ANGLO EGYPTIAN

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19683, 29 July 1929, Page 9

ANGLO EGYPTIAN

RELATIONS. *• DEBATE IN COMMONS. RESIGNATION OF LORD LLOYD. MR BALDWIN DEMANDS EXPLANATION. (UHITID PBS6S ABSOCTATIOX—BY ELECTRIC TELEOaASH —COi'YKIGHT.) LONDON, July 2G. In the House of Commons, on a motion for the adjournment for the summer recess, Mr Stanley Baldwin (Conservative leader) drew attention to the great gravity of the matter of Lord Lloyd's resignation or dismissal. He said that he hoped Mr Arthur Henderson, the Foreign Secretary, would be able to dispel Wednesday's mist, which developed on Thursday in the House of Lords. Mr Baldwin traced the history of British policy in Egypt, referring to the 1922 declaration recognising Egypt's independence, subject to reservations. He alluded to the failure of the Zaghloul Pasha Treaty, in which it was stated that the presence of British troops in nowise meant occupation, or prejudiced Egypt's sovereign rights. (Labour laughter.) The failure of that treaty was due to the extremists' belief that they could get better terms under another Government, but there was nothing in the negotiations between Zaghloul and Mr Mac Donald to show that the latter was prepared for any serious departure from the 1922 declaration. Mr Baldwin recalled Mr statement in the House just before his defeat in 1924, that no Government, in the light of the world war, should divest itself wholly of its interest in the Suez Canal, which was a vital link in British communication. (Opposition cheers.) Lord Lloyd occupied one of the most difficult posts. He was not afraid to speak his mind, and was able to argue and criticise, and it was the Foreign Office's duty to listen to and receive his statement. Their representative must carry out his instructions, or, if he disagreed, he must resign if he regarded the subject as sufficiently an important matter of principle. Why did Lord Lloyd resign, or why was he dismissed! The question was far greater than Lord Lloyd's personality. Did the Government desire his resignation because it did not want a public servant who criticised its decisions! Did it want a dummy, or was there to be a change of policy which would lead to Lord Lloyd's resignation, so that it was simpler to get him out of the way before the change of policy occurred? (Opposition cheers.) Mr Henderson Replies. In a statement regording Lord Lloyd's resignation, Mr Arthur 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 that 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 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 a 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 his predecessor, Sir Austen Chamberlain, issuing to Lord Lloyd on May 28th, two days before the General Election, a complete restatement of the principles by which the Government had decided to conduct 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 very frankly," continued Mr Henderson, "that 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, he came to the conclusion that the best thing he could do was to intimate to Lord Lloyd that the Government were dissatisfied with the position as it had obtained during the last three or four years. He made this intimation to Lord Lloyd in the following note: — Reply to Lord Uoyd. "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 bound to tell you 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 it appears to me to be so wide as to be unbridgeable. The success of my policy, which will certainly be not less liberal than that of my predecessor, will depend on the extent to which it can be interpreted with understanding and sympathy by his Majesty's r-oresentative. In the light of the recent correspondence, T 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 be remote, and, in the circumstances, I should like to discuss the situation with you on your return.'' Lord Lloyd arrived in England a week ago, and Mr Henderson saw him last Tuesday morning. They discussed the position with each other, not merely with frankness, but with friendliness. After they had been together for half an hour Lord Lloyd hapded Mr Henderson his resignation. Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) - said that the House was far more concerned to know whether any serious change of policy in British relations with Egypt was or had been contemplated. Mr Henderson, in reply said: "Every move we have made or contemplate making, to improve Egyptian relations will be influenced by a spirit of goodwill. I say emphatically that there has been no change of policy. There is no secret about it. It has been suggested that negotiations are being carried on behind Lord Lloyd's back. I challenge that most emphatically. Whatever our policy, it will not be put into operation nntil it has been submitted for the approval of the House of Commons and

the Egyptian people. We shall take no step without consulting the Dominions. Mr Churchill Speaks. Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative), ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the reading of the correspondence between the late Foreign 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 wag there in Mr Henderson'B oration to show anything but healthy, active, and reasonable discussion between the parties? Mr Churchill said that there had been a certain streak of prejudice in the Foreign Office against Lord Lloyd, part of which was natural and intelligible, since Lord Lloyd was not in the Civil Service. The Prime Minister, Mr Mac Donald, described Mr Churchill's speech as a mischievous and unjustified attack on the Civil Service, based on contemptible tittle-tattle. He added: "We will pursue the examination of the Egyptian question. Nothing final can be done until the House has ratified it." He appealed to the House not to do anything further to damage Egypt, but "let us get on with the business." Mr Mac Donald, 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 his post of duty. Lord Lloyd was asked to fill 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, but he (Mr Mac Donald) claimed that the Government, in administering the office of a colony or dependency, must have complete and full confidence in ita representative. After a perusal of the records, Mr Henderson took the action he did because 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 the questions connected with Egypt, but no decision of a final nature would be come to until the House had agreed to its ratification. "We know our responsibilities," said Mr Mac Donald "We know our position here. We shall just do what we think the interests of this nation and the interests of Egypt require us to do, remembering all the time our responsibilities to this country." Consideration of Policy. The Government were exploring the situation. Mr Churchill had asked for a pledge that the Government would not go beyond the extreme limit, which he and his friends embodied in the Sarwat Treaty. In connexion with each of the reserved points, said Mr MacDonald, there were many proposals as to how the position should be handled. There was the question of the military occupation of Cairo. In the Sarwat Treaty it was stated that this might be revised in 10 years, and then every fifth year afterwards. "Is that the last word in securing our communications through Egypt?" asked the Prime Minister. "If it is, we have come to a very bad impasse. Are there no means of securing our communications 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 am talking, is being considered by three heads of the Services Department." Mr Mac Donald added that the same variety of possibilities was being treated wit* the same caution, and only wlien everything had been explored and the best proposal that could be made had been derised would the instrument, which was vital, and to which the Government would commit itself, make its appearance. The debate then terminated.—Australian Press Association, United Service, Official Wireless.