POLICY VIEWS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 29 July 1929, Page 5

POLICY VIEWS

WIDE DIVERGENCE STATEMENT BY FOREIGN SECRETARY (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, 26th July. In a statement in the House of Commons regarding Lord Lloyd’s resignation of the High Commissionership in Egypt, Mr A. Henderson, Foreign Secretary, said that within a few days of his going to the Foreign Office a communication was received from Lord Lloyd. He read the communication, and was very much struck by the language, and what he believed to be the spirit underlying it. He at once asked for the papers to be handed to him, going back during the greater part of the' time Lord Lloyd had been High Commissioner. “I must say,” continued Mr Henderson, “that I could not but be impressed with the very wide divergence of the views manifested in those papers between the position taken up by my predecessor in office and Lord Lloyd. I think I can say that there were four or five occasions when Hie difference of opinion between my predecessor and, I suppose, to some extent the Government, and the High Commissioner was most marked.”

Mr Henderson gave several instances where this divergence of view had been shown. It was these considerations which led to bis predecessor, Sir Austen Chamberlain, issuing to Lord Lloyd on 28th May, two days before the General Election, a complete restatement of the principles by which the Government had decided to conduct the relations between this country and Egypt. An examination of the papers clearly demonstrated that the policy of Sir* Austen Chamberlain was a minimum of interference with the internal affairs of Egypt. . “I want to say that very frankly,” continued Mr Henderson. “I ran through the whole of the proceedings as far as my predecessor was concerned. In numerous instances Lord Lloyd was clearly out of sympathy with this object. Having read these papers and having very carefully considered the position I came to the conclusion that the best tiling I could do was to intimate to Lord Lloyd that the Government was dissatisfied with the position as it had obtained during the last three or four years. I made this intimation tr< Lord Lloyd in the following note:— “In the short time at my disposal since taking office I have endeavoured to review in their broad outline the sequence of political events since 1924. To be quite candid, I feel hound to tell you that I have been impressed by the divergence of outlook which has from time to time been apparent between my predecessor and your Lordship. That this difference of outlook was possibly sincere I do not for a moment doubt, but I confess that it appears to me to he so wide as to he unbridgeable. The success of my policy which will certainly he not'less liberal than that of my predecessor will depend oil the extent to which it can be interpreted with understanding and sympathy by His Majesty's representative. In the light of recent correspondence I should be lacking in frankness did I not warn you that the possibility of your views harmonising with those of either my predecessor or myself appears to he remote, and in the circumstances I should like to discuss the situation with you on vour return.”

‘ Lord Lloyd arrived in this country this day week. I saw Lord Lloyd last Tuesday morning. We discussed the position with each other not merely with frankness but with friendliness. After we had been together half an hour Lord Lloyd handed me his resignation.'’ Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal)' said that the House was far more concerned to kno\V whether any serious change of policy in our relations with Egypt was or had been contemplated. Mr Churchill, ox-Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the reading of the correspondence between the late Fore'mn Secretary and Lord Lloyd had undoubtedly produced a wrong impression of the actual relations between the parties concerned. Lord Lloyd, as the man on the spot, facing difficulties and risks, naturally had his viewpoint. What was there in Air Henderson's oration to show anything but a healthy, active, reasonable discussion between the parties. MR MACDONALD REPLIES The Prime Minister. Air AlacDonald, paid a tribute to Lord Lloyd, who, he said, went to Egypt under the most difficult circumstances. He had a great task imposed upon him when Sir Lee Stack met his death at the post of dulv. Lord Lloyd was asked to till the position, which'was perhaps one of the most difficult in the British Empire, and he accepted it. He did what he considered to be his duty, hut he (Mr AlacDonald) claimed that the (iovernivicnt in administering the office of a Colony or Dependency must have complete and full confidence in its repre-

sentative. After a perusal of R ecords, Mr Henderson took the action he did hocauso he did not feel that full confidence in the High Commissioner which was necessary.

The Government was going to enter into a full examination of all questions connected with Egypt, hut nothing of a final decision would lie come to until the House had agreed to its ratification. “Wc know our responsibilities,” said Mr MacDonald. “We know our position here. We shall just do what we think the interests of this nation and the interests of Egypt require us fn do, remembering all tiie time our responsibilities to this country.” The Government wore exploring the situation. Mr Churchill had asked for a pledge that the Government would not go beyond the extreme limit which lie and his friends embodied in the Sarwat Treaty. In connection with each of the reserved points, said Mr MacDonald, there were many proposals as to how the position should he handled. There was the question of the military occupation of Cairo. In the Sarwat Treaty it was stated that this might he revised in ten years, and then every fifth year afterwards. “Is that the last word in securing our communication through Egypt?” asked the Prime Minister. “If it is, wc have come to a very had impasse. Are there no means of securing our communication through Egypt except that? If Mr Churchill and his colleagues are in any doubt about that, I will tell them that the whole matter, whilst I ant talking, is being considered by the three Heads of the Services Departments.” Mr MacDonald added that the same variety of possibilities was being treated with the same cautiousness and only when everything had been explored and the best proposal that could be made had been devised would tlie instrument which was vital and to which the Government would commit itself make its appearance.