the hon. Member may make up his mind which side is right.

§ Mr. Mander
No. I suggest only when your Foreign Secretary resigns.

§ The Prime Minister
The late Foreign Secretary did not resign over this incident, at any rate. Therefore, that point is irrelevant to this particular matter. The whole House had full infromation both from my right hon. Friend and myself as to the points of difference on which the late Foreign Secretary did resign. There is no need of any further elucidation of that. The House knows the whole thing from beginning to end. The hon. Member is trying as I say, to fish around and get some information out of which he thinks he can extract some mischief, and, in my opinion, it is not desirable, either from the point of view of the House or the interests of the country, that these matters should be discussed on a fishing inquiry of that kind.

§ Mr. Mander
May I ask the Prime Minister this further question? Did he see this journalist himself?

§ The Prime Minister
As I have said before, I am not going to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. I am not going to attempt to deny or to affirm anything in connection with a statement in this paper or a statement in any other paper at this time or any other time on matters of this or any other kind. That 858 is my final word, arid I do not think there is anything more to be said.