ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

something more than friendships-a | directly that the fate of China is not to policy of alliances. I read the speech be decided in defiance of our interests, lately made by the Colonial Secretary in and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, connection with two speeches made by who was defended by the Leader of the the Leader of the House. The Leader of House, has gone so far as to say that even the House alluded on two occasions to "at the risk of war" the fate of China the desirability of closer relations between shall not be so decided. The Secretary ourselves and Germany, and he did so in of State for the Colonies said that if we reference to certain affairs in China, in were determined to pursue the object of which there had been some measure of equal opportunities of trade, we must conflict between this country and Russia. not reject the idea of an alliance with The Secretary of State for the Colonies, those Powers whose interests are most speaking at Birmingham on the 13th of nearly approximate to our own, and I May, appears to have contemplated some- think he was specially speaking of the thing like standing or permanent alli- case of China. Well, Sir, no doubt the ances. There is no question with Government are pledged to pursue the regard to the United States. Nothing policy of an equal opportunity for trade, could be stronger, I believe, than although I confess that I think the facts the desire of every Member of this I have pointed out in regard to other House, and of almost everybody in the cases show that they have not successcountry, that we should have closer rela- fully maintained that policy in action. tions and greater friendship with the But, Sir, what were the Powers which United States, that our friendship should the right honourable Gentleman had in be unbroken, that our ends should be view when he went on further to say that common ends, and that to every possible unless we were allied to some great extent we should work together in pur- "military Power," we could not “seriously suance of those ends. But I doubt injure" Russia? Those words, "we whether anyone thinks in his heart that, cannot seriously injure Russia," no doubt at all events at the present day, there must only point to this fact, that if, could be what may be called a war alli- unfortunately, we should be drawn into a ance, for the purpose of making war war with Russia, Russia is a Power with against any enemies of this country, or which it is difficult to make peace. If forgets that any alliance with the United we were at war with Russia it might be States must be influenced by the Irish found difficult to bring that war to a policy of this country. Let me, therefore, satisfactory conclusion, and it is no doubt only say this: every man welcomes an to this well-known fact that the Secretary alliance, if you like to call it so, of hearts of State alluded in using the words, between the two countries, but none of "unless we are allied to some great us, and few Americans, think that it military Power." Now, Sir, I cannot but would be likely to produce what may be treat those words as being at least an called a war alliance. Now, what had invitation to this country to consider a the Secretary of State for the Colonies system of permanent or standing alli exactly in view? I make no apology for ances with the Power which was pointed discussing this question, as it appears to at by the Leader of the House-namely, me to be the gravest question we can dis- Germany. Those words, I confess, seem cuss in reference to the past and the to me capable of no other interpretation, future foreign policy of this country. and I should like, in conclusion, to say a The right honourable Gentleman the few words upon that most important Secretary of State for the Colonies used branch of our foreign relations. I will these wordsnot taunt the Government with the bad reception given to their overtures by the German Press, because I admit that the German Press is not Germany. The language of the German Press does not often continue for long periods to have much relation to the conduct of public affairs in Germany, and its language at one time has often before happily been exchanged for other language, and may be again,

"I believe that if the policy of isolation is to be maintained, the fate of China probably will be decided in defiance of our interests."

It seems to me, therefore, that he has pledged himself against a policy of isola tion, because the Government have pledged themselves against the fate of China being decided in defiance of our interests. The Government have told us Sir C. Dilke.

But, Sir, I should like to point in that respect has been avowed in the out the reasons which make it German Parliament over and over again. unlikely that Germany could ever offer Although it was at one time rejected, it this country a permanent or standing alliance which would be valuable in view of war. Personally, I am entirely opposed to the policy of alliance, standing or permanent. I believe it is far better for us to keep the control of our policy free from any of these connections with other Powers in time of peace.

[ocr errors]

has now reasserted itself, and his policy since 1895 has been readopted by the German Emperor. In 1887 Prince Bis marck made this statement

no

"Our friendship for Russia suffered interruption during the time of our wars, and stands to-day beyond all doubt. We shall not let anyone throw his lasso round our neck in order to embroil us with Russia.”

