FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

HL Deb 01 July 1936 vol 101 cc376-402

LORD RENNELL rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to some apparent lack of consistency in the utterances of Ministers on questions of foreign affairs, and to ask how far such public utterances by members of the Government, other than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, represent the collective opinion of the Cabinet; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to explain the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, let me begin by saying that as it deals particularly with foreign affairs, it has not been inspired in any spirit of partisanship either towards or against any particular country, I always try to look at all these questions as far as possible objectively, and I repudiate the idea of being considered to be either "anti" or "pro" anyone except the interests of our good selves. I am very sorry to see that the noble Earl who is in the habit of answering generally questions connected with foreign affairs is unable to be here to-day, as he is away on a more important mission, as we all know. However, my intention is really to draw attention to a general situation rather than to elicit answers to specific questions which I do not think would be, perhaps, particularly easy to answer. I have felt a good deal of sympathy with the complaint which is frequently made to me by my foreign friends—that is to say, there are in this country at the present time so many official voices, not to mention the large number of unofficial voices, dealing with foreign affairs, who express themselves in ways that are not always consistent or identical. Therefore, my foreign friends tell me they find it very difficult sometimes to gauge the real direction of our foreign policy. It is perhaps on account of this uncertainty that is felt with regard to our real orientation that on the other side of the Channel we find ourselves—I shall not say in authoritative quarters, but in the ordinary manifestation of popular opinion and in a certain section of the Press—continually the objects of a far from friendly criticism; I always like to understate rather than overstate these matters. This is to my mind unfortunate and without any real justification.

The commitments which we have undertaken to France in Western Europe are absolute and definite, and so far as my experience goes they are not even resented in a Germany which has constantly and repeatedly disavowed any aggressive aims against a peaceful France. In the East and in the Far East, where more than one grave Asiatic problem perplexes the horizon, we have obviously a common interest with France in safeguarding our maritime communications and in promoting prosperity and security of our Asiatic dominions. There is therefore every reason for a more genial spirit of good will which I am always hoping to see established. As regards more immediate issues in the West, the Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised the importance of German co-operation in restoring confidence and the necessity, as its basis, of a good understanding between Great Britain, France, and Germany. In the last country the assurances of the Prime Minister that the Chancellor's proposals of last March were deserving of very serious consideration have given great satisfaction. Mr. Eden has also expressed himself much in the same manner. This, therefore, is presumably the policy of His Majesty's Government. In making such a pronouncement, the Prime Minister has shown himself altogether in line with a very large body of opinion in this country which holds that, since the Great War, Germany has not always had quite a fair deal, while an unfortunate impression perhaps has also been made more recently by the completion of her encirclement through the Franco-Soviet Pact.

It is not only with popular opinion in this country that I believe him to be in line, but I have gathered from conversations with not a few of my French friends that, though politicians may for their own reasons be reluctant to admit it, the mass of the people of France are really very anxious to see a better understanding with Germany, which would offer them that assurance of peace to which they all most ardently aspire. If the people in all three countries are really anxious for this understanding, no political prejudices or combinations will permanently avert it. In virtue of these developments, there seemed to be appreciable to me at least in April last a certain lightening of the international horizon. To this a further contribution was made by the steadily-growing conviction that sanctions, having failed to achieve the objects which were contemplated by their institution in the League Covenant, must be dropped. This growing conviction certainly justified the lead given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the country, if not to the Government, for it must be assumed they had already made up their minds in spite of some very appreciable divergence on the part of some of their followers.

But there has been a lack of progress, if not really a set-back, in this process of clearing the horizon, and if the Prime Minister was right, as I have no doubt he was, in emphasising the importance of enlisting German co-operation, I certainly have some doubts whether he has received the best co-operation to that end from some of his colleagues. I would try to explain this by one or two examples. Let me first, for a moment, consider the correspondence published in the White Paper (Miscellaneous No.6) of 1936, which I have here, dealing with the German proposals and the preliminary reply which they elicited here. In a Despatch of May 6 last to Sir Eric Phipps certain points in the Memoranda which had been communicated by the late German Ambassador and Herr von Ribbentrop are indicated by Mr. Eden as requiring further elucidation before any negotiations could be opened. To a request for more precise information on certain points no exception could, of course, be taken. On the other hand, I felt considerable surprise, which I find is shared by many others, at the first point on which clarity is said to be desirable—namely, whether Germany regards herself as now in a position to conclude genuine treaties.

The paragraph in which this question is raised goes on to say that negotiations for a treaty would be useless if one of the parties thereafter felt free to deny its obligations on the ground that this party was not at the time in a condition to conclude a binding treaty. That there might be a doubt on the subject is said to be derived from the phrasing of passages in paragraph (2) of Herr von Ribbentrop's notes of March 24 which I have here. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading it, because this paragraph, after setting forth the premises essential to the making of binding agreements, states in the concluding sub-paragraph that, by the restoration of her sovereignty in her own territory, Germany has created the necessary conditions which will enable her to conclude such genuine treaties. Moreover, when the proposals for the creation of a system of peaceful security in Europe were first submitted by Herr Hitler through the German Embassy in London on March 7 last, the concluding paragraph of these proposals, in announcing that Germany was willing to re-enter the League of Nations, gave as a reason for this decision "that Germany's equality of rights and the restoration of her full sovereignty over the entire territory of the German Reich had now been attained."

