Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎145r] (289/442)

1939
Supply {Committee). 10 July 1912 Foreign Office. 1940
ing, warning, and even threatening foreign
countries. It is no longer the care
ful and cautious and moderating voice
of diplomacy, but it is the boast-
4 , ing and blatant voice of what I might
describe as official jingoism—more danger
ous really than the jingoism of the time
gone by, because the jingoism of the past
was the jingoism of the mob, and the same
words really, in spirit, are used now. The
mob used to cry, “We have the ships, we
have the men, we have the money too,”
and now the First Lord of the Admiralty,
m perfect language, conveys exactly and
precisely the same substance. I feel that
the Foreign Office ought not to allow their
powers to be usurped by any other Gov
ernment Department. Besides this, official
jingoism does not really represent the feel
ing of the people. In the days gone by it
was the sentiment of the mob, but what
we called the mob fifty years ago we call
the people now, and we rightly treat them
with respect, because we know that their
opinions, especially on these questions, are
perhaps the most pacific influence that
exists in the world to-day, and therefore
when we talk to Europe, when we make
our naval statement, we are not really re
presenting the feelings of the people of
* this country. It is exceedingly difficult
now for us to detach completely our
foreign policy from our naval policy. They
are absolutely intermingled, and the Army
policy as well, but more especially naval
» policy, because it is through our naval
policy that we have taken to talking to the
world instead of in the old method of
•diplomatic representations. It is foreign
policy that is the underlying cause of our
vast expenditure on armaments, and
therefore is responsible for the inadequate
resources that are available for our re
forms at home. We may have another
opportunity when the Naval Estimates
come up to criticise that policy more par
ticularly, but it is unfortunate that there
should not be, as there has been in former
years, a day given to the discussion of
Imperial defence.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN : I must ask
the hon. Member to confine himself more
particularly to the Vote now before the
House.
* Mr. PONSONBY : This appears to me to
be extremely pertinent to the conduct of
the Foreign Office, because my argument
is that the Foreign Secretary is, to some
extent, allowing his particular functions
-* f° be usurped by another Department,
because, after all, the object and chief
function of diplomacy is to prevent the
temper and irritation that may arise from
inevitable international differences and
disputes. When we talk in the language
of diplomacy, that is our object. If you
substitute for the language of diplomacy
this repeated declaration of our naval
supremacy, you are very likely to defeat
the object you have in view, and to bring
about unfortunate results.
I should like in conclusion to make two
specific suggestions. The first is, that as
we are responsible for this great increase
of expenditure on armaments which has
seized the whole of the civilised world to
day, we—the British Government—should
on our own initiative propose a Confer
ence of Europe for the limitation of ex
penditure on armaments. I do not think it
is altogether a foolish suggestion. The
Hague Conference is going to meet in two
years’ time, but it is usually occupied with
all sorts of technical points of international
law. I should like to see a Conference on
this particular point alone, initiated by
the British Government and with the
Foreign Powers brought in to talk the
matter over. As it is we have set the
pace, and we see Power after Power fol
lowing each other in training the re
sources of their country and building these
ships of war. Lastly, I would plead with
my right hon. Friend to make a more defi
nite advance towards friendly relations with
Germany. I believe it is not impossible to
arrive at a completely friendly relationship
with Germany. In the statement on the
Navy Estimates we always single out Ger
many. Germany is always mentioned, if
not in provocative language, at any rate
in language which just avoids being provo
cative. In that statement the Powers of
Europe are classified—those who are our
friends and those who may be our enemies.
If we could get rid of mentioning foreign
countries on these occasions and unneces
sarily stirring up ill-feeling and suspicion,
and if we would allow the Foreign Secre
tary himself to negotiate with foreign
Powers without this assistance from the
Admiralty, no one will make me believe
that we could not arrive at the clearer,
better, and more friendly understanding
with Germany which both peoples desire.
I believe once that was established ive
should lay the foundation of the mainten
ance of peace in Europe.
Mr. LLOYD : No one agrees more cordi
ally than I do with the hon. Member (Mr.
Ponsonby) in wishing that whenever we
discuss foreign affairs we should do so