"No great power can in the long run cling to the wording of any Treaty in contradiction to the interests of its own people. It is sooner or later compelled to say we cannot keep to well as it can." that,' and must justify this announcement as

But,

That was said when Prince Bismarck was
in power. In 1889 Prince Bismarck's
views fell into discredit, and after he fell
from power the present German Emperor,
in 1890, renewed the Triple Alliance
without renewing the alliance with Russia
that Prince Bismarck had made.
Sir, in 1895 Prince Bismarck's under-
standing with Russia was renewed. The
Bismarck policy was again proclaimed,
and the relations of those two countries
have never been closer than they are at
the present time. And, therefore, I hold
that any notion of a permanent or stand-
ing alliance with Germany against Russia

I am not speaking of alliances with an immediate view of war-for in such an event no doubt allies would be found in various Then in 1888 he declared that if, unforportions of the world with common in- tunately, the opposite view should preterests with our own-but anything like vail, and such an entanglement of a policy of permanent or standing Germany could be brought aboutalliances would lead us very far. The question now is whether there is any prospect that Germany would ever con sent to bear in Europe the brunt of defending our interests and the most dangerous of our responsibilities. As I have pointed out, a standing war alliance with Germany seems to have been repu diated by the whole German Press. It could hardly be an alliance binding enough and general enough to meet our greatest risks and needs. We had such alliances throughout the last century, but, while we paid their price, they often failed us at a pinch; and as for our alliances in the great war, after Austerlitz we were at war with the whole world. As matters stand. our fleets, if not sufficient, can be increased at a less cost of money and of policy than that by which such alliances can be supported. As regards land war our heaviest drain is is a will-of-the-wisp; and opposed as I India. India is the great nightmare of this country so far as military defence is concerned; but would Germany be likely to lessen the weight of that nightmare? Is it probable that Germany would bear in Europe the brunt of assisting in defending India or our China trade? I cannot myself think that she would do so, and I especially disbelieve in the possibility of our ever obtaining from Germany anything like a permanent or standing alliance against the great power of Russia. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said we cannot seriously injure Russia without an alliance with a great military Power. What has Prince Bismarck said upon this subject? I quote him for this reason. He is the highest authority on the possible alliances of Germany, and his policy

am to the whole policy of alliances as being contrary, I think, to the interests of this country, I am also specially opposed to this particular proposal, be cause I believe it will mislead our people and lead them to suppose that they can rely upon the strong arm of some other Power, instead of relying only upon their own strength. Now, Sir, the Colonial Secretary contrasted with the policy he suggested the policy of isolation which had previously prevailed. Let me say this: a policy of isolation does not, of course, necessarily imply isolation in war. Whenever you are driven into war you will probably find other Powers who, on particular questions, have common interests with yourselves. The policy against which I am protesting is that of permanent, standing alliances, when war is

Question put.

