765.84/3142
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 19.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that published accounts emanating from Paris within the last twenty-four hours of a purported agreement between Sir Samuel Hoare and M. Laval for possible terms of settlement of the Italo-Abyssinian conflict have produced the most widespread interest, and even alarm, in this country which was reflected yesterday in a rather embarrassed debate in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, speaking first, fully recognized the anxiety prevailing but said that it was impossible for him at the present state of negotiations to disclose the exact nature of the proposals. He told the House, however, that the Committee of Coordination at Geneva had approved the negotiations by the French and British Governments in an attempt to find a basis for the settlement of the dispute. Such a basis, of course, would have to be submitted for the views of the parties concerned. Mr. Baldwin said that the Foreign Secretary in passing through Paris had conversations on this subject on Saturday and Sunday with M. Laval, and that certain proposals, both as to substance and procedure, were discussed between them. He said also that quite obviously there had been a leakage in France which had made a difficult and delicate matter incomparably more difficult and delicate. He had not himself studied the original proposals in comparison with the Press reports but he had been told by his advisers, who had studied them, that there were considerable differences in matters of substance.
[Page 704]In reply to a request from Mr. Attlee, leader of the Opposition, that, in view of the leakage and publication, the House be put immediately into possession of the real proposals, Mr. Baldwin replied that he perfectly understood the question and was not complaining about it, but that he desired to say this to the House:
“I have spent the whole of this morning in consultation with regard to messages that have come through on this matter. I am not at all sure that finality has been reached. I do not think any discussion in this House, before the question has been considered by the parties interested and concerned, could do any good but could do a great deal of harm. I recognize the natural desire of the House for all the information it can have. In my view, a discussion at this moment might do very serious harm, and I am not thinking of the Government but of the whole cause we have at heart. I will undertake to the House that the moment the proposals are agreed upon and have been submitted and we are in a position to lay all the relevant papers, which we cannot do on our own, especially in the middle of negotiations, those papers will be laid before the House, and I will undertake to give a day for discussion at the earliest moment I can and at any rate before the Christmas adjournment.”
The discussion further continuing, Mr. Baldwin said that the proposals are simply a basis for discussion, and that there is no precedent for such bases being placed before Parliament and discussed before they have been read and discussed and considered by the parties who are to consider them, according to the procedure of the League of Nations.
Later on in the session, on a continued debate on the King’s Address, Mr. Anthony Eden, speaking for the Government, said that he felt he could best serve the House by recalling the origins of the conversations which had taken place in Paris in the last few days. The Coordinating Committee at Geneva when they agreed on the imposition of certain sanctions at the same time specifically approved attempts to find a basis of discussion between the two parties. That Committee particularly welcomed the suggestion that the British and French Governments should seek to find such a basis. “Since the beginning of last month,” proceeded Mr. Eden, “we have, with the knowledge and approval of our fellow members of the League, been engaged upon the task of attempting to find a basis of negotiation, a basis of conciliation, which would enable the parties to talk. What we are now doing, therefore, is interpreting the League’s wishes that the search for conciliation should be concurrent with the imposition of sanctions. To me that seems to be an eminently reasonable course to pursue. The fact that these conversations have been proceeding is a surprise to no one. In that we have had no illusions as to the difficulty of the task. This is only the first step in a long and complicated enterprise. If it should happen that this basis which was discussed in Paris should commend itself to the principals of the dispute, [Page 705] then a beginning would have been made in the task still before us.”
Turning to the question of publicity, it was, he said, true that reports had appeared in a number of papers in Great Britain, all purporting to give an account of those proposals which were discussed and provisionally agreed to in Paris. In all the reports he had seen there were important inaccuracies, and many of the accounts were mutually contradictory. He said it was not possible for him at this time to make public the proposals that were discussed. He said that the proposals agreed to in Paris did not necessarily represent the point of view of the French Government or the British Government, but that they represented suggestions which, in the judgment of those taking part in the discussions, might enable the parties to get together, and that was all that these proposals were intended to do. Mr. Eden, continuing, said:
“Now, I come to the point which has been made that what the Government is now engaged in doing is contrary to the League and contrary to the principles of the Covenant. Very well. If that be so, then of course it is for the League to say so. If they do say so we shall make no complaint. We shall be ready to accept their judgment just as we have been ready to take our part in this very unwelcome task. The League placed its confidence when it approved of our undertaking this task. We have every confidence in the judgment of the League when they come to examine these proposals. Now I have told the House all I can at this stage, and I can only ask them to appreciate both my position and my responsibilities.”
The serious alarm which these reports from Paris have created is widely reflected in the London Press this morning, including even the pro-Government Daily Telegraph. The only note to the contrary was contained in a strange editorial in the Daily Mail, entitled “Better News This Morning”, in which the most enormous satisfaction was expressed at the reported proposals from Paris.
The following paragraphs appear in an article by the political correspondent of the Daily Telegraph:
“These reports, which the British Government has been at no pains to correct—Mr. Eden merely said that they contained inaccuracies—have caused great anxiety among members of all parties in Parliament. The suggestion that the Cabinet is prepared to see large areas of Abyssinia handed over to Italy is regarded as unbelievable in view of the Government’s many declarations on the subject.
“The plain fact is that the Government, in the opinion of their Parliamentary supporters, might have removed the still lingering feeling of uneasiness by a plain denial of extravagant statements regarding the settlement terms.”
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy