LORD LLOYD’S RESIGNATION

Evening Star, Issue 20239, 29 July 1929, Page 9

LORD LLOYD’S RESIGNATION

«»■ STATEMENT BY FOREIGN SECRETARY NO CHANGE OF POLICY THE POSITION TO RE FURTHER EXAMINED. (British Official Wireless.) Press Association-—By Telegraph—Copyright. , .RUGBY, July 20. In a statement regarding Lord Lloyd’s resignation of the High Commissionership ip _ Egypt, Mr Arthur Henderson (Foreign Secretary) said that within a few days of his going to tho Foreign Office a communication was received from Lord Lloyd. He read the communication, and was very much struck by its language and what he believed to be the spirit underlying it. Ho at once asked for the papers to be banded to him going back for during flic greater part of the time that Lord Lloyd had been High Commissioner. “ .1 must say,” continued Mr Henderson, “ that f could not but bo 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. 1 think f can say that there were four or live occasions when tho difference of opinion between my predecessor —and i suppose to some extent the Government—and tho High Commissioner was most marked.” Mr Henderson gave several instances whore this divergence of view had been shown. It was these considerations, ho said, which led to his predecessor (Sir Austen Chamberlain) issuing to Lord Lloyd on May 28—two days before the General Election—a complete restatement of tho principles on which.the Go vornment bad decided to conduct tho 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 tho internal affairs of Egypt. “ I want to say that very frankly,” continued Air Henderson. “I. ran through the whole of tho proceedings as far as my predecessor was concerned, la numerous instances Lord Lloyd was clearly out of sympathy with, this object.” Having read these papers, and having very carefully considered the position, lie came to tho conclusion that the best tiling he could do was to intimate to Lord Lloyd that the Government was dissatisfied with the position as it laid obtained daring the last three or four years. He made that intimation to Lord Lloyd in the following note:—“in the short time at my disposal since taking office I have endeavoured to review highroad outline the sequence of political events since 192!. To bo quite candid, I feel bound to tell you that 1 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 be so wide as to be unbridgeable. The success of my policy—which will certainly bo not loss 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 representative. Li the light of the recent correspondence I should bo lacking in frankness did I nob 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 J. should like to discuss the situation with yon on your return.” Lord Lloyd arrived in this country this day week. He saw Lord Lloyd last Tuesday morning. They discussed Hie position with each other, not merely with frankness, but with friendliness. After they had been together for half an hour Lord Lloyd handed him his resignation. Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) said that the House was far more concerned (o know whether any serious change of policy in our relations with Egypt Was or had been contemplated. Mr Churchill (ex-Cliancellor of the Exchequer) said the reading of tho 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, lacing tho difficulties and risks, naturally had bis viewpoint. What was there in Mr Henderson’s oration to show anything like a healthy, active, and reasonable discussion between t lie parties? The Prime Minister (Mr MacDonald) paid a tribute to Lord Lloyd, who, ho 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 duty. Lord Lloyd was asked to fill the position, which was perhaps one of tho most difficult in the British Empire, and ho accepted it. He did what lie considered to lie his duty, but ho (Mr MacDonald) claimed that the Government in administering the office o) a. colony or a, dependency must have complete and full confidence in its representative. Alter a perusal of the records Mr Henderson took action. Me did so because be dhl nob Feel that full confidence in the High Commissioner which was necessary, Tho Government was going to enter into a full examination of all the questions connected with Egypt, but nothing of a final decision would be come to until the .House bad agreed to its ratification. 11 We know our responsibilities,” said Mr MacDonald. “Wc know our position here. We shall just do what wo think tho interests of this nation and the interests of Egypt require ns to do, remembering all the time our responsibilities to this country.” The Government was exploring the situation. Mr Churchill asked lor a pledge that tin; Government would not go beyond the extreme limit which ho and his friends embodied in the Sarwal ticaty in connection 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 Sarwnt treaty it was stated that this might bo revised in ten years and then every fifth year afterwards. “Is that the last word in securing onr communications through Egypt?” asked the Prime Minister. “If it is wc have come to a very bad impasse. Are there no moans of securing our communications through Egypt except that? If Mr Churchill and ins colleagues are in any doubt about that 1 will tell them that the whole matter is being considered by three heads of the Service, Departments.” Mr MacDonald added that the possibilities : were being treated with caution, and only when everything bad been explored and the best proposal that could bo made,, had been devised would the instrument which was vital and to which the Government would commit itself make its appearance. Mr Henderson replied: “ Every move wo make or contemplate making to improve Egyptian relations will bo Influenced by a' spirit of goodwill, f say emphatically' that there has boon no, change of policy; there is no secret about it, it has been suggested that

negotiations were being carried on behind Lord Lloyd’s buck. I challenge that most emphatically. Whatever our policy, it will not bo put into operation until it has been submitted for the approval of the House of Commons and the Egyptian people. Wo shall take no step without consulting the dominions.”

Mr Churchill said 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.

Mr MacDonald described Mr Churchill’s s/veech as a mischievous and unjustifiable attack on the Civil Service, based on contemptible tittle-tattle, lie added: “We will pursue the examination of the Egyptian question, but nothing final can'be clone until the House has ratified it.” ■ He appealed to the House not to do anything further to damage Egypt, “ hut let us get on ivith business.” The debate then terminated.