not in immediate view. A policy of are confused, while good reasons can be alliance when you have an immediate found by those who do not desire to overcommon object in view of war with other turn the Government for resisting an Powers is one which everybody would Amendment. But, Sir, the Division to favour. There is another point, however. which some of us feel bound to proceed, The Colonial Secretary threw out a sug-in order to prevent what might othergestion which has been often made, and wise be styled a unanimous decision of as to which I hope he will give us some Parliament in favour of this Vote, will actual sign of the accomplishment of his be no indication of the forces of appro purpose. He said we should prepare the bation, or of disapprobation, with regard whole power of our own Empire. That to the foreign policy of the Government. is an opposite policy which I should Whatever we may think, it is, in my rather be inclined to favour, because all opinion, important that we should of us must feel that we should make a register our opinion, and put it to the great attempt to bring together the whole test of a Division of the House. possible forces of the Empire for a common object, and that we should do so in time of peace with a view of utilising those forces in time of war. Now, *ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne). Sir, with regard to the course we are As no one rises from the Government taking to-night upon this Vote, I have bench, I wish, in my own humble way, to no doubt that the Government will rely make some observations upon, and make upon their immense and overwhelming some protest against, the admirable majority in this House to plaster over the speech of the right honourable Baronet the failure of their foreign policy. Of course, Member for the Forest of Dean, to which in a Division on a Vote in Supply the the House has just listened. The right issues are to some extent confused, and honourable Baronet says the Government good reasons can be found by those who will rely upon their great majority. do not desire to overturn the Government I say the Government will rely upon the for resisting an Amendment. You cannot justness of their case and upon their have the clear issue which you might foreign policy from beginning to end. have on other occasions. That I frankly That, at least, is my opinion. I am admit, but, on the other hand, I doubt aware that there are some Unionists who whether there is even a single Unionist are dissatisfied and have expressed oppoMember of this House who fully and com- sition not only in this House but outside, pletely approves of the foreign policy of in the Press. We are told that we have the Government. It has been universally to look to the Press as reflecting the condemned by the Metropolitan Press. opinion of the country. Sir, I do not look In a leading Unionist paper this morning upon the Press as reflecting the opinion -and we know that the Metropolitan of the country; but to the House. The Press has previously expressed its feel- right honourable Baronet has travelled ings very freely-I saw an appeal made all over the globe, dwelling not long at in the largest type in the Standard news- any part, and finding fault with the paper calling upon all Unionist Members Government policy wherever he could, as to vote for the Government on the he thought, assail it, with some prospect Foreign Office Vote, because, it said, the of getting a cheer from his own side of present Government is practically the the House. The honourable Baronet is only barrier between us and the "party a very able man, and has a great knowof Revolution." Of course, Sir, on that ledge of foreign politics, but this criticism ground you might defend any Foreign of the Government has been entirely of a Office Vote, whatever your opinion of the negative character. He does not tell us foreign policy of the Government might be. what the Government should have done, We shall continue to appeal to what we but declares that its policy has resulted believe and we have a very strong in failure and loss and discredit everybelief to what we know is the opinion where. The honourable Baronet referred of the country on this question. In any to the policy of the Government in the Division on a Vote in Supply the issues Sir C. Dilke.

ar East, but it would have been a little

fairer on his part if, in attacking the gone, and no man with any knowledge policy of the Government in that respect, of the subject will say anything different. he had acknowledged that they were The right honourable Baronet goes on to more or less hampered by the Concert of say that the policy of the GovernEurope. The honourable Baronet says ment in Siam and Tunis is opposed we should have got Port Arthur, and he to their professions, or their acts were not complained that the Government invited in accordance with their policy. I leave Russia to take the port. I am not aware the right honourable Gentleman thǝ that the Government did anything of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign kind. On the contrary I find they did Affairs to answer that charge. But the their very best to prevent Russia taking honourable Member gave the GovernPort Arthur. The Government no doubt ment credit for desiring to improve the had committed themselves to the idea relations between this country and the that Russia had a right to an ice-free United States. He was very careful not port, and I do not suppose anyone would to condemn that; he only ventured to doubt that she had. But I am not going criticise the statement of the right honto waste time travelling over that subject ourable Gentleman the Secretary of again—it was exhausted some weeks ago State for the Colonies at Birmingham in discussing the China question. The thathonourable Baronet says there is paralysis at Crete, but he forgets that it is due

Power, as we were in the Crimean war when "unless we are allied to some great military we had France and Turkey as our allies, we cannot seriously injure Russia."

And he thought the right honourable Gentleman must have been referring to Germany. But it does not appear what particular military Power was in the Colonial Secretary's mind. There is another military Power, which is left out of account, in the Eastern Seas that is a coming military Power. The right honourable Baronet quoted Lord Salis bury in terms of scorn, but I believe in his heart he admires him all the time. The speech from which the right honour

to the action of the Government that Crete is not now in the hands of the Turk. That is my answer. The right honourable Baronet also complains that the Government have shown great want of foresight, and have gone "from bad to worse," and have yielded to the pressure of Russia and France at Pekin. But he never said one word about the alliance between France and Russia. Every sensiblə man must know that, in dealing with this question, the Government have had to face the fact that these two Powers were allied together in a naval and military sense, and have had to look every way before taking up a firm atti-able Baronet quoted was the one in which tude. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the Government have come well out of their great difficulties, and they have had to face such difficulties in the China seas as no Government before this century has had to face in the collapse of an Empire of 300 millions governed by the literati, but I object to government by the literati. They are very clever men, but they are not the men who lead or guide a country. They do not fight; they talk. The honourable Baronet attacked the policy of the Government regarding Madagascar, but that is ancient history, and need not trouble our minds about it. With regard to Heligoland-the cession of which, under an agreement with Germany, the honourable Baronet seemed to condemn, although he did not exactly censure it—I am very glad it is

