Evening Post FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1932.

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 97, 21 October 1932, Page 6

Evening Post FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1932.

BRITAIN'S OTTAWA DEBATE

The British Government was reported yesterday to be "fully satisfied" with the first day's debate in the House of Commons on the results of the Ottawa -Conference, and, so far as the reports of die debate itself have enabled one to judge, with good reason. The House was, of course, crowded to hear Mr. Neville Chamberlain's opening speech, and expectation ran high. There had been two previous occasions of comparable importance during the present Parliament on which Mr. Chamberlain had been in the centre of the limelight. The first was on the 4th' February when' he expounded his tariff policy, and the second was the introduction of his Budget on the 19th April. Oh both these occasions he was received with great enthusiasm, but on the second the enthusiasm did not-last. Though it was mainly a very wise caution that made the Budget speech "one of the dullest on .record," there was evidently a" lack of robustness both in its "composition and in its delivery that a Snowden or a Churchill would have avoided. But there was no tailirig-off on the present occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are told,"spoke for a,little over an hour in a crisp survey of the Ottawa agreements and was given a splendid hearing." It was when he had finished and the unfortunate Leader of the Opposition rose to speak tHat the House "practically emptied." A more distinguished member of the Government and one who must have bee ( n in far greater need of encouragement achieved at least an equal success with Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Mac Donald, who in the conduct of a conference for the purpose of conciliation and compromise is without a rival, has not die same instinct for the guidance of'die House of Commons, and both as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister his Parliamentary speeches have often been ...disappointing. It was even counted against him that after his almost incredible success in bringing France and Germany to terms at Lausanne, and settling the reparations problem, in so far as Europe alone could do it, he failed to do justice to die_ occasion in his statement about it to die House of Commons. It was a cruel and grossly unjust judgment which failed to recognise that an invalid who, when he ought to have been in bed, had accomplished a task which all the statesmanship of Europe combined could not have done without him, deserved honour and gratitude for saving_4he world from shipwreck rather than censure for having so exhausted his strength that lie could not Be eloquent about it. "Gentlemen," said Burke to his constituents, "we must riot be peevish with those who serve' the people." When gentler men of the House of Commons—the justest; and most/generous popular assembly in the wprld-r-could under: those, conditions turn" in dissatisfaction froni- Mr. Mac Donald to take pleasure in, the easy and irresponsible eloquence of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Lloyd George, who had not been losing sleep and risking their lives in order x to save the world from disaster j the precarious tenure of those who,serve the people even in these enlightened days is painfully illustrated. But though the threatened failure, of the Disarmament Conference has imposed upon Mr. Mac Donald labours and anxieties comparable to those of Lausanne, and there are in-< numerable others, better evidence could not be desired of the way in which his health is standing, the strain than the great success that he scored in this Ottawa debate. On this occasion he did not need the invalid's allowance which had been denied him before, but contributed a speech which was at least equal in value to that of Mr. Chamberlain and was'just as heartily received. The speech as cabled reads very well, but the report is necessarily brief, and even a full report would not supply evidence on the crucial Point. Not the wording of a speech but the impression that it makes is the true test of its success, and. the disappointment, over Mr. Mac Donald's Lausanne statement gives that test a special value in the present case. On this crucial point the evidence is conclusive. The speech in which Mr. Mac Donald concluded the debate is described in our report as "vigorous," and the description is confirmed by. the reception, that was given to it both on die floor of the House and in the galleries. Gallery critics in the House warmly praised Mr. Mac Donald's animated rejoinder, to the criticism of the Ottawa agreements. The House gave him a remarkable ovation led by Sir John Simon, the Government supporters rising and cheering as Mr. Stanley Baldwin patted Mr. Mac Donald on the back. It is appropriate that in this striking tribute to the Prime Minister's success the chief parts were played by the leaders of the two other parties to the Cealition.' Mr. Baldwin, who has done as much as any man to bring the Ottawa agreements into existence, might have been expected to take a hand in the debate, but in the humble demonstration of coalition unity to which he confined himself.

he may be said to have proved that '"they also serve who only stand" and pat. Though the House of Commons had no "ovation" for Sir Herbert Samuel, it did itself credit by its treatment of him. When, on die sth February, under the "agreement to differ," he attacked Mr. Neville Chamberlain's tariff with temperate but incisive candour, the cry in the lobbies was: "Samuel must go." Samuel has now gone, and we have already expressed our regret diat Mr. Chamberlain should have followed up the resignation with a charge of "peculiarly discreditable electioneering, exploiting class feeling, and stimulating fears among die ignorant." Sir Herbert very .wisely ignored the charge, nor did he refer to it, except perhaps by implication, on this, his first subsequent appearance in the House, and what he did say may perhaps have forestalled a repetition of the attack. i Sir Herbert Samuel, says our report, received a sympathetic response from the House, to his dignified appeal that careful construction should be placed upon hisjnotives in taking office in the Government and more recently' in resigning from it. . 'This was as it should be, and does credit to all parties. It would be foolish to widen the breach. Mr. Mac Donald retorted severely on Sir Herbert Samuel's severe criticism of the Ottawa policy, but there was no ill-feeling on ■ either side, nor anything said to extend the disagreement beyond-the tariff. Sir Herbert and his colleagues have taken their seats on the Government side of the House below the gangway, and we trust that they will remain there.