In view of these statements the question which Sir Eric Phipps was instructed to raise as to whether Germany considered herself now in a position to conclude genuine treaties appears to me to have been very superfluous. In any case it would surely have been more appropriate, while embodying the very words of the text in our reply, to acknowledge the announcement that Germany now regarded as established the conditions which would enable her to conclude genuine treaties rather than to suggest that certain phrases in paragraph (2) of Herr von Ribbentrop's note of March 24 might be susceptible of a different interpretation which His Majesty's Government would be reluctant to draw. I may be told, though I am still to be convinced, that there was genuine doubt upon this point. But in drafting diplomatic documents the manner in which they may be read by others than those to whom they are addressed must always be borne in mind, and the form adopted in our reply might, it seems to me, also be open to the interpretation of some suspicion of disingenuousness which I am quite sure His Majesty's Government also would not wish it to convey. That is one case.

Again, quite recently, in company with many who appreciate the great importance of the Prime Minister's declaration regarding the German proposals, I have been unpleasantly surprised by the report which has reached us of a speech made by the Secretary of State for War on the 24th June at the Cercle Interallié in Paris, a speech which seems, moreover, to have been regarded by the Minister of State who spoke on behalf of the French Government, as indicating between the lines even more than it actually said. While negotiations with regard to the German proposals are still pending and an answer is still being awaited to questions one of which seems to me in its actual form scarcely felicitous, the moment surely was an unfortunate one for the resuscitation of the much-discussed pronouncement that the frontier of Great Britain was on the Rhine, with the addition that she shared with France ideals even more precious than that common frontier. We may be justified in feeling critical—I do not say we are not—of many recent developments in modern statecraft elsewhere, but whatever we may feel, surely there are times when we should also appreciate the soundness of what the French have so well embodied in the proverbial formula Toute véerité n'est pas bonne à dire. To choose the present occasion to proclaim that the ideals as well as the frontiers of both the British and the French were in mortal danger seems to me to have been incredibly inopportune. I should have thought it more incredible still had it not been clearly stated in another place, that this speech had before it was delivered been submitted to the Foreign Office.

It was also said there that the report of the speech as it appeared in the French Press was more anodyne than the reports of it which were telegraphed to the newspapers here. I was anxious to verify this, but having been occupied the whole of to-day until four o'clock and the whole of yesterday in a Committee room I fell back on the resource which I hoped would prove fruitful of looking for a copy of a French newspaper in your Lordships' Library. I found, to my surprise, that motives of economy had caused the withdrawal of the only foreign newspaper, Le Temps, to which we were able to subscribe and therefore we cannot get a broader outlook of what is going on abroad. I wonder if there is any other Senate or legislative Chamber in the world which cannot afford to subscribe to The Times.

I will not multiply instances—other speakers may have something to say about them—and I will conclude by saying that I seem to have noted of late a growing tendency on the part of Ministers to depart from or disregard the obligations implied by the old-established principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. In these days of intensive publicity, and an acute international sensibility, always on the watch, which still regards the utterances of Ministers as representing the opinion of the Government and of the country, I find this tendency regrettable and perhaps dangerous. I beg to move.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for having raised this matter for discussion this afternoon. It is quite true that there was a debate upon it in another place on Monday, but it would be an entire mistake to suppose that everything about it was said then. There is indeed a lot more to be said and I intend to say some of it. I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for other noble Lords who sit on these Benches, but I am certainly not going this afternoon to make what would be called a Party attack. I think the matter is far too grave for that. Moreover, speaking for myself I am by no means wholly a critic of the foreign policy of this Government. At any rate they have kept the country out of war, though if more speeches like that of the Secretary of State for War in Paris to which the noble Lord referred are to be delivered it is virtually certain that war will come at no distant date.

That speech has excited, as surely it was inevitable it would excite, an enormous amount of contention and criticism. It is true that the Government have contended that the War Minister did not advocate a military alliance with France or indeed any alliance. That was not the view taken in France. That has not been the view taken in Germany of the speech. That is not the view that has been taken by the majority of people in this country. Nearly everybody outside Government circles, attaching the ordinary connotation to words, has taken it that the War Minister was in effect advocating an alliance with France. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with long quotations from the speech to prove that—it is not necessary—but I will give one or two short passages which clearly show that the War Minister did advocate an alliance, if words have any meaning at all, and that that alliance was to be directed against Germany. That that was the clear meaning of the speech was powerfully argued in another place by Sir Archibald Sinclair and there was no effective reply to him.

What do words like these which I will read to your Lordships mean unless they portend an alliance? This is one passage of the speech: It is, therefore, on the two great democracies of the western world that the terrible responsibility for saving not only our persons but the civilisation we have created at the cost of so many efforts lies. What other meaning can be attached to the other phrase which the noble Lord quoted: "Your frontier is our frontier"? Yet the Home Secretary has argued that the War Minister did not advocate an alliance even by implication. What is the good of talking like that? If this was a case in the Courts I should like to hear the Home Secretary on the other side. I can imagine the devastating speech which he could make in reply to any such contention. Naturally enough, this speech of the War Minister has given, as I have indicated, great offence in Germany, and that was bound to happen. It is indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, indicated, difficult to understand the mentality of a man in the position of a Cabinet Minister who in the present delicate situation could go to Paris and make such a speech.