we

Lord Salisbury very properly said, "Look at the results." The right honourable Baronet does not seem satisfied to look at the results, and I want to remind him of some of them. I would remind him that we have secured a port in the Eastern Seas, Wei-hai-Wei, and that naval men are perfectly happy that we have secured that port. It is a very important secondary base, but no sensible naval Member ever looked upon it as a primary base, or looked to a large expenditure for fortifications there. It is a secondary base, and one of our eminent naval men who filled the post of commander-in-chief in these seas, Sir Vesey Hamilton, has recently written a letter showing that this is the tone of naval opinion upon it. It is nearest our objective in case of war, and the Government deserve credit for having secured that

had been presented to Parliament recording the negotiations between this Government and the Governments of Russia, China, and Germany, in relation to the Far East. To many of us on both sides

base. The right honourable Baronet | Committee of the situation in which we quoted the Secretary of State for the were left upon the last occasion on which Colonies with approval, but seemed to this subject came under discussion. Papers think it was useless to talk about a possible alliance with some military Power. He opposes an alliance with a military Power, but I do not understand him to object to the kind of alliance which all of us would desire, if forced and I believe I am not exaggerating into war-namely, that we should look when I say that to most people in the to our American friends to help us. country without distinction of party— One word in conclusion. I only rose these Papers had been somewhat melanbecause I thought some humble indi- choly reading; and I cannot think that vidual on this side should give his views anyone with any pretence to controversial on the question of the Government's fairness will say that at any stage of these policy. The speech of the right honour-proceedings we have converted this quesable Gentleman the Secretary of State tion into a party question, or have even for the Colonies has my warm admiration and the admiration of most men outside. It reminded me of a very good story. The late Archbishop Magee was once chairman of a Committee in the House of Lords on a very important Bill. There was a prevaricating witness before the Committee, and the Archbishop was very much irritated by him. The episcopal garb restrained him, however, until the prevaricating witness left the chair, and then he exclaimed: "I wish some layman would express my feelings for me.' In relation to these Far Eastern negotiations, the Prime Minister is in the position of Archbishop Magee, and the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies is in the position of the layman who has expressed his views, and I am certain the country will endorse them.

looked at it from a party point of view. Let me remind the Committee that at the beginning of the year, when Ministers made speeches whose apparent purpose and meaning was unmistakable, warning the country that our industrial future in China was menaced by new perils, we did not hesitate to come forward at once and assure them that in any steps which prudent and firm states anship might devise to protect those undoubted and invaluable interests they would have the support of the whole country. I am not going to redebate any of the questions which were discussed at such length on the last occasion, but I believe I am expressing in moderate language a feeling which predominates on both sides of the House, when when I say that it was with sincere and legitimate disappointment that we looked in those Papers, and looked in vain, for evidence *MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.): I do not of foresight, consistency, or tenacity. propose to follow the gallant Admiral But-and this is the point I wish to in the various excursions which he has bring home-Her Majesty's Government made into unknown seas. Nor shall I not unnaturally took a very different view. attempt to cover the ground so ably The right honourable Gentleman the traversed by the right honourable Gentle- Leader of the House consecrated a conman the Member for the Forest of Dean, siderable part of the very elaborate and in his extended survey of almost the eloquent speech he delivered then to the whole area of our foreign relations. My proposition that in all these matters object is much simpler, and is confined to it was Russia and not we who had come an attempt to obtain from the Govern-off second best. He told us that ment an authoritative expression of their opinion on certain events which have occurred and certain declarations which have been made since this vote was last under discussion, and which, if they represent a serious and settled purpose, vitally affect the very foundations of our foreign policy. I would remind the Admiral Field.

Russia was not stronger, but weaker, than she was before any of these affairs occurred, whereas we, the fortunate people of Great Britain, had reaped a golden harvest in the opening up of the waterways of China, in having the Yang-tsze Valley assigned to us, as a sphere, if not of influence, at any rate of

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »