PEACE BALLOT IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21355, 24 December 1934, Page 17

PEACE BALLOT IN BRITAIN

♦ ATTACK BY SIR JOHN SIMON LORD CECIL IN DEFENCE UNFAIR PROPAGANDA ALLEGED IFRUM OUR OHIO COIRESPOBDKJIT.) I LONDON, November 15. National Peace Declaration committees have been formed throughout the country to organise voting in the peace ballot, but this ballot has been subjected to the severest criticism by Sir John Simon—so much so that it would appear that the League of Nations Union is likely to lose prestige, though the ballot is strongly championed by Lord Cecil of Chelwood. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the Women's National Liberal Federation states: "The speech of the Foreign Secretary has horrified and depressed people of all shades of public opinion." The discussion in the House of Commons in which Sir John Simon criticised the peace ballot arose on a Labour motion by Mr C. R. Attlee, who wanted all private manufacture in arms prohibited in Britain. These are the questions asked in the ballot paper:— 1. Should Great Britain remain a member of the League of Nations. 2. Are you in favour of an all-round reduction of armaments? 3. Are you in favour of an all-round abolition of national military and naval aircraft by international agreement? 4. Should the manufacture and sale of armaments for private prolU.be prohibited by international agreement? . 5. Do you consider that if a nation insists on attacking another the other nations should combine to compel it to stop by: (a) economic and non-mili-tary measures; (b) if necessary military measures? Sir--John Simon, who is himself a member of the council of the League of Nations Union, said: "The questions on this ballot paper have been framed to secure, by hook or by crook, a particular answer, and not to invite a reasoned verdict. The whole thing is a complete misconception. They were not charges, but contentions that were set on one side. Will the House believe that having done that the authors of the pamphlet deliberately suppressed everything else that is to be found in the report of the commission—the statement of this impartial commission at Geneva which, for the reasons it gives, was unable to recommend the abolition of the private manufacture of arms —and they suppressed the smallest reference to any one of those eight considerations which follow on the next page of the report? If anything could make that more disgraceful—and it is disgraceful—it is the preface of this precious document, which actually has the impudence to assert on the page opposite this falsehood:

Where the facts have already been published, they have been carefully checked before being repeated, and the source of every important statement of fact is indicated. "I do really think, and I think the House will agree, that it is perfectly outrageous that an issue should be presented in such a form by those who are endeavouring at all costs to produce a particular policy. Although differences of opinion may be held about it, the risks of misunderstandings or misapprehension involved arc very great. In the ballot that is now being organised by a body—l do not say it is the League of Nations Union, but it is carried on from the same address—the risk of misunderstanding in that matter is extreme. They propound a question which they hope every householder will consider—- ' Should the manufacture and sale oj arms for private profit be prohibited by international agreement? - It is a very proper question, but it is not a question on which without reasonable information of the arguments on either side the verdict of the uninstructed person should be invited. (Cheers.)

By Hook or by Crook

"What is the method followed by the National Declaration Committee to get an answer to those questions.' They sent round notes with the five questions on the paper, and when I come to their notes on this question there is not a single word which sug- j gests that anybody has ever seen theSe difficulties to be serious. It carefully abstains from mentioning what the difficulties are. It is obvious that that is done for the purpose of getting by hook or by crook a particular answer to that question. "Some members of the executive committee felt so strongly about this that after that had been done they proposed, I do not know with what success, that at least something else should be said and circulated, and this is the comment that they suggested should be added: " 'This is an exceptionally complex subject, the difficulties of which are obscured in the question. No explanation is offered of how the object is to be obtained. The alternative to control of international trade in arms is not even mentioned. The question is framed to secure a particular answer and not to invite a reasoned 1 verdict. In our opinion this is em- ' phatically a question which ought not to have been put without mentioning ! the various implications that arise out ! of it.' " The Other Side

