The President, apparently, kept until the last what has been the tit-bit of his whole Estimate. Obviously, one of the important matters which we ought to have been told at the outset was the fact that we are now appointing a Minister to Italy, and that by the Letter of Credence which our Minister is going to present there we are formally and definitely acknowledging Italy's annexation of Abyssinia. The President has quoted a number of States which have done that. That is a matter for these States. But it is rather remarkable that the list comprises, mainly, some South American States and other States which, in that act of aggression against Abyssinia, supported Italy. Apparently we are to line up with these States now and recognise Italy's annexation of Abyssinia, the greatest piece of international violence and injustice that has been committed during this generation.
It is not so long since the President was at Geneva making speeches condemning the violence which was being done to Abyssinian independence, condemning this outrageous violence on the part of an aggressor, and condemning also the fact that a weak member of the League was having territory grabbed from it by a country which simply aimed at, and has aimed at for a considerable time, the open annexation of Abyssinia. While we had the President adopting that role at Geneva, and asking this House to pass a Bill imposing sanctions on Italy for so doing, now a short time after we have a Supplementary Estimate introduced here to recognise that, because of her capacity to beat Abyssinia into surrender by the use of mustard gas and all the other frightfulness associated with warfare, we are to appoint a Minister to the Italian State, thereby recognising its outrageous annexation of Abyssinia as well as the complete subjugation of the independence of that State. Why we should select this moment for doing it I do not know, seeing that we contrived to carry on between 1922 and 1935 without taking the step which we are now asked to take.
I think it is a most unfortunate event that the President, at this stage, should ask us to appoint a Minister to Italy, especially in view of the fact that we propose, by a formal Letter of Credence, to recognise not merely Italian sovereignty in Abyssinia, not merely Italian political influence there but the complete annexation of the Abyssinian State by Italy. What is the purpose of making this hasty appointment in this way? Would the President tell us what is the volume of our trade with Italy, what is the annual value of the goods which Italy takes from us, and the value of the goods which Italy sends here? Is the volume of trade such that, while this whole question of the recognition of Italy's annexation of Abyssinia is occupying an important place in European international politics, we must rush in and appoint a Minister to a State with which we have virtually no trade at the moment? Italy, the other day, told the world that she has now withdrawn from the League of Nations because, apparently, the League has not been willing to come to heel when Mussolini chose to ask the League to come to heel. Italy announced to the world the other day that she is leaving the League of Nations simply because her annexation of Abyssinia is not recognised with a wholeheartedness equal to the ferocity with which that annexation was carried out.
The President stated that Great Britain and France recognised that annexation, but I think that if he makes further inquiries he will find that that statement does not represent the facts of the situation accurately. It may be true that both France and Britain have reduced the status of their legations at Addis Ababa. It may be that in the new situation they do not find it necessary to retain ambassadors there, and have reduced the status of their representation there to that of a consular general. That is not a recognition of the Italian annexation of Abyssinia. I think the President's information on that aspect of the situation is far from correct. In fact, if my memory serves me, there is quite a spot of annoyance at present on the part of Italy because France will not accredit her representative in Rome to the King of Italy on the ground that he is claiming also to be the Emperor of Abyssinia.
I wonder how the President reconciles all this with our continued membership of the League of Nations, with the speech that he himself delivered at Geneva as well as the fact that it is not so long ago since he asked this House, and rightly so, to pass a Bill imposing sanctions on Italy for her outrageous annexation of a State which was an equal member of the League of Nations with us? If there is any one nation that should stand out against a recognition. of that annexation it is this State. The history of this country is, in many respects, not unlike the history of Abyssinia, a country that has suffered at the hands of the despoiler and Imperialist. We here in this country have had a history somewhat like that. In these circumstances we are asked to accredit a representative to the Italian State as distinct from the Vatican: to accredit a Minister to the Italian State, and there by give recognition to the annexation of Abyssinia. I think that the President might very well withdraw this Estimate and not ask the House to pass it in existing circumstances, especially at a time when the whole question of the annexation of Abyssinia is occupying an important position in European affairs.