HL Deb 15 March 1916 vol 21 cc388-93

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. 1. Whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries.
  2. 2. Whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement.
  3. 3. Whether in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement it ought not to be abrogated.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already occupied your Lordships' time at considerable length in regard to the Danish Agreement, but since the subject was last discussed certain matters have arisen which I venture to say fully justify the action that was taken by speakers in this House in the former debate in condemning the advisability of this Agreement. It will be most convenient, I think, if I deal separately with each of the three Questions standing in my name.

With regard to my first Question, your Lordships are aware that under the Danish Agreement agents were to be appointed in Norway and Sweden who were to be responsible for the re-exports to those countries; they were to be there as a security that these re-exports would be used exclusively for Norwegian and Swedish consumption, and would not be passed on for German consumption. Since the Danish Agreement was discussed in this House, Norway and Sweden have both declined to permit the appointment of these agents by the two Danish associations which were named in the Danish Agreement, and they have done so for reasons which appear to me, and which I think will so recommend themselves to your Lordships, as of a very reasonable character. Norway and Sweden take up this position, first of all, on com- mercia1 grounds. They say that such agents, if not actually Danes, would be associated with Danish trading or commercial companies, and they would thereby obtain an unfair commercial advantage over Swedes or over Norwegians as the case may be. I do not think it is necessary to labour that point. The position would be exactly this, that the importers of a foreign country would be in possession of privileges which were denied to local importers. That is the objection on the part of the Norwegian and Swedish Governments to accepting the setting up of these Danish agents. Then there is another point, one which affects the amour propre of the countries themselves. They regard this—and I think it is difficult to regard it otherwise—as an infringement of the sovereignty of their countries. They say—it seems to me with good sense and reason—Why should England make an arrangement with Denmark as to what goods should go to Norway and Sweden from England? I am informed, and I believe it is the case perhaps the noble Marquess, in his reply, will be able to throw some light upon this matter—that the Swedish Ministry are contemplating introducing, if they have not already introduced, a Bill to prohibit any corporation or individual from carrying on business under an Agreement with a foreign country without the sanction of the Swedish Government.

In my second Question I ask whether an goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. The goods that were allowed to pass into Germany under those provisions are generally known to comprise cocoa, coffee, and fruit, among other articles. I do nut want on this occasion, except incidentally, to refer to the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, but I am not stating what is untrue when I say that the issue of that Order in Council a year ago has had the effect for a long time of completely deceiving the public. The fact is that certain distinguished officials in the Foreign Office thought much more of their intellectual abortions, like the Declaration of London, than they did of the interests of the war and of the country in this matter. I am not exaggerating when I say that they invented, with consummate ingenuity, a system which should give to the Navy the appearance, and at the same time prevent them from getting the substance, of what they asked. I rejoice that the whole of this blockade business has been placed in the charge of Lord Robert Cecil, with a distinguished Admiral to help him. I do so if it means —and I have every reason to believe that it does—that this matter will be taken by the Admiralty out of the feeble hands of the Foreign Office. A change of policy and not a reshuffling of officials is the really vital and essential point in this matter. But, my Lords, a great deal has to be done. I am going to give your Lordships only one set of figures. They are extremely eloquent, and I have every reason to know that they are accurate; and if the noble Marquess cares to ask me privately I can tell him the source from which I got them. These figures show that during November last the actual imports into Denmark of cocoa, coffee, and fruit—three articles mentioned in the Danish Agreement—amounted to about 14,000,000 lbs., whereas the normal imports for that month in an ordinary year never exceeded 7,000,000 lbs. There is, therefore, still a great deal of leeway to be made up in meeting the real necessities of the case and excluding all articles from either entering or leaving Germany.

