BRITAIN’S ARMS PROGRAMME

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21908, 8 October 1936, Page 11

BRITAIN’S ARMS PROGRAMME

DISCUSSION AT LABOUR CONFERENCE

NECESSITY FOR STRENGTH TO

MEET* AGGRESSOR

(Received October 7, 9.50 a.m.)

LONDON, October 6

In moving the resolution on Britain’s rearmament programme at the Labour party’s conference at Edinburgh, Dr. Hugh Dalton, M.P., said the time had come when Britain must tell the fascist states: “There is a limit—so far and no further,” but she must also say: “Come, join us and state your grievances.” Mr Arthur Henderson, M.P., in seconding the motion, said that the raw materials of the world must be pooled. Lord Strabolgi said that the time had come when the democratic and socialist powers must be armed for mutual support. “I don’t want a Labour Government to be weak and open to the bullying, blackmailing, and threats of the fascist powers.” he added.

Mr George Lansbury opposed the motion. He said that armaments could not save the world. Even the dictatorship nations must be brought to a round-table conference and led along the road of peace. The general secretary of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers (Mr Charles Dukes) said that the dictatorship nations should be told that if they wanted a decision by the sword Britain would not flinch. Mr C. R. Attlee, leader of the party, in winding up the debate, denied that ,the motion committed the Labour party to the Government’s rearmament policy. Labour would continue to criticise the armaments programme and decline to give a blank cheque, but that did not mean that they said that no arms were required. Collective security must be backed by sufficient force to deal with an aggressor. “We are not prepared to be, conquered by fascism, either from without or within,” he concluded.

A card vote resulted: For the motion. 1,738,000; against the motion, 657,000.

[The resolution said that the armed strength of countries loyal to • the league must be governed by the armed strength of a potential aggressor. Therefore it reaffirmed the policy of maintaining forces consistent with Britain’s responsibilities as a member of the league, but it declined responsibility for a competitive armaments policy. The resolution added: “The conference declares that the continuance of vested interests in the private manufacture of arms would be a grave contributory danger to the peace of the world.”]

COLLECTIVE SECURITY NOT ORGANISED

A LABOUR COMPLAINT

(BRITISH OrriCUL WIHBLES3.)

RUGBY, October 6,

At the Labour party conference •Dr. Hugh Dalton, M.P., said that the League of Nations had grown weaker, not stronger. International treaties had been broken shamelessly without penalty. Collective security had not been organised. British internal security had gone by the creation of great forces within striking distance. If a Labour Government came into power, British armaments under a Labour Government would be part of a planned system of collective security. Armaments must be at such a level, Dr. Dalton added, as to make sure that an aggressor should not succeed.

ARRIVAL OF SPANISH ENVOYS

LONDON, October 6,

A scene occurred at the Labour conference at Edinburgh before lunch, when the secretary announced the arrival by air of two envoys from Spain. The delegates rose and cheered the envoys, Senor Asua and Senora Isabel de Palencia, who will address the conference later.