COMMONS RE-OPENED

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 November 1933, Page 7

COMMONS RE-OPENED

DEBATE ON DISARMAMENT

SIR J. SIMON'S SPEECH

[BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

RUGBY, November 7.

When Parliament re-assembled, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the war debt discussions at Washington had ended, and jt was unfortunately not proved possible to reach an agreement for a final settlement.

He continued: “His Majesty’s Government recognise the difficulties which exist in the way of reaching such an agreement at the present time, by reason of the unsettled economic and financial situation, and they accordingly informed' the United States they are prepared to make on December 18 next, a further payment of 7,500,000 dollars in United States currency, in acknowledgment of. the debt, pending a final settlement.”

Mr Runciman said that the Government had come to the conclusion a tariff truce was no longer of practical value, and notice had been given to withdraw from it from December 7.

The Foreign Secretary said he had made vigorous representations regarding the arrest of Panter, through the German Embassy in London, and the British Embassy at Berlin. He bad now been informed by the German Foreign Minister that no order of expulsion had been made against Panter, and he was, therefore, free to return to Germany, as no charge or other penalties are against him. Sir J. Simon, opening the Disarmament debate, described the situation as undoubtedly serious, but said there was no justification for the deplorably exaggerated and excited language used about it by some people. Having remarked that there was nothing in the proceedings of the Disarmament Bureau on October 14, which could justify the shock tactics Germany had then adopted, Sir J. Simon said the conference had been in danger of losing its way when last March it was given a new and definite direction by production of the British draft convention, the contents of which had been selected to suggest the probable greatest measure if attainable of general consent. But while the conference adopted a number of general proposals, these did not lead to progress on the essential matter of an agreement on numbers. By the end of June, it was impossible usefully to enter on the second reading of the draft, and it was decided to adjourn to allow conversations between the various interested Governments. Coming to the question of how this affected Germany. Sir J. Simon warmly agreed it was necessary to try and see inside the mind of Germany and understand why German people exhibited this vehement resentment. Long delays must have made Germany increasingly impatient, while it was quite untrue to say Germany’s disarmament under peace treaties was conditional upon the prompt achievement of general disarmament by others, it was clear on the fact of the treaty, and in the Clemenceau letter, that Germany’s disarmament contemplated as the first step towards general disarmament. Six* J. Simon declared that Britain set the example, and led the way in reducing her own armaments to the lowest point, by unilateral action. The most material contribution ’ to restoring confidence in Europe would be an international agreement on disarmament, to which Germany should be a party. The central political issue was how to reconcile Germany’s demands for equality with France’s desire for security. Sir J. Simon continued: “I believe that we have a very

SPECIAL ROLE TO PLAY because it was Britain who brought the parties together. We shall not get out of our difficulties by trying isolation, when the advantages of isolation have disappeared. We shall not increase our influence for peace by declaring it does not matter to us what our neighbours in Europe do or suffer. We have immense moral authority to assert. Great Britain was disarmed and has the right to speak, and we use that'authority in the only way we are able to use it, by making no special or select alliances with or against any Power, but by working for friendship and peace with all.” Sir J. Simon referred to the Locarno Treaty. He pointed out that Italy was in the same position in regard to it as Britain. That treaty could not be terminated by unilateral action, and that it seemed one of the principal stabilising influences in Europe. The question is whether the obligations of this country would be ended if Germany, two years hence, carried out the intention of which she has given notice to leave the League of Nations. Germany has the opportunity of withdrawing that notice at any time during the next two years, and the Government and whole House earnestly trust that the course of events will result in her doing so.” Do not let us speak as if the march of future events were bevond the control of men of goodwill. The view of the Government consulting law officers is that withdrawal of any party to the Treaty of Locarno, and from the League, does not of itself and by itself involve the release of all parties from obligations under the Treaty. But the withdrawal of Germany, if it ever becomes a fact would raise issues of so far-reaching a character, that it would be impossible to make any public statement upon them without careful consideration in consultation with other parties of the treaty. Much as we deplore Germany’s recent action, unjustified as we think it to be, that is no reason for speaking a s if tho door she has shut is bolted and barred- We shall seek every opportunity of keeping in touch with her as well as with other signatories to the Treaty of Locarno. No friend of the cause should make disarmament more difficult than ever by suggesting that the assurances to which Britain has put her hand are assurances we are prepared to ignore. Sir J. Simon ended with reference to a speech made at Berlin by the Gorman Foreign Secretary, who declared the Germans were making to other Powers, an honest and trustful offer, and invited them to take the hand Germany stretched out. Sir J. Simcn said lie recalled a recent statement by Hitler intimating a wish to get into closer communication with the French. ‘‘We most earnestly trust

these statements may lead in some form or other to a renewal of the contract. The British Government have shown themselves throughout prepared to cpnsult with other Governments in this spirit, and we have never been sticklers for methods.”

, NATIONAL PARTY LONDON PRESS SUSPICIOUS [BY CABLE PRESS ASSN. COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, November 7. Does Mr R. speech at the National Labour Committee luncheon, imply the pending or the eventual formation of a distinctive National Party? This is a question being discussed by most journals from their own political angle. The “Daily Telegraph’s” political correspondent says: “The Government’s present intention is to fight the next general election as a. National Government. There is no truth in the suggestion that the Conservative Party will be asked to sink its separate identity. Closer . cooperation between the Conservatives, the National Liberals, and the National Labourites, will be the slogan. Any suggestion of the Conservative Party following some kind of a merger and acquiring a. new label would be opposed both at Westminster and in the constituencies.

The “Daily Express’s” political correspondent declares that plans for the formation of a National Party are in full swing, but that Mr MacDonald, Mr Baldwin and Sir J. Simon do not consider the present, time ripe for making any bold announcement. They are content, at present, to say that there must, be no return to party government. They prefer to wait for the new party to “happen,” just as national government “happened.” They will continue working to ensure that it “happens” as soon as possible. The National Government is coordinating a committee with the object of reorganising political activities. That committee should be watched.