POLICY UNCHANGED

Taranaki Daily News, 29 July 1929, Page 9

POLICY UNCHANGED

RELATIONS WITH EGYPT RESIGNATION OF LORD LLOYD ANXIETY OB 1 OPPOSITION LABOUR STATES POSITION British Official Wireless. Rugby, July 26. 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. 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 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 that led to his predecessor, Sir Austen Chamberlain, issuing to Lord Lloyd on May 28, two days before the general election, a complete re-statement of the principles on which the Government had decided to conduct the relations between Britain and Egypt. 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 so 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 obtained during the last three or four years. He made the intimation to 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 bound to tell you that I have been impressed by the divergence of outlook which from time to time has been apparent between my predecessor and your Lordship. That this difference of outlook is possibly sincere I do not for a moment doubt, but I confess that it appears bridgeable. • “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 be lacking in frank- . nees 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.” DISCUSSIONS FRIENDLY. Lord Lloyd arrived in England this day week. Mr. Henderson saw him on 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 handed Mr. Henderson his resignation. Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) said 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. Winston Churchill, ex-Chancellor 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 epot, facing the difficulties and , risks, naturally had hie viewpoint. What was there in Mr. Henderson’s oration to show anything but a healthy, active, 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 his post of duty Lord Lloyd was asked to fill the position, which was perhaps one of the most difficult in the British Empire. He accepted the position and he did what he considered to be his duty, but Mr. MacDonald claimed that the Government, in administering a colony or dependency, must have complete and full confidence-in its representatives. 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, continued th© Premier. The Government was going, to enter into a full examination of all the questions connected with Egypt, but no final decision would be made until the House had agreed to its ratification.

“We 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 to do, remembering all the time our responsibilities to this country.” The Government wa-s 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 had 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 be handled. There ras the question of the military occupation of Cairo. In the Sarwat Treaty it was stated that this might be revised in ten years and then every fifth year afterwards. SPIRIT OF GOODWILL. “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 communication through Egypt, except that? If Mr. Churchill and his colleagues are in any doubt about that I will tell them the whole matter, whilst I am talking, is being considered by the three heads of the service departments.” Mr. MacDonald added that the same variety of possibilities with regard to the other reservations wag being treated with the same caution, and only when everything had been explored and the best proposal that could be, made had been devised, would the instrument, which . was vital and to which the Government would commit itself make its appearance. “Every move we have made or contemplate making to improve Egyptian relations will be influenced by a spirit of goodwill,” said Mr. Henderson in reply. “I say emphatically there has been no change in 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 until submitted for the approval of the House of Commons and the Egyptian people. We shall take no step without consulting the Dominions.” Mr. MacDonald described Mr. Churchill’s speech as a mischievous and unjustifiable 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. I appeal to the House not to do anything further to damage Egypt, but let us get on with the business.

On the motion for the adjournment for the summer races, Mr. Baldwin drew attention to the great gravity of Lord Lloyd’s resignation or dismissal. He hoped Mr. Henderson would be able to dispel Wednesday’s inist, which hud developed on Thursday in the House of Lords. Mr. Baldwin traced the history of British policy in Egypt to the 1922 declaration recognising Egypt’s independence, subject to reservations. He alluded to the failure of the treaty with Zaghloul Pasha in which it was stated that the presence of British troops in nowise meant occupation or prejudiced Egyptian sovereign rights. (Labour laughter). Mr, Baldwin said the failure of the 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 Pasha and Mr. MacDonald to show that the latter was prepared for any serious departure from the 1922 declaration. Mr. Baldwin recalled Mr. MacDonald’s 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 communications. (Opposition cheers). Lord Lloyd occupied one of the most difficult posts. He was of a type who was not afraid to speak his mind and was able to argue and criticise, while the duty of the Foreign Office was to listen and receive. Their representative must carry out his instructions, or, if he disagreed, he must resign if he regarded the subject as a sufficiently important matter of principle. “Why did Lord Lloyd resign, or why was he dismissed?” asked Mr. Baldwin. '•’The question is 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 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). ' .. r ,