POLICY IN EGYPT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20781, 29 July 1929, Page 9

POLICY IN EGYPT

LORD LLOYD’S RESIGNATION. DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. STATEMENT BY MR HENDERSON. “ divergence OF OUTLOOKS.” (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph-Copyright.) LONDON, July 20. In the House of Commons, on a motion for adjournment Cor the summer recess. Mr Baldwin drew attention to the great gravity of the matter of ; Lord Lloyd’s lesiguation or dismissal, and said he hoped that Mr Henderson would be able to dispel W ednesday's mist which developed on Thursday for the House of Lords. Mr . Baldwin traced the history of Britain’s policy in Egypt in the 1922 declaration, which recognised Egypt’s independence, subject to reservations. He alluded to the failure of the Zaghlou) Pii/ha treaty, in which it was stated that the [pescnce of British troops in no way meant occupation or prejudiced Egypt’s sovereign rights.— (Labour laughter.) Mr Baldwin continued that failure was due to the extremists’ belief that they could get better terms under another Government. but there was nothing in the negotiations between Zaghloul Pasha ami Mr MacDonald to show that the latter was prepared for any serious departure from the 1022 declaration.

Mr Baldwin recalled Mr MacDonald's statement in the House just before Ins defeat in 1024 that no Government in the light of the World War should divest itself wholly of its interest in the Sues Canal, which was a vital link in British, communications.— (Opposition cheers;.) Lloyd George occupied one of the most difficult posts. He was of the type who was not afraid fo speak his mind, and was able to argue and offer criticism, which it was the Foreign Office’s duty to listen 1 to and to receive. Their representative must carry out his instructions, or if he disagreed .he must resign. If he regarded the subject as sufficiently important a 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 nor wa.it a public servant who criticised its decisions? Did it want a dummy? Or was there a change of policy which would lead to Lord Lloyd’s resignation, so thar ib was simpler to get him out of the way before the change of policy occurred?— (Opposition cheers.)—Australian Press Association—United Service.

RELATIONS WITH EGYPT. GOVERNMENT’S INTENTIONS. POSITION BEING REVIEWED. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, July 26. (Received July' 28, at 5.5 p.m.) In a statement regarding Lord Lloyd's resignation of the High Commissionership in Egypt, 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. Efe read the communication, and was very much struck by its language and what he believed to be the spirit underlying it. He at once asked for the papers to hi handed to him, going back for during tne 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 mEm. up by my predecessor in office ami Lord Lloyd. I think I can say that there were four or five occasions when the dif forence of opinion between my predecessor -and I suppose to some extent theGovernment—and the High Commissioner was most marked.

Mr Henderson gave several instances where this divergence of view had been shown. It was these considerations, he 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 the principles by which the Goverujment had decided to conduct the relation?, 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,” coi. tinned Mr Henderson. “ 1 ran through the whole of the proceedings ns 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 was dissatisfied with the position as it had obtained during 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 in broad outline the sequence of political events since 1924. To he 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 sb 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 representative. In the light of the recent correspondence I should bo lacking in frankness did I not warn you that the possibility of your views, harmonising witli those of cither my predecessor or myself appears to bo remote, and in the circumstances I should like to discuss the situation with you on your return.” Lord Lloyd arrived in this country this day week. He saw Lord Lloyd last Tuesday morning. They discussed the position with each other, not merely with frankness but with friendliness. After thev 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 to know whether any serious change of policy in our relations with Egypt was or had been contemplated. Mr Churchill (ex-Cbancellor of the Exchequer) said 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 the "difficulties and risks, naturally had his viewpoint. What was there in Mr Henderson’s oration to show anything like a a healthy, active, and reasonable discussion between the parties? The Prime Minister (Mr MacDonald) 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 duty. _ Lord Lloyd was asked to lill the position, which was perhaps one of the most difficult in the British Era-

pirc, ami lie accepted it. He did, what I lie considered to lie his duty, hut lie (Mr MacDonald) claimed that the Government in administering the office of a colony or a dependency must have complete and full confidence in its representative. After a perusal of the records Mr Henderson took action. He did so 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, hut nothing of a final decision would he come to until the Housa had agreed (o its ratification. “Wc know our responsibilities,” said Mr MacDonald. • “ \\c know our position here. M c shall just do what we think tile 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 for a pledge that the Go\ eminent would not go hcvoiulthc extreme limit which he ami his” friends embodied in the Sarwat treaty in connection with each of the reserved points, said Mr MacDonald. There wore many pioposals as to how the position should be handled. There was the question of the military occupation of Cairo. In thq Sanvat treaty it was stated that tins, might ho revised in 10 years and then every fifth year afterwards. “Is that the hist word in securing our communications through Egypt?” asked the Pnmc to a \ ory bad impasse. Are there no means of securing our communications through Egypt except that? If Mr Churchill and. his colleagues arc in any doubt about that I 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 cautiousness, and only when everythin' l ' had been explored and the best prtTposal that could he 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 we make or contemplate making to improve Egyptian relations will' he influenced by a spirit of goodwill I say emphatically that there has been no change of policy; there is no secret about it. It lias been suggested that negotiations were being carried on behind Lord Lloyd’s back. I challenge that most emphatically. Whatever our > fc , Wll l not be put into operation until it has been submitted for the appunal of the House of Commons and the Egpytian people. We shall take no _ step without consulting the dominions.”

Mr Churchill sa»jd there had been a certain streak of prejudice in the Foreign Qfficc against Lord Llovcl, part of which was natural and intelligible since Lord Lloyd , was not in the civil service.

’ MacDonald described Mr Churchill s speech as a mischievous and unjustifiable attack on the civil service, on ™ n «inptil,l C tittle-tattle.' He added: “We will pursue the examination of the Egyptian question, but 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 business.” The debate then terminated. ■ '