"THE PURLOINED PAPER"

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21715, 24 February 1936, Page 11

"THE PURLOINED PAPER"

DISCUSSION TODAY BY PARLIAMENT (BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.) (Received February 23, 7.15 p.m.) RUGBY, February 21. It has now been arranged that the publication in the "Giornale cl'ltalia" of extracts from the confidential British document containing an inter-departmental report on British interests in Abyssinia will be raised in the House of Commons on Monday, either by private nolice of a question or in a general debate on foreign affairs/ ,If the House shows a general defire, it is probable that the Government will agree to make public the whole report, which is of considerable length, and of which only selected extracts appeared in the Italian journal. The committee of experts which issued the report had been engaged in the early months of last year m a dispassionate examination of British interests in Abyssinia.. Its report specially makes clear that it excludes from its consideration all political and moral aspects that would become involved by aggressive action by Italy, such as the acquiescence of the British Government in the breach by Italy of her pledges under the League Covenant, Kellogg Pact, and tho Tripartite Agreement of 1906. Its main finding is that Britain's material interests in Abyssinia are in fact limited to Lake Tsana, the waters of the Nile which irrigate Sudan and Egypt, and the grazing lights of the protected tribes of British Somalnand.

Allegations Refuted This finding corroborates the statement, often made by British statesmen, to the effect that Britain's attitude throughout the present dispute is contrary to Italian allegations, and has been actuated, not by material or imperialistic interests, but solely by fidelity to league pledges, and principles. "The Times," in a leader headed "The Purloined Paper," says that all that is mysterious about the Maffey report is why II Duce published it. It may be read without a blush by Englishmen who are not in the least insensitive to national honour. It shows that Great Britain never possessed a selfish sectional interest to defend in Abyssinia, and also that Britain, so far from waving II Duce airily on in his marauding expedition, was not even in receipt of an expert's report to study contingencies till June, when the world was confronted with Rome's manifest determination to break four treaties binding Italy against aggression.

"Barbarism of War" The disclosure would leave the Italian case in even worse shape. N or was it to be redeemed by the wten-admitted shortcomings of Abyssinia. There was one barbarism of antiquity, namely slavery, a survival of which still troubled Abyssinia. J Here was another barbarism of the twentieth century, outlawed by conE "lt of all nations, including Italy the barbarism of aggressive war. Jhe ruler of Abyssinia had conspicuously striven to rid himself of «« first. The ruler of Italy was Ulll glorying in the second.