We have been told again and again by the Foreign Secretary that it is most desirable that Germany should make some gesture to show that she is in earnest, to promote confidence, to show that she really does want a European settlement. The Foreign Secretary said only a fortnight ago: We have done everything we could to restore confidence and allay apprehensions. Can that now be said about this speech of the War Minister? Is this a gesture by this country to Germany? Was this speech made in order to assure Germany that we have moved right away from the old policy of alliances which drenched Europe in blood, and that Great Britain ardently desires a European settlement, particularly a settlement which will enable France, Great Britain and Germany to work together as urged by the Prime Minister only a few days ago? The Foreign Secretary also said only a few days ago: I believe that nothing less than a European settlement and appeasement should be our aim. Is it not perfectly manifest that this speech of the War Minister is in precisely the opposite direction? What otherwise was the object of his referring to the Great War and the Entente Cordiale—" sealed "as he said" with the blood of the youth of Britain and France." What did that mean if it did not point to Great Britain and France being in alliance against Germany?

Take another point. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has to-day reminded your Lordships, we are at this moment awaiting a German reply to the Questionnaire which was sent. If speeches like that of the War Minister are made that reply will never come. Instead, there will be a Questionnaire from Germany to this country to ask our intentions. Very awkward questions will be asked and it will be extremely difficult to reply and to fit the reply into any working scheme for European settlement. This speech creates important complications on that point. I have reason to know that moderate opinion in Germany, by no means favourable to the Hitler régime, deplores the tone of this speech which must necessarily strengthen the Militarist party in Germany. It has been argued—but it is really no defence—that you should read the speech as a whole. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I have procured a copy of Le Temps and he will be interested to know that the report of the speech in Le Temps is definitely shorter than the reports in some of our English newspapers. Although my French is not so good as it used to be, I think it is quite good enough to enable me to assure your Lordships that there is no point whatever in suggesting that the report in Le Temps differs from the reports in English newspapers.

What is the good of saying that you should read the speech as a whole, even if you could get it? Do we not all know that what matters in a speech of this kind is the significant passages? They are what get into the Press, they are what are sent to Germany and other countries. Any Cabinet Minister ought to know that. In your Lordships' House very few speeches are reported in anything like full by the Press. The very experienced gentlemen who sit in the Press Gallery pick out—and on the whole do their work extremely well—what they think are the most important passages. It is really no defence at all to say that you should read the speech as a whole. I do not suppose it would make a scintilla of difference if the whole of the speech were placarded throughout the country. That line of defence will not help the Government at all.

It has been argued that, if the speech is carefully read, it does not really conflict with Government policy. It is always a little difficult to know what the Government's policy is, but I would venture on their behalf to deny that statement. It is impossible to reconcile the words which I have quoted, the words of the Prime Minister, the words of the Foreign Secretary, with what the War Minister said. After all, things cannot both be and not be at the same time, and it is absolutely impossible to say that at one moment the policy of the Government is one of bringing France, Germany and Great Britain together and at the next moment to say that the policy of the Government is in effect a Franco-British alliance, which everybody knows will be directed against Germany. There you have some things which are absolutely irreconcilable, and no amount of word-spinning, mummery and make-believe can bring them together and make them into one consistent whole.

Then take Locarno. Locarno is part of the Government policy, I understand, but a Franco-British alliance would go far beyond our commitments under Locarno. It would be much more dangerous to this country even than Locarno: it would commit Great Britain to liabilities on account of France's commitments in Eastern Europe. What authority has the War Minister for giving the slightest reason to France for thinking that the people of Great Britain are prepared to shoulder liabilities of that kind? I have listened in your Lordships' House to all the debates on foreign affairs which have taken place during the last few months, and there is scarcely a single noble Lord on that side of the House who has evinced his willingness to support a war on behalf of France's Eastern commitments. Mr. Lloyd George was quite right when he said that Great Britain would never again fight on behalf of Austria. The fact is that, quite apart from her Eastern European commitments, it would be extremely difficult to get the people of Great Britain to fight again for France in any circumstances, and your Lordships know that what I say is true.

In the concluding part of my speech I want to deal with what I think is really a most serious aspect of this whole matter, and that is the light which it throws upon the attitude and mentality of the officials of the Foreign Office. I am quite in order in discussing this matter, because the Government in their reply, and the Prime Minister in his reply to questions about it, have implicated the officials of the Foreign Office, quite definitely, apart from the Foreign Secretary himself. That is unquestionably so; I will prove that to your Lordships. They say that the speech was submitted to the Foreign Office. But these are the words: "In its final form the speech did not coma under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary." The Home Secretary, in defending the Government, again emphasised that. That of course means that in its final form this speech of the War Minister was approved by Foreign Office officials only. It cannot mean anything else, and the Home Secretary, when he was pressed in another place, refused to say that the Foreign Secretary approved the speech. He would not say that, though he was pressed again and again. Of course he would not say that. How could the Foreign Secretary approve the speech? So the Government, in its Parliamentary reply, has implicated permanent officials. Therefore it is not merely in order to bring them into this controversy and discuss this attitude, but it is a public duty to do so. They are right in the very heart of the matter. It is inevitable that they should be brought into the discussion.

