§ THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE,
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIR.S (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEPLESTON)My Lords, it will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships House that I should make a brief statement about the course of business. When we separated at the end of August a purely arbitrary date was fixed in the middle of October at which the adjournment should end in case a resumption of our business was required because of the condition of public affairs. At that time, as your Lordships will remember, it was contemplated that the subject which might bring us again together in the autumn would be the condition of Ireland, and it may well be that before the year is ended, or at any rate not long afterwards, your Lordships may be discussing that matter.
In the interval, however, the unemployment problem, already serious, has become more acute and has reached a stage at 2 which it clearly demands the sustained attention of the Government and the cooperation of Parliament. We have, therefore, taken advantage of the adjournment till to-day to ask both Houses of Parliament to reassemble in order to discuss this question and to hear the proposals of the Government upon it. It is proposed to devote this part of the session, so far as legislation is concerned, exclusively to that matter. That is to say, no legislation dealing with other subjects will be laid before either House of Parliament by the Government.
As regards the unemployment problem itself this is dealt with partly by administrative methods and partly by the contemplated legislation to which I refer. It would be premature at this stage to indicate the exact nature of the proposals it is proposed to introduce, but they will be in all probability four in number. With respect to some of them Resolutions have to be introduced into the House of Commons before the Bills themselves are brought forward, and I do not anticipate that any of these Bills will be in a position to reach your Lordships' House until the middle of next week at the earliest. A full statement with regard to them will be made by the Prime Minister in another place to-morrow. It is not in my power, and if it were it would not be right for me, to anticipate that to-day, and as regards the character and details of the measures themselves I think your Lordships will prefer to await the occasion when they come in a more 3 mature form before you rather than have what could only be an unsatisfactory and a premature discussion at an earlier stage.
With reference to other matters outside the sphere of legislation, of course, while your Lordships' House is sitting, this bench, and I in particular, will be at your disposal for any subject about which you may solicit information. I do not know what are the desires of your Lordships' House in that respect, but my own inclination would be to suggest that in view of the circumstances that I have described your Lordships would do well to adjourn for a week, let us say, unless any noble Lord desires to raise a discussion on any matter of importance in the interval. Should the latter he the case we shall be ready to meet him, but in the period over which the session lasts, which I think is likely to be between two and three weeks—probably nearer three weeks than two—should we adjourn now for a week there will still be an ample opportunity for this bench to give your Lordships information on any other matter of public interest concerning which you may desire it. So much for public business.
Your Lordships will, I think, expect me to take advantage of the present opportunity to make a public announcement on a matter concerning which information has already appeared to some extent in the Press—namely, the composition of the British delegation at Washington. Every section of public opinion in the country has witnessed with extreme satisfaction the announcement that the Prime Minister himself proposes, should Parliamentary and general political conditions permit of it, to go at the head of the British delegation to Washington. He will be accompanied by Mr. Balfour and Lord Lee of Fareham, as representing the Admiralty. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in a tribute of formal gratitude to Mr. Balfour for being willing, in addition to the many public labours that he has recently undertaken, to add this further service, and you will recognise, in view not only of his position and prestige at home but of the almost unexampled influence that he acquired during his visit to America when she entered the war, that no more fitting exponent of British views than he could possibly have been found.
From many points of view I should like, as Foreign Secretary, to have gone to Washington myself. The problems of the 4 Far East and the Pacific are questions which in the course of my public life I have had many occasions to study and I have several times also visited those regions. But your Lordships will, I think, understand that in the present position of affairs it is well-nigh impossible for the head of the Foreign Office to be absent from this country for any length of time, and that the Conference itself is not likely to be short. Further, I happen to be engaged at the moment in the conduct of negotiations or inquiries of some importance which it is quite impossible for me to suspend. I should further have liked to be present because I am one of those who entertain the most confident hope that there lies in the possession of this Conference the material for arriving at an honourable and a happy solution of the very difficult questions arising out of the Far East and the Pacific, and I should dearly have liked to join in the effort to bring its labours to a successful conclusion. However, I have had to put these personal wishes in the background.
