DEMOCRACY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
[To TRH EDITOR OF TIIR "SPRCTLIOR."]
SIR,—As you have been good enough to devote an article to a criticism of the pamphlet I have just issued on "Democracy and the Control of Foreign Affairs," perhaps you will allow me to deal with some of the points you raise.
You claim that there has been, and is, no mystery about Sir Edward Grey's policy, which is, as you say, nothing more than the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Surely this may be taken for granted. Had the Foreign Secretary in any way suggested that he intended to pursue the opposite policy he would not have been allowed to remain in office a week. If you considered that the House of Commons and the country are sufficiently informed, once they have grasped this funda- mental fact, and that they need ask no more, there is indeed a very great difference of opinion between us. It is the lines of the policy which our Foreign Secretary was pursuing in our relations with other European Powers, of which we should have known more during the last few years. We might then have been able to judge for ourselves whether the best method was being adopted to secure the object we all have in view. That the policy of the balance of power with its entanglements and alliances was not the best method is now perfectly clear when we know how near we were to an outbreak of war, and what a state of apprehension and suspicion was created throughout Europe. The abandonment of this policy seems already to be contemplated.
But I must not trespass on your space to enter into a discussion ranging over the whole field of foreign affairs. It is when you deal with the proposals in the latter half of my pamphlet that I have most reason to complain.
I have been at special pains not to overstate the case, to use exaggerated language, or to make excessive demands ; it is therefore somewhat annoying to find, in an important criticism in your pages, repeated misrepresentations of my arguments.
May I give some instances P You say, "It is not a change of policy he desires, but a simple statement, repeated at fre- quent intervals, of what the actual policy is." Nowhere do I ask for any statement to be repeated at frequent intervals, and a change of policy is precisely what I do desire, as can easily be inferred from my remarks on the policy of balance of power (page 16).
" Mr. Ponsonby and his allies would answer. We want to know each particular step he proposes to take." Later on again you refer to the Foreign Secretary submitting to Par- liament "each successive step." My own words are a direct contradiction of this. "Let it be clearly understood with regard to the crisis of last summer that what was wanted was not daily information as to the developments of the pourparlera between France and Germany. No one would be foolish enough to ask for disclosures at the very moment when the situation was delicate and dangerous" (p. 181.
Again, you say I desire that the Foreign Secretary "should often. make arrangements for the discussion of our foreign policy in the House of Commons," and that he should lay papers on the table "at short intervals." This is in no way justified by my suggestion that there should be an extension of the very rare opportunities now allowed for the discussion of foreign affairs, and by my asking that papers on important questions should be laid with greater frequency.
Lastly, you state that I demand that the Foreign Secretary "should always be in his place to answer questions." There is not a syllable in my pamphlet which could be interpreted to mean anything of the kind. There is no complaint what- ever with regard to the arrangement by which the Foreign Secretary only attends at question time on certain days of the week.
By putting into my mouth such words as I have italicized your article gives a very misleading idea of the contention I am urging. As many of your readers will probably only see your article and not my pamphlet I feel that I may be allowed in justice to myself to explain that I did not use the expressions attributed to me, which would have rendered my argument unreasonable and absurd.—I am, Sir, &e., [We are, of course, delighted to give the fullest publicity to Mr. Ponsonby's protest, but after reading his actual words in their context and endeavouring to estimate their general effect, we cannot admit that we have in our summary of his suggestions done him an injustice. We cannot reprint his little book, but we may quote verbatim his own summary of his demands "More frequent opportunities for discussion in the House of Commons. Answers to Parliamentary Questions. The laying of papers on Foreign Questions. Pronouncements by the Foreign Secretary in the country." These constitute the machinery which ought, Mr. Ponsonby tells us, to be utilized to the full " instead of being discarded." If any of our readers who are interested care to look back at our article of last week—Mr. Ponsonby, though no doubt unintentionally, does not represent it quite fairly by his quotations—we venture to say that such readers will admit that we did not give an unfair or inaccurate description of his demands.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