Sir Austen Chamberlain, another member of the League of Nations Union, joined in the attack. He explained that, when he and his friends on the executive council of the union had read a green leaflet which set out the case favourable to the National Declaration Committee of the Union, and which was circulated with the ballot paper, they took action to counter it. They insisted on the other side of the case being given in a blue leaflet, and the National Declaration Committee was pledged to circulate the blue paper wherever they circulated the green one. "Without one word to me or my friends," Sir Austen declared "they decided not to circulate their own paper for fear of having to circulate ours." He denounced the ballot as an attempt to snatch a verdict by biased propaganda and zealous canvassing. Labour Viewpoint Sir John Simon produced a copy of "Headway," the official journal of the League of Nations Union. In the issue of last November, he said, there was an article written with the object of ridiculing the idea that any one should put the difficulties of the "peace" ballot before people when asking them to decide. "This non-political, nonparty organ," he commented scathingly, "states that the Labour party has always stood in national and international affairs for democracy, brotherhood, and co-operation. "I am all for co-operation, provided that we do really agree that we want to put before decent people, who I am sure want to form a right judgment, a fair consideration of the arguments on both sides. What is so deplorable is that the agitation which has been worked up on this subject outside is manifestly designed to exploit the universal passionate desire for peace to serve a merely partisan purpose." In his declaration Lord Cecil of Chelwood said: "Sir Austen Chamberlain told the House that when this pro-

cedure was criticised the National Declaration Committee undertook that no further green leaflets should be sent out unless accompanied by a blue leaflet approved by him. That undertaking had been rigidly carried out. Sir John Simon further complains about an article in 'Headway,' and quotes it as if it expressed the editorial view of that organ. He omitted to tell the House that it was an article by Mr Noel Baker, the well-known Labour authority on these matters, and contributed by him as an expression of Labour opinion on the ballot. That is expressly stated in the same issue of 'Headway.' "The criticisms of both these right hon. gentlemen in effect charged the League of Nations Union with unfair propaganda. The idea of holding a ballot was first suggested last spring. It was elaborately discussed in the executive committee of the union, a body which contained all shades of political opinion in favour of the League of Nations. Anyone who looked down the list of names would agree that they belonged to persons as honourable and straightforward as even Sir Austen Chamberlain or Sir John Simon. The committee decided in favour of the suggestion. Sir Austen said he was not there. But he forgot to tell the House that by special arrangement he was replaced by a gentleman chosen or approved by himself." A Yellow Paper Sir Austen Chamberlain then wrote a letter to the press in which he said that he had received information that the green and blue papers were still available for those who asked for them, but that many branches of the union preferred a yellow paper prepared after difficulties arose in respect to the other two. Sir Austens letter proceeds:— . . "I have this morning received a copy of this yellow paper. It is headed: 'Peace or War? What the Ballot Means.' and begins: The National Declaration on the League of Nations and Armaments is a scheme to find out from all persons in this country over the age of 18 what they think about the prevention of war and the League of Nations. "Further on it slates: In this ballot you are asked to vole oniy on peace or war—whether you approve of the League of nations or not; whether you are in favour of international disarmament or not. "In short the issue is presented as the simple one: Are you in favour of peace or war? If you want peace, vote yes; if you vote no, it means war. "No graver mis-statement of the issues at stake has ever been perpetrated even by a reckless partisan in the heat and fury of a contested election. No one desires war. That is not the issue. The vast majority of us earnestly desire the success of the League of Nations and no ballot is needed to proclaim that patent fact or that we should welcome limitation of armaments by international agreement.

"These matters are dealt with in the first two questions. No thoughtful person in lull possession of the facts would answer the other three with a simple 'yes' or 'no.' To present these questions as a vote 'only on peace or war" is a proceeding not easy to quality in polile language. I will call it 'a terminological inexactitude.' If this 'inexactitude' is perpetrated in print by the central committee, are we to suppose that zealous canvassers are more careful to explain the real facts? The simple question is put from door to door: Are you against war? Yes? Then put 'yes' to these questions. The result will be claimed by its promoters as a national verdict. To me it. appears little better than an attempt to obtain subscriptions by a fraudulent prospectus. I beg the many people of high standing and good faith who have lent their names to it to reconsider their position."