As regards the other members of the delegation, should the Prime Minister not be able to attend at the start or should he or any other of the delegates be prevented from attending at any other period during the Conference, the place so vacant will be taken by Sir Auckland Geddes, the British Ambassador at Washington. As regards the Dominions and India, it was arranged at the recent Imperial Conference that His Majesty's Government should represent the whole Empire at Washington. In view, however, of the vital importance of the subjects to be considered at the Conference on Disarmament, it. was felt to he very desirable that the Dominions should be represented by their Prime Ministers themselves, or, if this proved impossible, by persons nominated by them. None of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions has found it possible to attend in person, and the following have been nominated to represent their respective Dominions on the British Empire Delegation—Sir Robert Borden, for Canada; Senator Pearce, for Australia; Sir John Salmond, for New Zealand; and Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, for India. General Smuts has decided to leave the interests of the Union to the representative of the British Government, who were made fully acquainted with his views at the recent Imperial Conference. Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty will be the senior British 5 naval expert at the outset of the Conference, and will be succeeded in due course by Admiral Chatfield. General Lord Cavan will be the principal military expert, and Air Vice-Marshal Higgins will represent the Air Minister. Sir Maurice Hankey will be the British Secretary of the British Empire Delegation.
That is I think, the stun and substance of die communication I have to make to your Lordships about the Conference, and it only remains for me in resuming my seat to express, as I am surt, I may on behalf of the whole House, our earnest wishes of success for our representatives at what will certainly be one of the most momentous international meetings that have ever taken place, and our confident hopes that, under the guidance of Providence and with the co-operation of the statesmen who will be assembled at Washington from all parts of t he world, results may be obtained which will enure to the general peace and welfare of mankind.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMY Lords, I am certain that all of us will reecho the words of the noble Marquess in respect of the Washington Conference. We all view its assembly with the greatest interest and satisfaction, and we nil have an earnest hope that it may lead to fruitful results. I rise principally to say one word upon business. The noble Marquess has been good enough to tell us that he does not think any business with reference to unemployment will reach your Lordships' House until, at the earliest, the middle of next week. I understand that the Bills are to be introduced in another place tomorrow. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the form of the Bills will leave it open to this House to make a useful contribution to their framing?
Your Lordships will remember that, at the latter part of our sittings in August, a Bill of some importance came before us, which we had sonic hopes we should be allowed to have a share in modelling, but owing to its being certified to be a Money Bill that was not permitted under the rules of privilege which prevail in the Constitution. We are therefore specially anxious to know whether, on the present occasion, with reference to unemployment, the same difficulty will arise. There is nothing in the fact that a Money Resolution is necessary, as the noble Marquess said, for the introduction of the Bills, to constitute them 6 Money Bills technically as between the two Houses of Parliament, and it would be a matter of some regret to your Lordships if the framing of the Bills was withdrawn from them. I have no desire to suggest that there may be any wish to amend these Bills in any vital particular—it would be very premature to sac any such thing, and I have no reason to anticipate it at all—but we should like to know whether the Bills are to be Money Bills.
There is one other matter. The noble Marquess said that lie was quite prepared to meet any Question which might he raised in any quarter of the House, and now that Parliament is again in session I believe it to be the fact that several noble Lords are anxious to have a discussion upon the state of things in India, and if it were convenient to the noble Marquess we would venture to suggest that that discussion might take place upon this day week, which is the day he mentioned for the re-assembling of t he House. No doubt your Lordships will be glad to hear that it is proposed to adjourn the House for a week, as, indeed, the whole of these sittings come upon us rather as a surprise, after what happened last summer; and if at the end of a week we re-assemble, then I venture to suggest to the noble Marquess that that would he a convenient day for a debate upon India.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, I desire to say nothing upon the subjects which were referred to by the noble Marquess, and I wish to say a few words only upon one which was most notably omitted. I refer to Ireland, and I wish to know if the noble Marquess can assure us that., at the earliest possible moment, information will be laid before this House as to the progress and the prospect of the negotiations that are now taking place with regard to the future government of Ireland. Uninformed discussion upon such a matter can only be productive of mischief, and it may be that the noble Marquess will think that premature disclosure might have the same effect. I am sure, however, that he will bear in mind that in this House there are many men who, although they look at this question from different points of view, are all most deeply concerned in the issue of these events, and I at least think that whatever information can be bestowed should be given to us, and that it ought not to be permitted to leak, through authorised and unauthorised channels, 7 into the newspapers, before proper information is placed in the proper way before the Houses of Parliament.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, before the noble Marquess replies to the questions that have been put to him there is one question that I would like to ask him about the legislation of which he has spoken. As I gather, there are four Bills which the Government propose to present to Parliament. They will have to be introduced in the other House—so I understood from him —and in that case the discussion here will have to take place on those Bills when they come up to us, and it may not be easy to conduct the discussion on one unless the others have proceeded considerably further. That being so, the week of which he spoke seems to me to be a somewhat narrow estimate of the time required to elapse between their introduction in the other House and the arrival of the Bills in this House. It is possible the noble Marquess meant that there might be some general discussion of another kind, but I rather gathered that his intention was to recommend to the House that the discussion should take place on the Bills themselves. If so, I do not at present see that we have any prospect of getting them here in a full and satisfactory form by the end of the week.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, I will reply to the questions that have been put to me. First of all, as regards the discussion upon the state of India, I can well understand that there will be many members of your Lordships' House, possessing, as so many of you do, great and authoritative first-hand knowledge of India, who would wish to have information upon the matter, and personally I see no objection to putting clown a Question or Motion on the subject for the date mentioned by the noble Marquess—namely, this day week; but I should like, before giving a pledge upon the matter, to be in a position to consult the Secretary of State, as the suggestion comes to me at the moment with novelty.
