Who Speaks for the Unionist Party
THE policy of the Unionist Party, so far as it affects domestic affairs and the relations of the party to the Government and the Liberals, may be said to concern only Unionists themselves. But it is another matter when Unionist policy has reactions far beyond this country. With all the will in the world to under- stand precisely where the Unionist Party stands in regard to foreign policy in general, and especially in regard to the present Government's policy in Egypt and India, we must confess ourselves at fault. Mr. Baldwin seems to look upon the Government's foreign policy and the policy in Egypt and India as a natural, if too hasty, consummation of his own policy. He observes a benevo- lent reticence which implies a certain sanction, and for the rest he seems cheerfully to hope that, though the Gov- ernment have taken risks, all will be well. Mr. Churchill follows quite another line, and it would be interesting—. indeed, it is most important—to know which of them speaks with the true Unionist voice. Both voices are broadcast all over the world. Yet if settlements in Egypt and India depend largely upon a favourable psychological atmosphere--as we are quite sure that they do--every political party here has a responsibility extending far beyond its own borders.
We have Egypt and India specially in mind now, as Mr. Churchill on Monday made the Government's policy towards those countries the subject of an angry attack. He displayed his customary and characteristic impatience. It is untrue that the business of an Opposition is always to oppose, but Mr. Churchill, being pugnacious, always trails his coat like the Irishman at Donnybrook Fair if he does not happen to see any satisfactory prospect of a fight at the moment. Mr. Baldwin, on the other hand, being a patient man, waits for the Government to make a glaring mistake. He apparently takes it for granted that the Labour Party is still more popular than any other party, and he leaves it to time to bring revenges. We suggest that Mr. Churchill's impetuosity is putting his party in a wholly wrong position. More Unionists may agree with Mr. Churchill than we suppose ; but at all events we should like to be informed.
When Mr. Churchill was in Canada he gave out a hectic message about the troubles in Palestine being the direct result of Lord Lloyd's enforced resignation from the High Commissionership in Egypt. Many people— more tharr we think, perhaps—may have found in his words the lead which they wanted, but to us the message seemed to be entirely unrelated to facts. He appeared to be opposing for the mere sake of opposing, and if he wanted (as, of course, he did) to advance the cause of the Unionist Party, he was unwittingly, so far as we could judge, doing exactly the reverse. In his speech on Monday he returned to Egypt and denounced the proposal to remove British troops from Cairo, and declared that by abandoning the Egyptian capital, which he described as " a cosmopolitan city," the Government were renouncing before all the world the obligation of securing its order and welfare. He prophesied that this Would mean disaster and bloodshed.
The trouble with what may be called the Lord Lloyd view of the Egyptian problem is that it not only omits the original promise that Great Britain would grant independence to Egypt—a promise to which Lord Cromer was always careful to express his fidelity—but also omits the understanding that the famous reserved points would be more particularly defined: We think that the -Egyptian people were extremely foolish -in March, 1928, to reject the generous Treaty which Sir Austen Chamberlain offered them. Their refusal, how- ever, did not dispose of the British declaration of 1922.
Independence was then definitely guaranteed to Egypt subject to • the reservations aforesaid. The reserved points were : the security of the communications of the British Empire ; the defence of Egypt against foreign aggression ; the protection of foreigners in Egypt ; and the control of the Sudan. The present British Govern- ment in their attempt to negotiate a treaty with Egypt profess to have every one of these reservations in mind. Their plan of confining British troops to the Canal zone at least clearly postulates British guardianship of the communications ; the duty of defending Egypt against foreign aggression is accepted ; the control of the Sudan ought not to be affected by the presence of a compara- tively small number of Egyptian troops who will only be symbolic of the old condominium ; and as for the pro- tection of foreigners in Egypt, the Government hold that without such goodwill on the part of the Egyptians as they hope to gain by the Treaty, there can be no real protection. • - If the protection provided by the Egyptian Govern- ment should be inadequate, there will be a clear case and a duty for intervention. But goodwill is not likely to be got by in effect telling the Egyptians that their capital is not their own. What Lord Lloyd virtually asked for, though he did not say it in so many words, was that the Declaration of 1922 should he ignored as though it had never existed.
Now to turn to India. There has been a remarkable change of opinion about India, not only in this country but still more among Englishmen in India. Most people admit now that, though the conferment of Dominion status may have to be a gradual process, the real point is the satisfaction of Indian ambitions by treating India as a country equal in prestige to the other Dominions. No sensible person thinks that the exact form of government which has been evolved for any one of the Dominions—each Dominion Constitution being different from the others—can be applied bodily to India. What we can agree about is that India ought to have an equality of position with the others, so that she can appear as a sister State with the others at the Imperial Conferences.
We have no doubt whatever that if that equality were granted without undue delay Indians themselves would be perfectly willing to work out, in collaboration with British rulers, the process which would bring the new Indian Constitution step by step to completion in fact. There is in India something which corresponds closely to that important political and social ingredient known in China as " face." All the evidence from India convinces us that the Indian peoples will be appeased if they are given " equality." The Native Princes want it not less than the peoples of British India. They will not be too particular about the exact day at which they can dispense with the British help which has enabled them to win the prize. Mr. Gandhi, in his paper Young India, has himself said this. " I can wait for Dominion status if I can get the real Dominion status in action by a change of attitude in the British people."
That change, we believe, has come here, though lie may be unaware of it. It was brought into the light by Lord Irwin. The Times gave Lord Irwin unstinted support. Mr. Churchill on Monday told quite another story and again prophesied. woe. Who speaks for Unionism ? We may be wrong, but we feel pretty sure that Mr. Churchill does not. •
Previous page
