§ 2.42 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in regard to an official statement that the imputations made in a book called Diplomatic Twilight against the conduct of high officials at the Foreign Office during the inter-war period are not in accordance with the facts and are therefore unwarranted, they are aware that the Foreign Office informed the author, after considering his manuscript, that there was no objection on their part to the publication of the account of the diplomatic events of his Missions to Vienna and Lisbon; and, in view of the fact that more than one high official, directly or indirectly connected with the Foreign Office, is referred to in the book, whether they will state which criticisms are not in accordance with the facts, and what, in their opinion, the facts are.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)My Lords, as regards the 352 first part of the Question, I would remind the noble Viscount of the Answer given to the Question in another place, upon which his own Question is based. The Foreign Office have no powers of censorship and can scrutinise works submitted to them only from the point of view of possible offences against the Official Secrets Acts or other matter directly injurious to the public interest. On that basis, as the answer to which I have referred indicated, the author of the book Diplomatic Twilight was informed, to quote the actual words used, that
So far as your account of the diplomatic events of your missions in Vienna and Lisbon is concerned, no objection is taken to publication.His attention was, however, drawn to the extreme undesirability of public attacks by one former civil servant on another, and subsequently he was furnished with a copy of a letter previously sent to him from the Foreign Office expressing disapproval of such attacks in the strongest possible terms.As regards the second part of the Question, it would obviously be quite impossible for me, within the scope of this Answer, to enter into a detailed analysis of or commentary upon all the imputations made in the book. But I would make it clear that it does contain serious errors in fact.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for that reply, and should like to ask him one further question. Is he aware that there are a number of authoritative persons, including high officials of the Foreign Office in the 1920's and 1930's, who have publicly testified to the accuracy of the author's story; and is it not, in any event, important that future historians should have at their disposal free expressions of opinion from every quarter on these very important diplomatic items of history?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGAs regards the first part of that question, I do not accept that expressions of opinion of other civil servants have corroborated many of the statements which are made in this book. As regards the contribution to history to which the noble Viscount refers, it is important that contributions to history should be based on accurate information.
§ LORD DERWENTCan the noble Lord give examples of errors of fact to which reference has been made?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI obviously cannot traverse all the ground, but may I take two examples. One statement made is that the author's despatches were not properly considered inside the Foreign Office during the period of 1933 and the early part of 1934; but at the same lime, in March, 1934, he was writing to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who was then Secretary of State, saying:
It is indeed a satisfaction to me to know that you have found my despatches illuminating.A further complaint was that his despatches were not circulated to the Cabinet. We have carefully consulted our records and we find that all the more important of his despatches were circulated to the Cabinet, and circulated on the instruction of the Secretary of State.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I ask the noble Marquess this question? Is he aware, in relation to the statement that he has just made, that that is only part of the story? Is it fair for a Minister in another place to impugn the veracity of the author without giving all the grounds on which he has made that statement?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGIf, in answer to a Question, my right honourable friend in another place had given all the grounds, presumably he would have had to write a companion volume to Sir Walford Selby's book.
§ VISCOUNT SIMONArising out of this Question, may I be allowed to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he will take it from me that the high officials of the Foreign Office, when I was Foreign Secretary, discharged their duty faithfully and in accordance with the best traditions of the Civil Service, and that any suggestions to the contrary are without any foundation and are the merest nonsense?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, there is no source from which that statement could more authoritatively come.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODArising out of the last answer of the noble 354 Marquess, may I ask him whether he is aware that, during the time that I was Secretary of State, Sir Warren Fisher, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who is the official principally attacked in this book, never tried to interfere in the conduct of foreign affairs or in Foreign Office acid diplomatic appointments, but that, on the contrary, he was most helpful to me in insisting, for instance, in the Defence Requirements Committee that a strong foreign policy was impossible without adequate force to back it. Secondly, is he also aware that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, the other official principally criticised in this book, who was then Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, worked with me in the most complete harmony; that we concealed nothing from each other and thought alike upon all the urgent questions of the time; and that, therefore, it is an entire misrepresentation or misunderstanding of our relations to suggest, as seems to be suggested in this book, that the permanent head of the Office ignored the opinions or wishes of his Parliamentary chief, or disagreed with his policy. In point of fact, no two men worked together more unreservedly or in more friendly relations, and I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the help that he gave me at a very difficult time.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGI am obliged to the noble Viscount. I do not think that the author's critical references to Sir Warren Fisher are any freer from serious mis-statement than other passages in the book, but the imputations which directly concern the Foreign Office and the conduct of its own officials were primarily the matters with which I was dealing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMay I ask one further question, in relation to what has just fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood? As he has mentioned names in this connection, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that such high officials in the Foreign Office as Sir Victor Wellesley and Mr. Ashton Gwatkin, and in this House the late Lord Perthand the late Lord Salisbury, all testified to the interference by Sir Warren Fisher in the affairs of the Foreign Office and stated that that interference was injurious?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I know that there have in the past been debates on this subject but, as I have said before, I do not accept the accuracy of the allegation that there was interference by Sir Warren Fisher in the affairs of the Foreign Office.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, arising out of that, are not all these matters for which Ministers and not officials are responsible, and should not these criticisms be directed towards the Ministers of the Crown of the Government at that time, and not the civil servants?
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, I would accept and endorse that doctrine, as, indeed, I think it has been endorsed to some extent this afternoon by the questions put by two noble Lords who were Ministers at the material time dealt with in this book.