Perhaps it is hardly fair to expect this government to have such a craze for open ports, knowing that they are so anxious to close our ports at home. This argument may have influenced their opinion, even if they do not know it. It is possible that they act on their domestic policy in their international relations without being aware of it. I think that is the framework in which the Prime Minister would like this Parliament. On this side of the House, we have the right to say that our international policy must be consistent and consistent with our domestic policy. Do not allow that, when we speak here of good relations with France, we do not take any risks elsewhere. We did not consult Spain or Germany and we left Spain to conclude its own agreement with Morocco. Is there not a high probability that Spain will seek territorial benefits to compensate for the benefits granted to France and that these benefits could be at the expense of England? Spain can do this on its own behalf and it will do us even more harm if it does so in conjunction with Prance. I believe that the sympathies of England and the Liberal Party are not narrow or sectoral with regard to these international agreements. We are not looking for an unjustified or selfish advantage of 556; But we want the government to strive to preserve by all means the commercial rights of the world, both in Morocco and in Tunis and in Eygpt. What that country has submitted to Egypt could not unfairly ask other nations to submit elsewhere.
I will not say for so long that no one has proposed it, but I do not remember such a proposal and I am sure it was never an integral part of Lord Salisbury`s policy. I totally dispute that there has been a reversal of our party`s traditional policy. I totally dispute that something is detrimental to the interests of Germany or any other power. It would indeed be a stain on our agreement with France, whose peace and the conveniences of the world we so much hope for, if it were seen as a stumbling block in similar agreements with other powers in other parts of the world. I think I do not need to add to that answer the criticisms that have been made, other than to say that there has been in this debate, with the exception of the right opinion. Baronet, a great lack of esteem for the enormous international benefits that the Newfoundland agreement will bring us. Not only did we do much to free Newfoundland from the shackles that, as long as the Treaty of Utrecht remained unchanged, necessarily hindered the development of the colony, but as long as these provisions existed between France and England, the peace between France and England seemed almost to remain at a thread. I firmly believe that nothing but the pace of the French and British naval officers on the ground, their unceasing vigilance, their determination not to evolve petty and irritating frictions towards ongoing wounds, have made the arrangement of Utrecht bearable by all these long years. It was a constant source of concern to all governments, a fear that did not appear in the blue books and which, of course and rightly, was not mentioned in 573 public speeches, but which was never absent in the minds of men responsible for the implementation of this country`s foreign policy. This eternal threat, I am happy, has been eliminated forever. Although this is quite true, we would have preferred to see, like Newfoundland, the last vestiges of the Treaty of Utrecht swept away, but the few traces that remain of them are not of a species that could ever create difficulties between the settlers and ourselves or between the colonists and the French government.