FOREIGN POLICY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12902, 1 July 1936, Page 2

FOREIGN POLICY

WAR MINISTER'S DECLARATION FRANCE'S FRONTIERS BRITAIN'S! What sir john simon says. NO CALL jFOR STRICTURES. Official, Wireless.) . -. RUGBY, June 29.

During his remarks in tlie -House of Commons in reply, to questions to the speech made in Paris last week by the Minister for War, Mr A. DuffCooper,. who; was reported as) saying that the ideals of Britain and France and their frontiers' were in mortal danger, adding that France’s frontiers were'’Britain’s frontier's, Sir John Simon recalled the circumstances: in which the; speech of tlie'Secretary, for War was delivered. Sir John added; that Mr Duff-Coop-ei’s remarks were not a declaration of policy, but a speech devoted to stressing elements common to the people of both countries. In its final form, Mr Dulf-Cooper’s speech did not come under the personal notice of the Foreign Secretary, but that was duo to pressure of other engagements and Ayas not intentional. In reply to supplementary questions, including one by the Conservative member for Plitchin, Sir Arnold Wilson, who suggested that such pronouncements caused real confusion ynd alarm among supporters of the Government, Sir John Simon said he could not admit that the remarks of the War Minister called for these strictures. ' Hd repeated that it was not a declaration of the Government policy... At the close of question time the Leader of tho Opposition, Major C. R. Attlee, moved the adjournment of the House to call attention to “the action of the Secretary for War in making, in a foreign country immediately before a meeting of the Assembly of the League of .Nations, puolic proiiouncempits which conflict with the declared policy of the Government and the treaty obligations by which this country is bound.” The motion was accepted and the debate proceeded. ■ Major Attlee, facing Mr Duff-Coo-per in a crowded house, referred to. tlie Prime Minister, Mr Stanley Baldwin, as a “little Boy Blue” away at The Chequers, instead of “looking after his; sheep.” He said he understood that Mr Baldwin was resting because ho thought there was a lull. There was no lull in Ministerial indiscretions, said Major Attlee. Mi; Baldwin had said that the recent observations made by the Chancellor . i the Exchequer, Mr Neville Cbainbrliiin, on sanctions were made on his own responsibility, but Ministers ■could not divest themselves of tlieir position. Mr Duff-Cooper’s speech was interpreted in the press as indicating a desire for a close military alliance with France. He represented that there was a binding necessity for England and France to stand together. That was a detail of our obligations under the covenant of the League, continued Major Attlee. The covenant provided that the nations were to stand against an aggressor, whoever that might be. The Labor Party desired the closest co-operations with France and other countries, but was not prepared to be tied in a military alliance.

Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Liberal member for Caithness, said that when Mr Duff-Cooper practically said to France: “Your .frontier is our frontier,” ho passed from general principles' and plunged for a policy of military alliance, which the Liberals repudiated) Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative)' said lie had read Mr Duff Cooper’s speech in France. There was nothing wrong with it. He hoped the Government was not going to apologise. Its policy lay within tho broad ambit of what the Government had declared. He understood that Mr Eden-saw the first draft.

Mr 1). Lloyd George (Independent Liberal) said that if Mr Eden saw the speech' and approved ol its substance, lie was more responsible than Mr Duff-Cooper. Sir John Simon expressed the opinion that much of the difference in viewpoint was due to the fact that few members had read tlio speech. Mr Duff Copper advocated an AngloFrench understanding, but never advocated an alliance, military or otherwise. Sir John Simon ((noted passages and said it was not true that Mr Duff-Cooper advocated a, BritishFrench understanding at the expense of ■Germany. The speech containpd no closing of the door on. the possibility of' agreement with Germany. Mr Herbert Morrison (Labor) argued that if the reports of the speech were •misleading, the Government should have issued a' correction; The fact was that tlio reports were substantially correct. The Government had reached a state of utter irresponsibility in foreign affairs. The adjournment motion was defeated by 284 to 13G-votes. v , *