Now the Government reply tells us that the Foreign Secretary did not see the War Minister's; speech in its final form. As I have said, that I can very well believe. It would be almost incredible that he could have approved of it in its final form. But it is an astounding state of things that at this supreme moment of history, when, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has indicated—and we all know it is true—most delicate negotiations are afoot with Germany, when we are awaiting the reply to the Questionnaire which was sent to Germany, a speech like that of the Minister for War could have been approved at all in its final form by Foreign Office officials. That can only have happened because of the pro-French bias in high places at the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office officials were genuinely intending to carry out the policy of the Government as outlined by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that is, the policy of bringing about co-operation between France, Germany and Great Britain, and the policy of appeasement—the officials concerned would have recoiled from giving any approval in its final form to a speech which was not helping appeasement but, on the contrary, was bound to operate in the opposite direction, which was bound to give offence to Germany, and which in fact has given great offence to Germany.

It was stated in the debate in another place that the officials of the Foreign Office have a definite pro-French bias, and I urge the Foreign Secretary to deal with this matter. It is the Foreign Secretary who is responsible for the Foreign Office, and the necessity to discuss civil servants and permanent officials at all is the Government's responsibility, because of the reply they gave which has implicated these officials. The responsibility is on the Government. I hope that I shall not be told that permanent officials have no right of reply. I do not want them to reply. I want the Foreign Secretary to keep them in order. That is what I am pressing upon the Government. I say, as was said in another place, that at the Foreign Office there is a pro-French bias, and, as your Lordships know, this is a matter of common comment in many circles and these circles are by no means confined to political circles. This comment is based partly on the well-known pro-French views of one of the very highest officials of the Foreign Office, who takes no pains whatever to conceal his views, and it is now definitely confirmed in this approval of the final draft of this downright pro-French speech. This bias is confirmed because that speech has been approved, and without referring the final draft to the Foreign Secretary.

We are told that the Foreign Secretary had something to do with the speech in the early stages. That is what the reply says. I should very much like to know exactly what he had to do with the matter, and how much he really did know about it. I wish we could have a tribunal on this, to get at the facts and tell us what really took place, what did happen. The Government reply seems to me to be very lame. It is certain—there will be no dispute about this—that the Foreign Secretary did not see the speech in its final form, and it is really idle to suggest, as the reply does, that he was too busy to do that. He was in the country all the time. The speech was delivered on the evening of June 24—Wednesday of last week. The Foreign Secretary attended a Cabinet meeting on the morning of Wednesday of last week; he was therefore in the country until after or about the time when the War Secretary was leaving for Paris. It really will not do to suggest that the Foreign Secretary was so busy that he could not spare the few minutes necessary to see the final draft of a vitally important speech on foreign policy, to be delivered by a colleague holding a position as high as that of War Minister, and in Paris. No, my Lords, that line of argument is most unconvincing, and I propose to leave the matter there.

I have said what I have said as a public duty, because I am positive that the pro-French bias on the part of Foreign Office officials is going counter to the views of the vast majority of the people of Great Britain. That is grossly wrong, and I beg the Foreign Secretary—it is his responsibility—to deal with this matter before more mischief is done and before it is too late.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

My Lords, I would like to say one word. I am quite sure your Lordships listened with great interest to the very restrained speech of Lord Rennell, who has had so long an experience in the public service. But without entering into the question of Ministerial responsibility, I wonder whether, without making a breach in the long-established practice of this House that we should not criticise seriatim speeches made in the other House, I might be allowed to say that it is not only among members of His Majesty's Government that we might ask for more restraint in the present difficult crisis in foreign affairs. There are some men sitting in this House who remember the constant exchanges of violent Party conflicts in the days of Lord Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone, and the infinite mischief done abroad by the fact that each Party in the troubles abroad interpreted the remarks of a member of the Opposition, or of a member of His Majesty's Government, as they desired, as being conclusive of the existence of a large volume of public opinion in this country supporting them. I think it was made clear, over and over again, that that state of things did more mischief to this country, and was a greater handicap to peace, and in all probability squandered more of the resources of this country, than could have been done almost by an action in the field.

Think of what follows. For fifty years we have had a moratorium of this sort of exchange of Party conflict in foreign affairs. I think that since 1886, when Lord Rosebery became Foreign Secretary, there have not been such charges as have occurred in the last few weeks, of cowardice, unpreparedness, bellicose intentions, of sympathy with this nation or with that nation, or the fact that the Government have taken the exact course which would benefit one nation at the expense of another. Those charges have been thrown broadcast, and by certain sections of the Press have been taken up on one side or the other. Here, to-night, we have had the instance of a retired diplomatist who, though he may have strong opinions, has shown how it is possible to restrain the expression of them. I have risen only for one purpose, that of asking whether, at all events in this House, we cannot set an example and not join in what I think were altogether unfortunate, and in most cases unmerited, attacks upon responsible men in the other House. Those of us who are outside the Government, and do not know what are the facts, cannot be really competent judges, but I do not believe there was ever a moment, except for a few days before the outbreak of War in 1914, when one foolish speech by one man, who might have some following, could do more mischief, and indeed more quickly defeat the attempts which the Government are making, and have I believe successfully made up to now, to give a proper lead in the direction of peace.

I fully sympathise with my noble friend in the hope that what I think was for many years the understood function of a Prime Minister or a Foreign Secretary, or someone directly nominated by them for the purpose, should as far as possible be resumed by His Majesty's Government. It is quite clear that these slips do go a long way to excite the very action which we all deplore. On the other hand, cannot we as a body, those of us who are outside the Government, but who have, as we have, the most intense interest in the results, and especially in the preservation of peace, which at times must appear to be jeopardised, assist by deprecating the making, by those who are not Ministers of the Crown, speeches which have an irritating effect upon foreign affairs to a degree which we have not the means of measuring?

