§ LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the statements recently made by the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject of Chanak and the proposed Treaty with Egypt; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on more than one occasion I have attempted to draw your Lordships' attention to opinion in our Dominions, and particularly in our great Dominion of Canada, on general questions of foreign or peace policy. More than once I have asked that documents might be produced, and particularly on one occasion when, in the Canadian Parliament, the same request was made, and the answer was given that the Canadian Government would have been perfectly ready to produce the documents, 737 but that the Home Government had raised an objection. Now, only such a short time ago as March 26, a very remarkable speech was made in the Dominion House of Commons in Canada on questions such as we have been already dealing with to a certain extent to-night—namely, on questions of world policy in connection with peace. I am one of those who think that what has been called the spirit of a peace policy is essential if you are to meet with success in the promotion of a real world settlement in the future, and it is upon that particular point that I want to call the attention of the noble Marquess.
§
On March 26 Miss Macphail, who is a member of the Dominion House of Commons, brought in what one would call in this country a pacifist resolution. That pacifist resolution was talked out, and therefore I do not put any particular weight upon what she said, because I want to point out what was said on this occasion by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister. I have a resumé of what he said here:
His Government, he contended, was whole-heartedly committed to a pacific policy.
It may be said that many Governments have said that. But Mr. Mackenzie King went beyond that point, and said that he would give two illustrations which would show the reality of the facts on which he made the statement. The Prime Minister of Canada said this first of all in regard to the Chanak affair, which of course was in 1922, though I had no idea that his statement would go so far. It is stated that—
he claimed"—
this is one of the reasons he gave for the reality of his pacific policy—
credit for averting a serious European War by the stand over the Chanak affair in 1922.
In other words, what he says is that had the Canadians been prepared at that time to send their forces in connection with the Chanak affair, in his view there would have been another European war. We know, of course, that they would not do that, and that they stood out against it. But the claim he makes requires very deep consideration—that because they stood out, and in consequence of the attitude of Canada, the danger of what he calls a European war was prevented.
§
Then he goes on to say—and this seems to me to be extremely important, and I ask the noble Marquess whether he can lay Papers—that
within the last few months his Government had been asked whether it would be a party to the Treaty which was being negotiated between Great Britain and Egypt. Having examined the terms and discovered that the Treaty involved both military sanctions and a military alliance, the Ministry felt that Canada's adhesion would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or larger world peace.
And he goes on to say, in expressing this opinion, that the Canadian Parliament would not endorse the Treaty.
§ We have had several discussions in recent years as to the exact status of what is called the sovereign independence of our Dominions at the present time. That was more particularly recognised after the Imperial Conference of 1926. I agree it is recognised—at least it seems to me to be recognised—that no Dominion can be called in to help this country apart from its own consent and, in the case of Canada, the consent of the Dominion House of Commons. There may be a further difficulty under International Law, which is present to our minds and which I need not discuss this evening. Those two instances show, what I have always felt to be the case, that our Dominions have adopted a more peace-loving policy than we have. That is more particularly true of Canada. It is also in accord with what I found at Geneva, that the representatives of all the Dominions were in favour of what I would call the high-water mark of international peace policy. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can lay any Papers upon the table in reference to what appears to me to be an extraordinary statement by the Canadian Prime Minister. It is entirely in accordance, I may say, with the opinion of M. Dandurand, who has represented Canada at Geneva on many occasions. He was always in favour of settling disputes by other methods than war; I do not say merely as a pious opinion, but in actual practice. And I have several times noticed indications of the same spirit in the discussions in the Dominion Parliament. But here is an actual statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, who says: I stopped a European war at one time, and I would not take part in the Egyptian Treaty because in my view 739 it was military, and would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or a larger world peace policy.
§ It has often been said that the Dominions and the Mother Country together exercise a great influence for peace. I do not deny it for a moment. What I want to emphasise is that there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who has studied what has passed in many of our Dominions—I need not go into all of them, and the statement of the Prime Minister of one of them is before your Lordships—that they are earnestly desirous of doing all they can practically and in action (it is not merely a matter of pious talk) to promote a real peace policy both in the Empire and in the world. I do not deny for a moment, of course, that our Government desires peace. All Governments desire peace. What I say is that in discussing the position of the Dominions on the question of a peace policy they do not give sufficient weight to the real peaceful opinion which exists in those Dominions at the present time. I know that at Locarno permission was given, as it were, to the Dominions not to come under any obligation. I know also that, as between the Dominions and ourselves, we can determine that no such obligation shall be undertaken. But while there is one sovereignty over the whole Empire we cannot avoid the fact, under International Law, that if one part of our sovereign Dominions is at war, it may mean war for the whole. That is not within our power or jurisdiction. It is a necessary inference, and probably always will be, from one of the primary principles upon which International Law is founded.
