HL Deb 18 July 1922 vol 51 cc516-21
LORD FORRES

My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships to make a personal statement regarding the grave allegations made in another place last evening. I think I am entitled in the first place to complain that these allegations were made without notice either to me or to my partner, Sir Robert Balfour, who was in the House of Commons during the afternoon. I also was in the precincts of this House and the Lobby of the House of Commons until about 7 o'clock, so that there could have been no difficulty in communicating with either of us. The allegations refer to events of five or seven years ago. I may say at once that the statements made are misleading and untrue. Some are of an indefinite nature, but three are specific, and with these I propose to deal as shortly as I can.

My firm were pioneers in the oil fuel business on the west coast of South America, where they acted as agents for the Standard Oil Co. and its subsidiaries. As to Buenos Aires, we have not even a house or any business there. On the outbreak of war they had numerous contracts extending for three or five year periods for the supply of fuel oil for nitrate works and railways. Amongst these were two with important German companies. These were made in Chile, and were expressly declared to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chilian Courts. In 1915 we approached the Government, informing them fully of the position, pointing out at the same time that quite a large section of the trading community in Chile were German or half-German, and that in a neutral country we would have to implement our contracts. We asked for approval of our continuing to deliver oil to these German nitrate companies, and pointed out that if we did not do so we should be subject to claims for damages, and that American concerns, who at that time were not in the war, could deliver direct.

In June, 1915, we received 6, letter in the following terms:—

"Office of the Parliamentary Counsel,

Whitehall.

22nd June, 1915.

"Dear Sir Archibald Williamson,

"Further in reply to your letter of 17th June no objection will be taken under the Acts and Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy to the fulfilment by the firm of Williamson, Balfour & Co. of Valparaiso, of a contract for the sale of Californian fuel oil to be consumed in Chile to representatives in that country of a Gorman nitrate company or to the negotiation of a new contract for the delivery of such oil over a period of three or five years.

"Yours sincerely,

"(Signed) ARTHUR T. THRING."

At a later date under the Trading with the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Act, 1915, a system of licences was introduced for the purpose of permitting transactions in neutral countries, and the Foreign Trade Department was set up at Lancaster House.

We thereupon again approached the Government, informing them of the circumstances, and applied for the necessary licence. On 15th July, 1916, we received a letter written under the instructions of Sir Edward Grey, and signed by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, authorising us until further notice "to act as agents to transact the business of the supply of oil to any person or body of persons whose name is or may hereafter be on the; Statutory List for Chile, Peru, Bolivia or Ecuador, so long as the transactions with such persons or body of persons are in the ordinary course of business and do not include the supply of oil for shipment abroad."

In 1917, America having come into the war, the attitude of the Government changed, and further delivery of oil to the Germans was stopped by us on instructions from the British Government. We had previously had several interviews with Sir Ernest Pollock, who succeeded Sir Laming Worthington-Evans as Controller of the Foreign Trade Department. No step was taken throughout without the cognisance of His Majesty's Government. As was foreseen, when the deliveries ceased the German companies entered a lawsuit against my firm and their principals for non-fulfilment of the contract, claiming a very large sum by way of damages. They took steps in addition to embargo the oil in tanks at the ports, so that supplies were not available for other consumers as well as themselves.

It is stated that pressure was brought to bear upon the Chilian Government by the United States and British Governments, but of that I have no knowledge. All I do know is that the embargo was raised and deliveries were continued to other consumers than the Germans referred to. It is absolutely untrue that the embargo was in any way concurred in by my firm or by the Standard Oil Company, and the idea that we desired to stop the manufacture of a commodity so vital for explosives is too fantastic to require; refutation. As a matter of fact, the nitrate which had been made by the German companies was, I believe, all bought by America and used for the manufacture of explosives for the Allies.

The defence of the action was entrusted to two of the ablest lawyers in Chile, and was conducted in consultation with, and with the assistance of, the late Mr. Hanna. an eminent lawyer and ex-Minister at Ottawa, and Sir Francis Stronge, the British Minister in Santiago. The case, was not settled when the war ended, but has since been compromised at considerable cost, which course, I may say, was strongly recommended by Sir Maurice de Bunsen on his visit with the British Trade Mission to South America.