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

My Lords, I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has laid your Lordships' House under an additional debt of gratitude for the wise words which, from a position of great experience and detachment, he has addressed to us. I an quite certain there will be no one of your Lordships, in whatever part of the House you sit, but will have felt that he was giving advice on what ought to be constantly in the minds of all of us, as to the restraint and the poise which it is incumbent upon any who have to attempt to speak on these matters to use. I will try to say a word or two about each of the first two contributions to the debate in a moment, but as I have listened to the debate I must confess the conviction has grown upon me that it is extremely unwise for a Cabinet Minister to make a speech upon a matter even remotely connected with foreign policy without the fullest preparation, and after complete examination by all his colleagues, and my natural instinct of self-preservation would lead me to ask your indulgence, to excuse me from making any speech at all regarding matters of which I have had no notice and which, if discussed at all, I ought to be prepared to discuss in much greater detail and with much greater security of expression than I can possibly at the moment command.

None the less I think it is due to your Lordships that I should to the best of my ability answer some at least of the points that have been placed before us. You will not fail to have been struck with the contrast of style that was adopted by my noble friend Lord Rennell and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in placing their views before us. I make full allowance for the strength of conviction which animates all that Lord Arnold says in this House, but he will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer what he had to say with the same exuberance of political conviction, because I cannot but think that he perhaps, were he in my place, would have felt that that quality was more safely employed upon political platforms than it is in a discussion of very delicate matters in your Lordships' House.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, if I might deal with one extraneous matter first, dealt with great discretion, if I may without impertinence say so, with the general state of Europe and with some of the broader developments that have taken place in Europe during the last few months, and I only want to make one observation upon that part of his speech, because I think that it is perhaps important that it should be made at once. He, in commenting upon the Despatch that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had addressed to Sir Eric Phipps, passed some comment, not unkindly but critical, upon one or two of the questions that found their place in the Questionnaire that we addressed to the German Government through Sir Eric Phipps, and I think that he was disposed to feel that that Questionnaire was not in all respects well judged. Well, I do not intend, naturally, to argue that at this moment, but I think that it is important that I should remind your Lordships of the genesis of that Questionnaire.

Your Lordships will have the facts in your recollection—the events of early March consequent upon the action of the German Government in reoccupying the Rhineland, leading to the first meeting of the Locarno Powers in London in March, with the resumption of that meeting at Geneva in early April. It was at that meeting in early April, your Lordships will remember, that an agreement was reached between the representatives of the French Government, the Belgian Government and ourselves—the Government of Italy being indeed present but not at that time being very closely associated in the discussion. I might perhaps read a few words that conveyed that agreement in the form of a communiqué to the general public. It ran as follows: They "— that was, the representatives of the Powers— consider that it is desirable completely to explore all the opportunities of conciliation; for this purpose the elucidation of a certain number of points contained in the German Memorandum is in the first instance necessary, notably those set out in the French Memorandum. The representatives of the United Kingdom "— I ask my noble friend to mark these words— will for this purpose get into touch with the German Government. In particular they will inquire….. The point that I want to make, and that I think it is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships of, is that in addressing our Questionnaire we were not acting solely on our own and limited initiative, but we were, to the extent of the communiqué that was published at the Geneva meeting of these Powers, acting in some sense in a corporate, representative capacity for the other Locarno Powers with whom we had been in discussion.

I turn now to the wider, or perhaps I should saw the narrower, case which has been presented both by my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite in regard to the speeches made by Cabinet Ministers, and in particular the speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War. There will, of course, be none of your Lordships who will in any way differ from the strongest expression of view that could be spoken in this or in any other place as to the extreme importance of Cabinet Ministers at all times endeavouring to keep their utterances within the four corners of strict discretion. We may, like any other body of men, be more or less successful, according to the difficulties of the time and the like, but as to the general principle no one of your Lordships need feel there is likely to be any difference. And it is just the fact that people everywhere to-day are so profoundly interested in foreign policy and are watching it with such vigilance that makes that general necessity of discretion and care and consultation all the greater.

There have emerged even in this debate two lines of criticism. There is perhaps implicit in some of the things that have been said a suggestion that it is unwise for Cabinet Ministers other than Foreign Secretaries or Prime Ministers to make speeches on foreign policy of an important kind at all. With any such view, were it seriously held, I should emphatically disagree, because it is quite incompatible with, and in opposition to, what are essential facts of our British system of Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet government. Under that system all the members of the Government share equally in the responsibility for the action of all the members, so long as they remain their colleagues, and, provided that the general lines of Government policy are not transgressed, I conceive it is directly useful to get varying and different methods of presentation of the common cause that that Government policy represents.

Therefore it is the other criticism that is really the one that I think your Lordships have principally before you this afternoon—namely, that in the particular case to which reference has been made, the case of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War's speech—a most eloquent speech—that he made in Paris, that speech in fact transgressed the general lines of Government policy that had been laid down. With regard to what fell from the noble Lord opposite, I confess I was rather surprised to hear some of the things that he said with regard to the responsibility for that speech, in which he referred to the Foreign Secretary and the office over which he presides. This matter was stated with the utmost clarity and the utmost precision by the Home Secretary in another place—I have the report here and could read his answer to your Lordships, should you so desire—and I do not think that anything useful could be added to make that answer more concise or more full, except this—and it is important to add it after what fell from the noble Lord opposite. If he suggests that by the answer my right honourable friend gave in another place it was the intention to imply that any distinction existed between the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office over which he presides I am bound to say in the clearest possible way I can that any such deduction as that would be entirely devoid of foundation.