Two Strong Men The "Sunday Dispatch" refers to the Peace Ballot Ramp. "Behind Cecil, figurehead of the League of Nations Union," says this journal, "are two mysterious figures. Mr Noel j Baker is a more forceful man than j Lord Cecil. And he is an out-and-out socialist. He has the reputation of seizing every opportunity of making political'capital out of the league. Then there's Dr. J. Maxwell Garnett, the 'Sir John Keith' of the League Union. He is its general secretary. Incidentally, Dr. Garnett and Sir John Reith are great friends. Dr. Garnett, great mathematician and one-time principal of the Manchester College of Technology, is a forceful man. He uses British Broadcasting Corporation methods. "Each week he calls his executive staff together for a conference. The •conferences' are attended by one speaker and a number of listeners. Dr. Garnett tells his staff what they are going to do and what he is going to do. That's all. Nobody else ever makes a suggestion. Nobody else dares. Dr. Garnett supported the ballot scheme. It went through. "Sir Austen Chamberlain and Lord Eustace Percy are the only two men on the executive council who have stood up to the combination of Lord Cecil, whom everyone respects, Mr Noel Baker, the clever socialist, and Dr. Garnett, the force in the background." Views of Preachers The "Daily Express," which never misses a chance of criticising the League and everything associated with it, collected unfavourable opinions expressed in the pulpits on Armistice Sunday. These are some:— The Rev. J. J. R. Armitage, at Liver- i pool Cathedral: "Great Britain and the Empire \ce the greatest guarantee of world peace. Looking at the world as it is to-day, the duty of this country is to stand aside from all Continental treaties which may at any time compel us to take up arms on behalf of a foreign power." The Rev. J. R. Moore, minister of the City Temple, Cardiff: "I have had enough of the League of Nations and enough of the politicians. Beware, lest in answering the questions on the ballot you put a weapon into the hands of the League that will commit you and your children to perpetual warfare." The Rev. J. S. Davies, Harden Vicarage, Bingley, Yorks: "The League of Nations in its constitution leaves out God entirely, yet demands support from the Christian churches. I believe that the churches will not be gulled into supporting efforts to involve our Empire in another European war." "A Ballot of Blood" There are a dozen other statements on similar lines, and the "Daily Express" goes on to say: "The 'peace' ballot organised by the League of Nations Union and denounced by Sir John Simon in the. House of Commons is now exposed in its true character, a ballot of blood. All over Britain yesterday leaders of the churches took the opportunity of the Armistice | celebrations to deliver warnings against the danger of Britain being dragged into war at tine chariot wheels of the League of Nations." The Collective System Lord Cecil, answering Sir Austen Chamberlain, in a letter to "The Times," says that the promoters of the Peace Ballot believe that Europe is drifting towards war and that a vigorous and constructive peace policy on the lines indicated in the questions is the only way in which this country can hope to prevent that result. "We think," he says, "that unless the collective system embodied in the League of Nations takes the place of the old international anarchy, war will, as in past ages, come again. Sir Austen thinks it unnecessary to reassert this. Perhaps he never reads the daily lucubrations of Lord Beaverbrook (owner of the "Daily Express"). It may well be true that very few

in this country agree with that nobleman. But I am satisfied that the con- | tinued campaign carried on by him and other more orthodox Conservatives—not to speak of the communists —has done much harm abroad. An emphatic repudiation of such doctrines by the people of this country would be an effectual remedy. "Second, I hold that the very existence of the league must be endangered so long as the system of great unlimited and competing national armaments continues. That view is not universally held here, and still less generally in France. Again, a great popular pronouncement on the point would be, I am certain, of the utmost value. Third, as long as the threat of rapid and wholesale destruction from the air continues, the restoration of a peace spirit among the nations, on which the league depends, is impossible. We think that this danger can only be eliminated by the suppression of all national air armaments. Last, I hold that Article 16 of the Covenant, which provides for sanctions against those who persist in aggressive warfare, is essential to the league system. That article provides for diplomatic and economic action in the first place, to be followed by military action if deemed necessary by the council." Lord Beaverbroolc's Letter In a letter in his own newspaper, the "Daily Express," Lord Beaverbrook says: "We should pay no more money to the league. We have paid far too much already. Private individuals should pay no more money to the League of Nations Union, whose conduct Sir Austen Chamberlain has denounced. For a long time now we have been struggling against this I wicked ballot, calculated to persuade the Government that our people will fight in Europe in a quarrel that does not concern us. We believe we have destroyed it. and heard the last of it. Let us hope for the sake of Britain and the Empire that our belief is well founded."