How the Nations Waged War. J. M. Kennedy
for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador, together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own, which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected.
Sir E. Grey: These were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on August 1st, and without authority, to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in No. 85, in the White Paper.[4] The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning—that is Sunday, August 2nd—the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. The German Chancellor had already been told, on July 30th, that we could not bargain that away.
On Monday, August 3rd, I made a statement in the House, accordingly.[5] I had seen the German Ambassador again, at his own request, on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said that he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation. Therefore, it does not appear in the White Paper; but it was impossible to withdraw that condition—(loud cheers)—without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.
After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government the communication described in No. 153 in the White Paper, about the neutrality of Belgium.[6] Sir Edward Goschen's report of the reply to that communication had not been received when the White Paper was printed and laid. It will be laid before Parliament to complete the White Paper.[7]
I have been asked why I did not refer to No. 123 in the White Paper when I spoke in the House on August 3rd.[8] If I had referred to suggestions to us as to conditions of neutrality, I must have referred to No. 85—the proposals made, not personally by the Ambassador, but officially by the German Chancellor, which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently.[9] This would have made the case against the German Government much stronger—(cheers)—than I did make it in my speech. I deliberately refrained from doing that then.
Let me add this about personal suggestions made by the German Ambassador, as distinct from communications made on behalf of his Government. He worked for peace, but real authority at Berlin did not rest with him and others like him, and that is one reason why our efforts for peace failed. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. Keir Hardie: May I ask whether any attempt was made to open up negotiations with Germany, on the basis of the suggestions here set forth by the German Ambassador?
Sir E. Grey: The German Ambassador did not make any basis of suggestions. It was the German Chancellor who made the basis of suggestions. The German Ambassador, speaking on his own personal initiative, and without authority, asked whether we would formulate the conditions on which we would be neutral. We did go into that question, and the conditions were stated in the House and made known to the German Ambassador. (Cheers.)
Mr. Keir Hardie (who rose amidst cries of "Order," "Oh, oh!" and "Sit down"): May I ask whether the German authorities at Berlin repudiated these suggestions of their Ambassador in London, and whether any effort at all was made to find out how far the German Government would have agreed to the suggestions put forward by their Ambassador? (Cries of "Don't answer.")
Mr. T.M. Healy (Ind. Nat., Cork, N.E.): Before the right hon. gentleman answers that, may I ask him if the Socialists in the Reichstag are asking any questions like this? (Loud and prolonged general cheers.)
Sir E. Grey, who was greeted with cries of "Don't answer," said: I should like to have no misunderstanding on this. (Loud cheers.) The German Ambassador did not make to us suggestions different to those which his Government made. He never suggested to us that the German Government would be able to agree to the condition of the neutrality of Belgium. On the contrary he did suggest to me that we should not put that condition forward because he was afraid his Government would not be able to accept it. (Cheers.)
Mr. Pringle (R., Lanarkshire, N.W.): Is my right hon. friend aware that Mr. Keir Hardie is constantly representing in the country that these proposals were actually made by the German Government to England? (Hear, hear.)
Sir. E. Grey: That was one of the reasons why I thought it very desirable to answer very explicitly. (General cheers.)
Mr. Keir Hardie: On a point of personal explanation I entirely repudiate the statement made by Mr. Pringle.
Mr. Pringle: I have to say in answer to that personal imputation that my authority is a letter written by Mr. Hardie in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald last Saturday. (Cheers.)
Mr. Keir Hardie: Those who cheer have not seen the letter. (Cries of "Sit down.")
Mr. Pringle: Coward.
Mr. King (R., Somerset, N.) asked the Foreign Secretary whether he intended to lay upon the table copies of the German memorandum and the official statements of other foreign Governments showing the different explanations of the origin of the war which had been published by the various Governments concerned in the European war.
Sir E. Grey: I have received no official explanation of the nature referred to, except such as appear in our White Paper recently published.
Mr. King also asked whether Sir E. Grey was aware that the German Government had presented gratis to certain American citizens copies of a pamphlet, written in English, called "Germany's Reasons for War with Russia"; and whether, with a view of permitting an answer to this publication, he would obtain a copy and place it in the Library.
Sir E. Grey replied that he had given instructions for a copy of the document in question to be placed in the Library at the disposal of members.
On page 147 of this volume appears a reference to the German White Book, which was issued at Berlin on August 3rd. This White Book was intended to show that war with Russia was inevitable, and it was brought down to August 1st. In other words, while it dealt more or less adequately with the situation as between Russia and Germany, it threw no light on the ultimate causes which led to war with this country. The Memorandum of this German White Book has already been summarized (p. 147–8) and two telegrams—one from the Kaiser to the Tsar on July 31st, and the Tsar's reply of the same date—have been quoted on p. 148–9. The Manchester Guardian of August 24th contained translations of telegrams which had been exchanged previously by the two Emperors on the preceding days, i.e., from July 28th to July 30th, as follows:
The Kaiser to the Tsar.
July 28th, 10.45 p.m.
I hear with the utmost disquietude of the impression created in your realm by Austria-Hungary's proceedings against Servia. The unscrupulous agitation which has for years been carried on in Servia has led to the appalling crime of which the Grand Duke Franz Ferdinand was the victim. The spirit which animated the murder of their own king and queen is still supreme in that country. Doubtless you will agree with me that we two, that you as well as I, and all sovereigns have a common interest in insisting that all those morally responsible for the hideous deed should receive the punishment they deserve.
On the other hand, I am far from overlooking the difficulties you and your government may find in opposing the tendency of public opinion. Remembering the hearty friendship which for long has bound us two securely together, I am throwing the whole of my influence into the scale to induce Austria-Hungary to seek for an open and satisfactory understanding with Russia. I confidently hope for your assistance in my endeavours to put aside all the difficulties that may arise.
Your sincerely devoted friend and cousin,
(Signed)