LORD ARNOLD

If that is so, may I ask the noble Viscount how it is that when the Home Secretary was distinctly asked that point as to whether this was done with the assent of the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary did not give a reply? He gave no definite reply at all.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

I am entirely aware of what the Home Secretary said. Indeed I think I know it by heart, as I have been at great pains to inform myself of it. The noble Lord indeed quoted quite correctly the words in which my right honourable friend dealt with the matter in another place; but I was proceeding to emphasise the point on which I think the noble Lord, unwittingly, might have left a false deduction upon the minds of your Lordships' House. If it was intended by anything he said to suggest that there was a distinction in this matter between the Foreign Secretary and the office over which he presides, then it is my duty to say perfectly plainly that any such suggestion as that has no foundation in fact. Not only that, but if it were to be made, it would be the duty of anybody speaking for His Majesty's Government and speaking for the Civil Service to point out, what is familiar enough indeed to your Lordships, that any such suggestion as that would run clean contrary to all the principles on which the Civil Service and our political principles of government are built up. If the noble Lord were to put a question to me to what extent the Foreign Secretary is responsible for the Foreign Office there is only one answer. As long as the Foreign Secretary is Foreign Secretary, he must take responsibility for everything that happens in the Foreign Office, and that applies to every Minister that stands at this Table or at the Table in another place.

With regard to the speech itself, I am very sorry my noble friend was not able to find a copy of Le Temps to read it here. I have not myself found one either, but I take it from the noble Lord opposite that I should not have been greatly the gainer. But I have been better off than that, because I have read the complete typescript copy of the speech, and I can assure the noble Lord opposite that it was, as any one who knows my right honourable friend would expect, an extremely cultured and polished oration. From the point of view of literary style, if I could make half as good a speech I should think I was in the field of literature greatly distinguished. The noble Lord opposite said that whether any one had read the whole speech or half the speech or three-quarters of the speech really did not affect the argument. I do not wish to stress the opposing argument to that, although I think something might be made of it; yet I do say I do not think that, unless any one has read the whole speech, he is in a position to do full justice to my right honourable friend and, indeed, is in danger of doing him some injustice.

First of all, the noble Lord opposite launched a tremendous indictment of this speech and of my right honourable friend upon the assumption that in it my right honourable friend was committing this Government and the country to—I think his words were—commitments far beyond the commitments of Locarno. I rubbed my eyes and re-read the speech, and if the noble Lord opposite will take it from me, there is nothing in the speech about an alliance, military or other, that would justify any such deduction. The words that the noble Lord quoted were an expression of my right honourable friend's conviction, which I think he was entirely entitled to hold, and which indeed I hold myself, that in defence of the ideals of liberty and democracy the two great surviving democracies of the West are, and must be, natural associates. When the noble Lord opposite quoted my right honourable friend, I think he said the democracies of France and England "will" have to face such-and-such dangers. As a matter of fact, the expression that my right honourable friend used was that these democracies "may" have to face certain dangers.

I do not want to make small points into large ones, but I am concerned to defend my right honourable friend against what I think is, unwittingly, the rather unfair treatment to which he has been exposed in this matter. Do let us look at this thing, if we can, with a little sense of proportion and with a rather wider perspective. The noble Lord opposite said that things cannot both be and not be at the same time. That is quite true, but it is also well to remember this, that because one thing is true, it is not necessarily the only thing that is true. Truth is a thing of many facets, and because one truth is asserted, it is not asserted to the exclusion of another truth that may be equally relevant and deserving of consideration. Let me put to your Lordships what might be an imaginary hypothetical opposing case. I have constantly seen references in the Press to the suggestion that a British Minister should go to Berlin. Supposing such a British Minister went to Berlin, and when he got to Berlin found himself the guest of a circle for the promotion of Anglo-German friendship and unity, and in the atmosphere of that Anglo-German circle he were to make a speech, as no doubt it would be his endeavour, cordial and warm in its friendly approaches to the spirit of his German hosts—by what right, if that were done, would anybody say that that implied he was working for an Anglo-German understanding to the exclusion of France?

