§ LORD BRAYE had the following Notice on the Paper—
§ To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to repudiate the secret treaties; and to call attention to a statement made on June 13 last by His Majesty's Government that they had replied to the Pope's Note, and to the fact that no such reply has been as yet received at the Vatican.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed the Question and the statement which appear in my name on the Paper in separate form, but I find they are printed together. I will say only a very few words in reference to the Question. These secret treaties were alluded to in the debate of June 13, and I will take this opportunity of reminding the House of Lord Lansdowne's words that they are not pleasant reading. Secret diplomacy has been condemned by the President of the United States in no measured terms. I may well say that secret diplomacy is a snake in the grass, which poisons and kills all those who tread the field of political expediency. However successful it may be at first, it is sure at last to be the cause of the decline and fall of Empires.
§
With regard to the statement that I have placed on the Paper, it appears that no answer has been given during this very considerable period of time by the British Government to the Note which the Vatican addressed to all the Powers of Europe, and which most of those Powers answered, not only in the form of what I might call "Yours to hand," but in a detailed and dignified way. The best thing I can do in support of my statement is to read a letter which I have received from Rome, an inspired letter written with authority. It contains these words—
Lord Stanmore said that the British Government, in accepting the answer of President Wilson to the Holy Father, did not deem it necessary to reply directly—
This, of course, is an allusion to the Question which I ventured to propound on June 23 in reference to this Note—
but it should be noted that, though the Press gave out reports to such effect, the Holy See has never received a communication from the British Government informing it of this acceptance——
"Acceptance" there I take to be equivalent to association—that is to say, that the British Government professed to, and I
664
believe did, associate itself with the answer which the President of the United States gave on that occasion to the Holy See, and in that sense they accepted and supported and gave their consent to the President's answer. The letter continues—
Therefore no reply has come to the Pontifical Note. When Lord Stanmore goes on to say that no offence was given to the Holy See by excluding it from the Peace Conference, since only the belligerent Powers will participate and all neutrals will be excluded, attention should be directed to the mention solely of the Holy See as agreed upon in Article XV—
That is to say, the Holy See alone is mentioned as the Power to be excluded from any possible Conference which may take place—
There is no mention of other neutrals. By an odious discrimination one alone is singled out for special exclusion; this exclusion gives offence to the Holy See. Obviously Article XV will be deemed offensive as long as it is in force. Therefore the failure of the British Government to reply to the Papal Note was stated correctly in the House of Lords.
As I say, that letter is sanctioned by authority, and if there is any solution to the apparent contradiction which commends itself to me it is this, that the British Government did send an answer of sorts—whatever it was I do not know; we never received the text of it—and they certainly expressed their adhesion to President Wilson's answer, but the reply was not given at Rome by our Envoy to the Pope, That is the only solution that I can conjecture, but if there is any other explanation of the matter I feel sure that the public, not only in this country but also, or more so, in Ireland and in the Colonies, will be very satisfied to have it and to know what actually took place.
§ LORD STANMOREMy Lords, in regard to the first Question asked by the noble Lord, as to whether it is the intention of the Government to repudiate the secret treaties, it is not the intention of the Government to repudiate those treaties. In fact, of course, a secret treaty is in every way just as binding as any other kind of treaty.
In regard to the noble Lord's second Question, he rather gave the impression that no answer of any kind had been returned to the Papal Note. What actually happened was that Count de Salis had an interview with the Cardinal Secretary of State, at which he informed His Eminence that the King had gladly complied with 665 the wishes of the Pope and had at once transmitted to the Heads of the States not in diplomatic relations with the Holy See His Holiness's proposals with regard to peace. Count de Salis added that His Majesty had received those proposals with the most sincere appreciation of the lofty and benevolent intentions which had animated His Holiness, and that His Majesty's Government, would study them with the closest and most serious attention. Shortly after that, as the noble Lord pointed out, the President of the United States made his reply to the Pope's Note, and His Majesty's Government publicly stated that they associated themselves with that reply.
§ LORD BRAYEMay I ask the noble Lord whether the text of this reply will ever be published, or is it what I may call a confidential communication from the Government to the Vatican?
§ LORD STANMOREWhich reply?
§ LORD BRAYEEither or both.
§ LORD STANMOREThe fast was in an interview.
§ LORD BRAYEI understood there was an answer conveyed by Count de Salis, and then alter a considerable lapse of time, several weeks, there was another answer to the effect that we adhered to the reply of the President of the United States. There were two occasions.
§ LORD STANMOREThe first answer was conveyed in an interview, the substance of which I have given to the noble Lord. The second statement was made publicly in the House of Commons.