§ On the occasion to which I have already referred—and the occasion is less important—Mr. Bourassa, who is well known as a pacifist in Canada, also made a statement. He said that Canada had a right to preserve a neutrality in all cases. I do not agree with that, and I will say no more. It is a matter which has been discussed lately between General Hertzog and General Smuts. It may be a matter for discussion at some subsequent time, and I do not want to discuss it now. But will the noble Marquess give us further information as to what it was that passed in relation to the Treaty between Egypt and ourselves, 740 which caused Mr. Mackenzie King to make to the world the statement I have quoted, on the ground—and here I am entirely with him, though I do not know the particular facts—that a peace policy would promote the interests of the Empire, and that anything outside a peace policy would be detrimental (and it certainly would be) both to the interests of the Empire and to the world at large. I ask the noble Marquess whether he can give your Lordships any further information and Papers on that point. I beg to move.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, with regard to the closing words of the noble and learned Lord's speech, he will recognise, or I hope he recognises, that the object of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain is precisely the same as the policy which he has ascribed to His Majesty's Government in Canada—namely, to preserve peace. There is no difference between us on that great issue. Of course, we are intent upon preserving peace. But, undoubtedly, the relations between the various component parts of the Empire in respect of these high matters are of some difficulty. The noble and learned Lord went back a great many years—right back to the incidents of 1922. He quoted an observation by Mr. Mackenzie King on the subject of what is known as the Chanak incident. The facts are agreed, up to a certain point at any rate. Undoubtedly the Canadian Government were asked to associate themselves with the British Government at that time, and were asked whether they would be represented by a military contingent in case military action was required in those regions. I have personally no responsibility at all for the action of the then Government. It is true that subsequently to that question and that answer there were no military operations, but I would not like to lay it down that the result was entirely due to the action of the Canadian Government. My recollection, for what it is worth, is that there was a very strong feeling in this country against military operations on that occasion, and I think it would not be rash to say that the strong opinion expressed in this country had at any rate a partial effect, just as much as the opinion in Canada had, in bringing that question to the end which it reached.
741 I turn to the more recent case of Egypt. We are under a difficulty in discussing that matter. The noble and learned Lord was under the same difficulty as myself. We have not yet received the whole text of Mr. Mackenzie King's observations. We have only a very summary telegraphic report to go upon. I must do my best to answer the noble and learned Lord with that very important limitation. I have to say that in all the negotiations which led up to the draft Treaty with Egypt, the Dominion Governments were kept fully informed of every step which was being taken, but the terms which were proposed to the Egyptian Government, as the noble and learned Lord will recognise if he reads the draft, were expressly limited to the relations between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and Egypt and on the face of it did not include any of the Dominion Governments. If he wishes for the reference he will find it on page 36 of the White Book which has been distributed. He will see that the British Plenipotentiary was named by "His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; for Great Britain and Northern Ireland," so that there was no question at any time of asking the Dominions to take part in being responsible for the Treaty or the results of the Treaty.
What was done was this. Their concurrence in the general policy embodied in the Treaty was asked for, which is a very different thing from asking people to be parties to the Treaty. I admit that diplomatic language of this kind is necessarily very technical, but there is the broadest distinction in principle between asking the Dominion Governments for their concurrence in the general policy of the Treaty and asking them to be parties to it. With regard to the second, that never entered into the heads of His Majesty's Government here. All the Dominions replied to this request and they all expressed themselves satisfied with the prospect held out to them that there would be an agreement, or might be an agreement—unhappily it has not yet taken place—on this subject with the Government of Egypt. I need not say they raised no objection 742 whatever to the terms. That I take to be the situation.