Do let us in all these matters, I beg, try and keep our sense of proportion and not magnify parts of the truth, advanced admittedly as parts of the truth, into a position of attempting to usurp the function of being the whole truth. The whole truth with regard to Government policy has been stated over and over again, and I am perfectly prepared to state it again here to-day. It was stated by the Prime Minister in another place, and quoted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I am prepared to quote it again here to-day. Your Lordships will remember the words: Has not the time come when it is possible for these three great countries to get together? —asked the Prime Minister, to achieve— the appeasement of the situation in Europe, and to achieve it you want friendship with France and you want friendship with Germany. I do venture to say that it is most unjust and most unprofitable to suggest that the end of understanding with France is to be hampered by the attempt to reach an understanding with Germany or vice versa. European peace demands progress along both those lines from all sides simultaneously, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will not distort the perspective, as I think there is a tendency perhaps in some quarters to do, in regard to this particular matter, but will be able to rest assured that all the members of His Majesty's Government without distinction, one not more and one not less than the others, are concerned to do their utmost to forward the policy that the Prime Minister expressed in those words I have read.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, whatever the Lord Privy Seal's poor opinion of his own literary abilities may be, which opinion I do not share, your Lordships will recognise in him an adept at smoothing over rough places by his verbal eloquence and generally pouring oil on any troubled waters that may exist in your Lordships' House. I want in the very few remarks I propose to offer to your Lordships at the beginning to congratulate the noble Viscount along those lines on his great skill in these matters, exemplified in the speech to which your Lordships have been privileged to listen. I also want to follow him in one matter, if I may be so bold as to offer an opinion, and to say how much I, personally, agreed with the warning addressed to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, about our being careful as to what we say with regard to foreign countries, particularly at this time. There is a great temptation now, and I am sorry to say that even the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who introduced this interesting Motion, is not altogether immune from falling to that temptation, to allow our natural indignation at certain things we do not agree with that go on in foreign countries to colour our attitude towards those countries. Whenever Russia is mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, slightly departs from his usual careful courtesy. Then my noble friend Lord Arnold, I am sure remembering all that has happened in the past, is perhaps not so generous to France as I would have expected him to have been since the change of Government in that country.

The point of view that I have been asked to express by my noble friend Lord Snell, who desired me to apologise to the Leader of the House for the fact that he was not able to wait for the end of his speech and to reply, is this: We believe—and here I claim to be speaking for the great mass of the people of this country also—that we have a right to expect when a Cabinet Minister gives utterance to any question of policy, internal or external, that he should be speaking for the Government as a whole. We have the right to expect that, and foreign countries have the right also. I am going to quote another speech made by the Secretary of State for War. I have not provided myself with a copy of it, because I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Snell would have been able to speak, and that I would not be called upon to do so. But the substance of the speech is in my mind. A few days ago the Secretary of State for War gave an extraordinary oration in the country, apparently with the object of encouraging recruiting. He said it was the duty of the Government to make the flesh of the citizens of this country shiver and creep, and he warned the country that the situation to-day—I am not quoting him verbatim, but this is the effect of what he said—approximated in danger to that in the days immediately preceding the outbreak of war in 1914. I do suggest to your Lordships, and I hope that I carry your Lordships with me, that this sort of statement does not do any good. The British people do not require to be frightened. They will undertake their responsibility if they are called upon to do so, as they always have done in the past, and it is an ill service, especially with the state of nerves that afflicts a large part of Europe at the present time, that statements of that kind should be made in public by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. I wish to protest most emphatically against that speech about war dangers made by the Secretary of State for War.

If it is the case that there have been apparent divergencies in the utterances of Ministers as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I do not think it is to be wondered at. Does anyone really know what the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government is at the present time? Do they really know themselves? They do not, apparently. Unless they have mastered the art of speaking and saying nothing it will be extremely difficult for two of them to make a speech on two consecutive days and not contradict each other. May I give just two examples very briefly? The British Board of Admiralty followed a particular and separate policy last year with regard to Germany and German armaments, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. I joined with other noble Lords in expressing grave doubts about the wisdom of their action at that time. But, no doubt with the best intentions, they approved the German breaches of the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles in the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. They were not acting in harmony at that time with the Foreign Office attitude towards the French protests with regard to the breaches of the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. I do not think there can be any denial that there was a complete divergence between the aims and policy followed in that case by two Departments of State, the Department presided over by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Department presided over by the Foreign Secretary.

In the other example that I wish to quote I want to go a little further back, but in this case the same principal people are concerned, the same Prime Minister leading the ruling Party supporting the Government. I want to go back to what happened with regard to Russia in a previous Conservative Government. A Conservative Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks—who was afterwards ennobled and became a member of your Lordships' House and whose demise we all regret—obviously without the full agreement or knowledge of his colleague in the Foreign Office, proceeded to take the law into his own hands and raided the offices of the Russian Trade Delegation. This led to the breaking-off of all relations with Russia. Those are examples—one the Admiralty, and one the Home Office—where there was obviously a divergence between Government Departments. No wonder, therefore, the speeches of Ministers diverge. The second case, as I said, occurred some years ago, but it had a great bearing on our relations with a friendly State. The same people are concerned now; the same high permanent officials—and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Arnold on making so bold as to take the opportunity of drawing attention to the divergencies that apparently exist there—and some of the same important Cabinet Ministers hold responsible offices to-day.

If I may again venture to comment on his speech, I agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that foreigners to-day say to us—well-meaning friendly foreigners—that they really do not know what the true foreign policy of His Majesty's Government is. As I have mentioned Russia, I want to say that there is apparent a fresh newspaper campaign at the present time attacking Russia. It so often happens that when a campaign is embarked on by Conservative papers it is followed by a Conservative Government's agreement. Again there is, apparently, a newspaper campaign at the present time to stir up hostility and ill-feeling in this country, not so much against Russia as against the pact of friendship and non-aggression between the French and Russian Governments. An echo of it appeared in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I do want to protest most emphatically against any such policy. I think it is most mischievous for us to interfere in a pact of that kind. All three countries, France, Russia and ourselves, are Members, and the three most powerful Members, of the League of Nations. It is still apparently the Government's policy to support and, I understand and hope, to reform in the direction of strengthening, the League of Nations. It is a disservice to the whole cause of peace to attempt to sow dissension between Russia and France. If the noble Viscount opposite could write all the speeches that his Cabinet colleagues make I would feel far more happy, and I do not think they would suffer in eloquence.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, let fall a suggestion which inspires me to add a few words. He drew a picture of an action taking place at Berlin similar to that which took place at Paris, and saw perfect propriety in it. I only wish that he himself would carry out such an action. It might, seeing what happened at Paris, be a very valuable episode, but I hardly think we shall see him do it. If he did I think he would come in for very forcible criticism as his colleague has done in this case. There are just one or two points I would like to bring out in supporting the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. It seems to me that, although the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is very convincing, he was not so convincing as usual in seeking to persuade us that this is an episode on which the public can express and feel complete approval.

