GOVERNMENT’S POINT OF VIEW.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 128, 12 March 1935, Page 5

GOVERNMENT’S POINT OF VIEW.

NOT A MENACE TO PEACE. FRANK UNDERSTANDING BEST. LABOUR MOTION SUBMITTED. (United Press Association—Copyright.)) (Received This Dai, 10.45 a.m.) LONDON, March 11. The generally-foreshadowed and most important debate since the war took place in the House of Commons to-day. The occasion hardly fulfilled expectations. Obviously the Government, while not modifying a word of the White Paper on defence, studiously avoided offending Germany in .view of Herr Hitler’s renewed invitation to Sir John Simon (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) to visit Berlin.

Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the role of elder statesman, from the hack bench, produced memorable contributions and ueceivdd an ovation such as has seldom been heard in the House of Commons. The Chamber was packed and the Ambassadors’ Gallery was inadequate to accommodate the foreign diplomats, who overflowed' into the Dominions’ Gallery. Mr Stanley Baldwin declared that in the White Paper a democratic Government had told what it believed to be the truth to democracy. In the past some of the greatest perils to democracies had arisen through the failure of their leaders to tell them unpalatable truths. He deprecated the statement that the Government paid only lip service to the League ol' Nations. The Government was still determined to work through the League for the future but people often forgot, in talking of collective security and sanctions, that of the League was not universal and the collective system was therefore not complete. Two of the great Powers had given notice of withdrawal and thus dealt the collective system a heavy blow, while one great country had never undertaken the obligations of the League at all.

Russia and Germany. “We desire with all our hearts the universality of the League,” said Mr Baldwin. “It is for this reason that wo welcome the entry of the Soviet Union into the League and have ourselves never ceased to try to persuade Germany to cancel her notice of withdrawal. In international politics it is not a question of doing what is ideally best but of doing what is best in the existing circumstances.” The Government was not proposing an increase in the size of the forces, except in the case of the Air 1' orce, which was as debated last summer, continued Mr Baldwin. What it did ask was that those forces if possessed, if called upon to meet an aggressor or pursue an obligation under the pact, should be a? well equipped as possible. It had. been suggested in some quarters that Germany was the only country alluded to in the White Paper. That was far from the truth. Yet the paper said nothing ita. substance which he had not himself said, with general agreement, last November. Its terms were set out in no other than a friend]y ’• spirit and in, the belief that a frank understanding was the best and, indeed, the only effective prelude to any kind of negotiation. There is no reason whv the negotiations begun in Pans and Rome, to be followed, they hoped, in other capitals, should not lead to a new era in Europe. The Government wanted them to do so and was prepared to contribute its share, but the desire to create or magnify fictitious incidents, or failure to grasp facts were no contribution at all. Britain had never taken the lead in rearmament. Her Air Force still came only fifth, and apart from anti-air-craft defence, no increase in the armed forces of the Navy or Army was proposed.

Contentions by Labour. Major C. F. Attlee moyed the Labour Party’s motion, which contends that the Government’s policy is completely at variance with the spirit in which the League of Nations was ereated to establish collective world peace. It jeopardised the prospect of any disarmament convention and instead of ensuring national safety wiH lead to international competition and engender insecurity which will ultimately lead to war. Major Attlee claimed that the hrsv part of the White Paper meant repudiation of the League Covenant. Cries of “No,” and 'Labour countercheers. Failure to make the League effective was the real cause of the presentday talk of war arrangements, continued Major Attlee. We spent some £15,000,000 on armaments during tno period we were supposed to have practised unilateral disarmament. Labour was utterly and entirely opposed to Hitlerism, the present rulers of Germany, and detested militarism m every form in every country. Labour in no way under-rated the fact that Germany had left the League and was now rearming and preaching war, but it believed she should be dealt with hy the League, in which the whole world could be ranged against an aggressor. If we were inside a league of collective ’security we would need only forces necessary to meet in combination any measures by an aggressor. Why did the White Paper talk about the need for us to protect the integrity of certain territories on the other side of the Channel ? It was deceiving the country to suggest that it could be protected from air attacks

by a larger air force, anti-aircraft guns and anti-gas measures. If they wanted world peace they must sacrifice greed, ambition, nationalism and impairtialism. The cause of the present-day unrest was economic. Everywhere there were masses of people in distress. Their rulers were unable to satisfy them, and therefore preached flambuoyant nationalism. Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) asked were they to ring down the curtain on the Disarmament Conference as a failure like the World Economic Conference. Disarmament was the only rflad to security. Our duty was not to.despair of the League of Nations but to do our utmost to complete the system of collective control, seek an agreement against the private manufacture of arms, and inoculate our people against the insidious infections of war fever.

Sir’ Austen Chamberlain, declaring that the House, being faithful to the country’s obligations as a member ol the League of Nations, and desiring a limitation of armaments by international agreement, recognises that these objects are unobtainable by unilateral disarmament arid approves the Government’s policy as' equally necessary foi the defence of Britain’s people and the discharge of her international obligations. Sir Austen Chamberlain said , tha,t Attlee talked of putting faith in collective security, but it was not serving the League to pretend that it could do what it could not. The type of war known as accidental war by. the sudden arousing of national feelings could be prevented now by opportunities for conciliation. The real fear causing world unrest was of war planned, of set purpose to achieve some national position, aggrandisement or revenge w'hich could not he satisfied <by peaceful means. Let us try to strengthen collective security, hut it should not be supposed. A multiplication of pacts and definitions of aggression would prevent the kind, of! war where a nation sawgood prospect of success if it could throw dice for war of this sort. War could 1 be prevented only by making it clear to the aggressor that there would be such a- massing of forces against him that there could be no prospects of success. We still stood one of the Great Powers. If we used our power wisely and justly we might have great influence on the world but if we left our ow'n defences to others what encouragement would it give, them to undertake such obligations. British Official Wireless. OPPOSITION GROWS. DEPUTATION TO COMMONS. LONDON, March 11. The new'spapers describe the debate which is to take place in the House of Commons to-night on the W hite Papei on defence as one of the most important in this Parliament’s history. Since the White Paper was issued there has been a growing volume of Liberal and Labour speeches throughout the country in opposition to it.

“To-night,” says the “Daily Herald,” “the House of Commons will be invaded by a mass of deputations who will protest to their members against the Government’s rearmament policy. The invasion will be preceded by a service at Christchurch, Westminster, conducted by Miss Maude Key den under the auspices of the League, of Nations Union, the National Peace Council and the Labour and Co-operative Parties. The Free Church is holding meetings of protest throughout the country.” The political correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” says that an arrangement has been made by which Mr Stanley Baldwin (Lord President of the Council) will make the opening speech. Instead.of the Socialist front bench proposing a vote of censure later Major Attlee will siibmit a Socialist motion to which Mr Austen Chamberlain will propose an amendment which will sum up the Ministerial view. Sir Herbert. Samuel (Liberal), Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative), Mr L. C. M. S. Avery (Conservative), Mr James Maxton (Leader of the Independent Labour Party) and Sir Stafford Cripps (Labour), will also be speakers.