As regards the Bills concerning which questions have been put to me by Lord Salisbury and Lord Haldane, I think I must have expressed myself rather obscurely to have produced such an impression upon the mind of the noble and learned Viscount as that which he indicated. What I meant to convey was that whilst the whole 8 of the Bills must necessarily be introduced in another place, it will not be before the middle of next week, at the earliest, that the first of them will reach your Lordships' House—at least, so I am informed by those responsible for the arrangements in another place. Your Lordships may well believe that the Bills will be of varying character and importance, and I did not mean to say that we should wait for discussion here until the whole lot could be, so to speak, shovelled on the Table at once. I hope that we may be able to proceed with them one by one as they come from another place, and such, I believe, will be the procedure that your Lordships will wish to adopt.
The noble Marquess put a Question as to whether a useful opportunity for discussion would be provided to the House by reason of the nature of the Bills themselves. A good deal turns upon the meaning you attach to the word "useful" in that context. It is obvious that in dealing with this problem, in which large sums of money may conceivably have to be provided, the majority will be Finance Bills, without any straining of the interpretation to be placed upon that word. In fact I think that out of the four Bills three are certain to be Money Bills, whatever interpretation of the term you may apply. I believe that one is not likely to be a Money Bill; but I hope that your Lordships will not draw from that remark the conclusion that any attention you may bestow on those Bills will be thrown away. I had rather looked forward to a situation in which we should have an opportunity of hearing from the great experts their views upon the situation in general, and upon the problem of unemployment, the question of finance, and so on, and the fact that your Lordships are not at liberty to make alterations in the phraseology or terms of the Bills does not, I think, at all dispense you from the honourable duty of contributing to the sum of popular knowledge on the subject, whatever you may be in a position to do yourselves.
The other subject that was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, was that of Ireland. With what he said I am in substantial agreement. The eyes of every one of us are directed with anxious curiosity upon Downing Street. Not being a member of the Conference, I am not, except for such information as I obtain from my colleagues, in a better position to give information than 9 anybody else. It is obviously extremely desirable that great reticence should be observed and that premature communications should not be made to the Press. I am bound to say that I think that so far that reticence, which is an obligation of honour, has been scrupulously observed by both sides in the Conference. Although they have been sitting for a week not one scintilla of information, so far as I know, has appeared in the organs of public opinion.
The noble and learned Lord, very wisely, drew attention to the dangers of premature disclosure. You might very easily break down the negotiations by letting out something at too early a stage. On the other hand, you may confidently rely upon the desire of the Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, not to keep Parliament in the dark and I think it is quite safe to say that, as soon as any statement can be made with safety upon the nature of the negotiations, or the points which they have reached, it will be made—and made, of course, in both Houses of Parliament. I fully recognise that your Lordships 10 are just as profoundly interested in the matter, and have just as great a right as perhaps in some respects a greater right than—the members of another place to information upon it, and as soon as any communication can be made consistently with the interests that I have named, you may be certain that either the Lord Chancellor, who is representing this House upon the Committee, or I will make it to your Lordships' House.