On the point of its unconstitutional character could we not test the matter by picturing a Labour Government in office when such an event occurred? Should we not hear a tremendous chorus of grave disapproval from Conservative speakers? I am sure we should. The Home Secretary says that if we saw the wording of the speech we should take a different view, but that surely is irrelevant when the important thing is the effect of the speech on public affairs. The Foreign Office know perfectly well, better than any other people, what will be the effect of one utterance or another. We cannot imagine that this was not a calculated speech. The noble Viscount says rightly that we should draw no distinction whatever in the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary and his officials. Of course not. He is wholly responsible. Is it not then a very extraordinary utterance to make on behalf of the Government? While there was allusion to the covenant—the word "covenant" was used—which exists in the Anglo-French entente cordiale there was scarcely a mention of the Covenant of the League except in connection with a humorous reflection in the course of the speech. It was of course quite a deliberate thing and naturally and inevitably it was so viewed in Germany.

Is it not really a deplorable event in the light of what has happened? What effect has there been in Germany? Exactly what everyone in the Foreign Office knew perfectly well there would be. The effect has been to create an impression different from that which the Prime Minister had created in regard to the relation of the three great Powers. I just want to call attention to a possible effect in Germany which has not been alluded to yet in the debate. Is it not evident that there are differences of opinion in high quarters in Germany, among the very limited number of people who control the policy of Germany—differences probably in regard to the desirability of returning to the League, differences therefore as to the need of an early reply to the Questionnaire? Surely in view of those differences of opinion which may be the cause of the delay in the reply to that Questionnaire, this speech will help the anti-League section of opinion, and that is certainly not the result most people in this country want to see realised.

Will it not give rise to the argument that if this is the outlook of the British Government, Germany, if she did re-enter the League, would be rather an un-welcome member, not a very comfortable member at the Board. On the other hand, if there is, as some people suspect, a violently anti-British section in high quarters in Germany, fantastic as I hope that to be, in that case the episode may furnish to that section the excuse to say: "Well, look, England is unfriendly to us." If the Government despair now—I hope they do not—of succeeding in the attempt to bring Germany back into the League, then I think the speech was an excellent move. It would accord very well with that policy. If there are people who desire only to see the complete encirclement of Germany, it would conduce very well to that. But, if that is the Government's new view, it is a revolution in their view as the public have understood it and as the noble Viscount has expressed it. If this speech was, as the Germans took it to be, a very important utterance, surely it should have been made by the Prime Minister. If it represents such a revolutionary change of opinion as some quarters in Germany have taken it to mean, then surely, in the opinion of most people in this country, it was a very disastrous event.

LORD RENNELL

My Lords, at the end of a somewhat prolonged debate it only remains for me to thank my noble friend who replied for the Government and to express my satisfaction that in a very large measure we are agreed, the substance of the agreement being that in moments of such extreme tension everybody, and most especially Ministers, should exercise great discretion in what they say, and should follow the Homeric precedent of having a heavy ox on their tongues. I also wish to thank him for having, to some extent, relieved my mind on one point, because after forty years of close connection with the Foreign Office and having worked in it, I should very much dislike to criticise any action of the Department.

There was one point in our answer to Germany that was to my mind infelicitous, but I am glad to know that it was not our own responsibility, but was the result of a decision apparently come to at Stresa. That makes me think that perhaps when there is something not particularly pleasant to be said or done the task always seems to be laid upon us. I do not know whether we jump at it, or whether we feel that, if we did not do it, it would not be done at all. But we appear to be rather inevitably pressed into the position of being the universal governess. It is very much like the attitude which one of my foreign colleagues expressed to me, when there was something disagreeable to be said to somebody by one of three people: "Laissons l'odieux de cette affaire à M. de—" So-and-so. The noble Lord opposite seemed to suggest that I said something depreciatory about Russia. I think it must have been on some other occasion, for I did not speak about anything but France and Germany to-day; I mentioned Italy in connection with sanctions, and the only reference I might have made to Russia to-day was to suggest that it was unfortunate that, at this moment of tension, the isolation and surrounding of Germany should happen to be brought about by the Franco-Soviet Pact. That was not meant to be taken as at all depreciatory of Russia.

LORD STRABOLGI

This is very important. Is the noble Lord aware, when he attacks that Pact, that he is really using the argument which the minority, the enemies of peace, in Germany are using?

LORD RENNELL

I did not attack the Pact, I attacked the unfortunate situation which had occurred through completing the circumscription of Germany at the moment. However, we will not discuss that; I do not want to speak of anything disagreeable to the Government, as I said at the beginning of my speech. Having thanked my noble friend for his reply, I will, with the permission of your Lordships' House, withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.