I now conic to my third and last Question, in which I ask whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—"denounced" is the technical word, but I used "abrogated" because I thought it would better convey my meaning to people outside. I understand that at the present moment there are two Danish gentlemen in London actively engaged in negotiating in regard to the Danish Agreement. May I ask the noble Marquess whether Parliament will be consulted before anything is finally concluded in regard to these negotiations? It will certainly be very disquieting to feel that again negotiations are being carried on, and that Parliament and the public, who have such a great, and vital interest in this question, should have no means of knowing what is going on or of being consulted until the thing has been settled and done with. As regards the antagonism referred to in my Question, I understand that Sweden and Norway have refused to allow Danish agents to be appointed in their countries to control the re-exported goods. What I want to know is, As Norway and Sweden object to the appointment of these agents what. remains of the Danish Agreement? Is it to be the case that in future Denmark is to be allowed to re-export goods to any one in Norway and Sweden, who will probably, I should say almost certainly, see that the goods, in view of the inducement of higher prices, go direct to Germany instead of being used, as was intended, for Norwegian and Swedish consumption only? These three Questions I beg to put to His Majesty's Government, and I trust that the noble Marquess may be able to enlighten the House and the country upon this matter.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should reply at once to the three Questions which the noble Earl has put upon the Paper. It will be in his recollection and in that of your Lordships that this subject was very fully debated not many days ago on two separate evenings in this House. Upon that occasion we made it perfectly clear that we had no intention either of publishing the Danish Agreement or of allowing ourselves, by the kind of cross-examination to which the noble Earl likes to subject us, to be led to make disclosures which would give to the public the very information which, for the present at any rate, we desire to withhold. Negotiations are proceeding at this moment—the noble Earl himself is evidently well aware of the fact—and I venture to say that nothing could be more detrimental to the public interest than that we should be required to discuss the details of the matters which are under negotiation or to make a statement which might possibly throw a doubt upon the sincerity of oar policy.

The noble Earl asks me, in the first place, whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries. I really do not know where the noble Earl collects the kind of information which he has been pouring forth upon your Lordships' House during the last few minutes. He told us that we must be aware that it was sought to appoint Danish agents in Norway and Sweden who, he said, were to be responsible for re-exports. He went on to inform us that the Norwegian and Swedish Governments declined to permit the appointment of these agents, that they regarded these proposals as an encroachment upon their autonomy, and that he believed legislation was in contemplation in order to prevent anything of the kind occurring. The noble Earl is apparently supplied with this information from the same sources that throughout this affair have been publishing garbled and incomplete accounts of the Agreement and of everything connected with it. The noble Earl apparently swallows with avidity the kind of stories which are told him, and then comes down—

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

MY information comes from most responsible sources.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Earl, of course, will not tell us what the sources are. I am able to tell him that his information is of the most suspect character and that we have excellent reasons for believing that the kind of information with which he is supplied is purveyed by people who are by no means the friends of this country. I will tell the noble Earl this, that it is the case that there was a question of giving facilities to certain Danish firms having branches in Norway and Sweden to continue re-exporting to those branches in the same way as they had done heretofore, but in point of fact no such arrangements have been made, although I believe there has been some discussion with regard to the possibility of them. I have said enough, I hope, to show that in regard to his first Question the noble Earl has discovered what I can only describe as a first-rate mare's nest.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

Can the noble Marquess categorically tell me that no agents were contemplated to be appointed in Norway and Sweden under the Danish Agreement?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Not only have they not been appointed, but I may tell the noble Earl that in the Articles which he has in his mind the word "agent" does not even occur. Is that enough for the noble Earl?

I pass to the noble Earl's second Question. He asks whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. I am able to tell him that no goods are passing from Denmark to Germany under the exchange provisions of the Agreement.

The third Question which the noble Earl puts is whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—or, as he now suggests, denounced. I venture to tell the noble Earl that this is an improper Question, and one which he ought not to have put upon the Paper of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl has never made any secret of his profound dislike of the Danish Agreement, and I say fearlessly that I believe his object in putting down this Question is to try and discredit, and if possible wreck, that Agreement. His question contains an assumption and a suggestion. The assumption is that Sweden and Norway are in antagonism to the Agreement. That is not an assumption that His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit. His suggestion is that we should abrogate the Agreement. We are not prepared to entertain any such proposal. On the contrary, we believe that the policy upon which this Agreement and others of the same kind are based is a sound policy, and we intend if we can to develop it and to reinforce it, and we are engaged at this moment in trying to do so. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the Danish associations are to the best of our belief carrying out their obligations with perfect honesty, and it is satisfactory to note that quite lately several successful prosecutions have been instituted against firms who sought to evade these obligations, with the result that the firms in question have been mulcted in exemplary damages.

The noble Earl has asked me three Questions. I am going to put one to him. What useful purpose does he think he can serve by putting down Questions like these? Here is a policy which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government and defended by them, a policy to which they are pledged, and which is at this moment producing promising results. It is a policy intended to give advantages to the honourable trade of the neutral Powers and to place hindrances in the way of the trade of our enemy. Does tie noble Earl really expect that the result of his intervention will be to make us drop that policy? The only effect of his speeches, if they have any effect, would be to embarrass the Government of his own country. The destruction of this Agreement is desired by our enemies; it would be most discouraging to our friends; it would involve a slap in the face to a friendly Power; and I say without hesitation that I think it is much to be regretted that the noble Earl should have identified himself with an agitation which seems to me to be inspired by sentiments which are neither wise nor patriotic.