Thus with regard to the two points— first, the contracts referred to, so far as they were carried out, were implemented with the full knowledge of the British Government at every stage; second, with regard to the defence of the action brought against us, it is absolutely untrue to state that it was not defended with the utmost vigour and with the best legal skill obtainable. There remains only the third point, that I personally had written to my firm in Chile "saying that it was quite unnecessary for them to pay too much attention to the Government Regulations against, trading with the enemy, as he was in a position to see that they did not get into trouble." This statement is absolutely untrue.

As regards the attitude of our firm abroad, they wrote us— Not only have we tried to comply with the Regulations, but have done much on our own initiative to render enemy business impossible, and in this way gone far beyond the mere compliance with the letter of the law. We recall the fact, for instance, that we were the first firm of importance here to shut our doors to German brokers, which we did early in the war. It was we who spontaneously devised and adopted the Jute Guarantee Clause, stipulating that the goods sold should not be resold by our buyers to enemy buyers … You can have no idea on your side of the vigilance we have to exercise throughout all our offices to prevent goods reaching enemy hands, and to avoid being taken in by their many subterfuges in their efforts to obtain them. It is a constant anxiety to us. This anxiety is not diminished by the fact that while we have been urged by the authorities and have done our best to capture German trade, on the other hand the number of reliable men on our staff has grown less as they have gone home to fight. After the enactment of the Statutory Lists, a small Inter-Allied Commercial Committee was formed in Valparaiso, whose efforts were primarily directed to crippling German trade, and to the unmasking of the numerous men of straw who were acting as cloaks for firms of enemy origin and sympathy. One of my partners was an active member of this Committee. The same partner later became Chairman of the British Committee of Information which was established in Chile, to conduct British propaganda, before the Ministry of Information came into being. Help and information was constantly given both to the Legation and the various Consulates in Chile.

I think I am entitled to complain of the reckless nature of these charges, which reflect, not only upon me and upon my partners, but upon the good name of British commerce generally. It is also despicable that they should be brought forward in connection with my becoming a member of your Lordships' House. Four years ago I was offered and declined the honour of a Peerage, and at that time was made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. It is obviously incredible that my name would have been submitted to His Majesty at all if there was any foundation for these wild allegations and outrageous insinuations.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, I think all your Lordships must appreciate how difficult and, indeed, impossible it is for this House, constituted as we are, to form or express an opinion upon charges of this kind, but all of us, I think, must feel deep regret that the first speech addressed by the noble Lord to your Lordships should have necessarily been a speech of this kind and on such a topic. There is very great difficulty and danger in making charges of the most wounding character in circumstances which invest the member who makes those charges with privilege, which places him, in other words, in this position, that whether that which he says is true or false, whether it be said with an honest desire to assist the deliberations of Parliament or whether it be said through faction or spleen, he is absolutely privileged.

The charges in this case were made against the noble Lord who has just spoken. He has told your Lordships, though I apprehend he was not anxious to make the statement, that so long as four years ago he was offered the honour of a seat in this House. I may carry the matter further. The noble Lord entered Parliament in the year 1906, the same year in which I entered the House of Commons, and it is within my knowledge that thirteen years ago he was offered the Chairmanship of the Port of London Authority with a seat in this House. I will add this, that there was no one then in the House of Commons who was in a position to render greater public service by his commercial position and reputation than the noble Lord had he seen his way to accept that honour.

The charge that has been made against him is one which cannot be misunderstood. It is pointless to object, in relation to the acceptance of an honour, that the noble. Lord was trading with the enemy, unless you mean that he was trading with the enemy in circumstances which were improper and discreditable and which make him a traitor. If it. be the fact, as I gather from what the noble Lord has said, that at every stage in those transactions he invited guidance from those people in the Government to whom the decision of these delicate matters was committed, and received guidance and advice under which he consistently acted, he has been cruelly wronged by a charge of this kind being made without notice to himself or to his partner, who is a member of the House of Commons and who might have dealt with the charges if he had known they were to be brought forward.

The course open to Mr. McNeill is a simple one. No man who claims the position and privileges of a member of this House or the other House can afford to make a statement of this kind deeply reflecting upon the honour of a member of another House, unless, if that statement is impeached, he is prepared to make the statement in public in circumstances which are not privileged. I hope that course will be adopted.