The noble and learned Lord says that he would like to have Papers laid upon this subject. I am afraid I am not able to gratify him. There is, of course, the White Book and he will find in the White Book references in my right hon. friend's Despatches to this request for the concurrence of the Dominions and to the fact that he records having received answers from them, but if I am asked to go any further in laying Papers upon the Table I am bound to say that the Government do not think it in the public interest to comply with that request. I do not myself see that anything is required except the frankest exchange of views between the various Governments of the Dominions and of the Mother Country. If these views are to be frankly exchanged then confidence is absolutely essential and it is not possible, if we are to speak out to each other as we ought to speak out, that everything should be laid before Parliament and in that way published to the world.
The noble and learned Lord has gone into the very difficult subject of the actual relations between the Dominions and the Mother Country and the international status which they occupy. I am not going to follow the noble and learned Lord into that subject. The bonds which unite us are not legal bonds. We are as members of the same family. A brother or a sister is not bound to support the action of their relative, but the bond is none the less a real one between them, and it is of bonds of that kind that the bonds between the Dominions and the Mother Country consist. We do not ourselves claim for a moment that we have any control over the independent action of the Dominions. They are self-governing Dominions, but we do not for that reason abandon our confidence in the bond which unites us. We believe, and being Englishmen we believe all the more, that it is a matter of feeling and not a matter of obligation; at any rate in the great experiment of the British Empire we are prepared to face the future relying upon that point. I do not think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord will gain anything either for himself or—what he cares for much more— 743 for the country, by trying to make precise a relation which, powerful though it is, is not capable of being described in precise language.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I should like to say a word or two in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess, not by way of making any complaint, but by way of elucidation. As regards the last part of his speech, no one—at any rate I think no one—feels more strongly than I do what he has denoted by the family relationship, but what I would indicate to him is that if you leave a lot of undetermined obligations, particularly as regards questions of international rights, then, however strong the family relationship may be, you run the risk of a breach, a risk which ought to be avoided, which is a very different proposition. I did not enter into these matters to-night, and I explained the reason why I did not do so, but I certainly feel very strongly that these questions ought to be elucidated in the sense of the members of the family coming to a common determination of what they desire and of what their attitude ought to be. I cannot see myself that there is the slightest inconsistency between that and what he calls the family relationship. On the contrary, to make the family relationship as strong as possible you must avoid unnecessary disputes.
On another point I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Marquess. I do not think that frankness and publicity are inconsistent. I know that is the old diplomatic view, but I am strongly in favour of publicity in all these matters and the essence of publicity is that there should be frankness. There is very little good in publicity unless you have frankness. It is very important in my view, because undoubtedly, as the noble Marquess knows very well, the whole outlook as regards Geneva and our foreign policy and the peace of the world must be and ought to be very largely influenced by the opinion of our great Dominions. There is only one other point, and that is one which I think the noble Marquess misunderstood. When I quoted the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, my point 744 had no relation as to nearness or farness. I quoted him as representative of Canadian thought. I will not go back to the opinion about Chanak—no doubt there are different views about that and I am not prepared to hold the balance between them—but there is no doubt as to what is the view of Mr. Mackenzie King and there is no doubt that as Prime Minister of Canada he largely represents Canadian opinion. It is Canadian opinion I care about. Canadian opinion is the important point, and if I may refer to one other passage as regards this altered relationship between us and Egypt, I would point out that Mr. Mackenzie King expressed the opinion that the Canadian Parliament would not endorse the Treaty. That is a matter to be considered. Whether we asked them to do it or not is, I think, a different matter altogether.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWe did not ask them.
§ LORD PARMOORI will deal with that in a moment. If you want family Dominion opinion expressed as it ought to be expressed, as a common opinion which we all hold, then of course you ought to pay great attention to what the views of a great Dominion like Canada are. That was my point. I accept what the noble Marquess said that their opinion was not asked. I should have hoped it had been asked.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Lord must not in these very delicate matters read into my speech any words I did not use. They were undoubtedly asked to concur in the general policy. They were not asked to be parties to the Treaty.
§ LORD PARMOORThat emphasises my point, because what was said by the Prime Minister of Canada, as regards the view of the Canadian Government and the Canadian Parliament, was undoubtedly on the general question and not on the details of the Treaty. He said it was a military Treaty to be supported by military means and he thought it was not for the good of the peace of the Empire or the peace of the world. I should like to emphasise again that there is no difference between the noble Marquess 745 and myself. I said that in the family outlook we ought to go together, and if we do that, to use an expression with which I think the noble Marquess will agree, I am sure the Empire may be made the most potent factor in the world for peace throughout the whole world. I will not press my Motion for Papers.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.