رسائل وأوراق بخصوص السكة الحديدية العابرة لبلاد فارس والسكك الحديدية الأخرى في بلاد فارس [و‎‎١‎٦‎٠] (٤٤٢/٣١٩)

1999 Supply (Committee).
Foreign Office. 2000
10 July 1912
French reviews which are by no means in
accord with that desire. There are many
utterances such that if they came from a
German source would cause us great
alarm, and would certainly
9.0 f.m. afford great satisfaction to
writers in the “National Be-
view ” and people of that sort. An in
stance of this tone in the French Press
lately occurred in the “Nouvelle Revue,”
one of the most prominent Paris journals,
in January last, as follows:—
“We intend to have war. After forty years of a
heavily armed peace, we can at last utter this opinion,
without the serious readers of a French review shaking
in their shoes. . . . France is ready to strike and to
conquer as she was not ready forty years ago, and she
will not be in four or five years t* come, owing to the
annual divergent numbers of the birth-rate in each
country We, the attacking party, will have
arranged with England that their fleet . . .
will have followed . . . the remains of the
whole German Navy into German waters.”
These things are treated with far too much
importance, but we must treat them with
the same judgment whether they are in
Germany or in France. If such things are
being said in France and commented on
by us when they occur in Germany, they
are worth noting, because they indicate
that the view we take of the Anglo-French
entente is not always exactly consonant
with the opinion held in France. It is
just as well for us to realise that the policy
in which we assisted France last year is
certainly regarded as marking a great
triumph for the French Colonial party. I
have acquaintances among French officials,
and I would like to indicate to my hon.
Friends a view which is largely held by
officials in France. An influential French
official view was that last year England,
when the Agadir incident occurred, should
have said to Germany, “We quite under
stand that a readjustment of the Algeciras
Act has become necessary. The French
march on Fez has, of course, profoundly
altered the status quo. You are quite
within your rights in asking France either
to revert to the Algebras arrangements or
to give you territorial compensation. But
the Foreign .Office acted as if France could
do no wrong if she tried. We French
officials criticised our own Government
much more severely than the Foreign
Office did, and never ceased to point out
at Paris that, if the French Colonial party
was allowed to get the upper hand, as in
deed, happened, there must be trouble.”
That is a French view and not an irre
sponsible one. I think that also is in
accord with an anxiety felt by the public
here lest the Foreign Office may have
leaned too strongly towards the French
side, and possibly towards the French
Colonial party who have obtained tho
upper hand, and that there is a tendency
which may with advantage be watched
more carefully. It is only our business in
this House to express the feelings which
are abroad, and I think it is avowed by
writers upon principles of diplomacy
that it is the business of the’
Government to express in policy the
trend of national aims. Certainly it
is sound doctrine that the Foreign
Secretary is not entitled to pursue his
own ideals. He, is a trustee for views
with which he may not agree. We are
only concerned to emphasise that prin
ciple, and to insist that in acting as a trus
tee of public opinion it is only essential
that public opinion should be rightly and
justly interpreted. There were many indi
cations last autumn—they have ceased now
because events have not occurred upon
which comment could be made—of grave
uneasiness; there were meetings of poli
tical associations ; there was a great demon
stration at the association meeting at Bath.
There is also the odd fact that almost the
whole of the Press of one party has dis
played grave distrust with the methods,
though not the outlines, of the policy being
pursued. Whether the Cabinet itself was
unanimous on the methods employed none
of us will know, but it may be open to
doubt. We at least may safely say that if
the principle has reflected national feeling,
there is a feeling abroad of great distrust
and dissatisfaction at what happened last
year. If not, then I will say that I, and
doubtless others, who have written on the
subject, in various parts of the House, have
received letters in large numbers from
people whose official position, both civil
and military, prevents them from express
ing their views indicating dissatisfaction
with the policy and desire that it should
be modified by the expression of opinion
in this House.
We can hardly suppose that there is no
anti-bias, no anti-German feeling, in quar
ters which are influential, because precisely
the same feeling prevailed at one time
towards France and another time towards
Russia ; a feeling which to-day is generally
recognised to have been mistaken and to
have been grossly exaggerated at the time.
The man in the street certainly holds that
the possessions and claims of the two
countries are harmonisable and do not
necessarily give rise to conflict. I think
we may fairly say that if this is a question