BRITISH POLITICS

Grey River Argus, 10 February 1928, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Chamberlain’s Comment LONDON. February 8. In the debate on the Address in Reply, Sir Austen Chamberlain gratefully recognised the unanimity of the House in respect to the declaration of the policy in ('hina. The Government, would not object to tariff autonomy in China, based on uniform tariff, which did not discriminate against British merchants, but they must object to illegal levies over and above the 2A per cent, of surtaxes now in force. The total withdrawal of British troops was not yet possible, but there was the beginning of a better appreciation of the real goodwill of tht 1 British Government. He regretted that the programme which Mr Bridgeman and Lord Cecil took to Geneva was never allowed fair discussion at the Conference. Personally, of the Arbitration Treaty he could not speak fully, but the treaty’ the United States submitted to us was the same as submitted to France, and we could also say it was like the old root of the Bryce treaty. It was not an unlimited treaty of arbitration on every’ difference. Ir was confined to what are called justifiable disputes. lake the old treaty, it excepts certain questions from the agreement. He now thought. it would have been better if there had been confidential semi-official exchanges of views between the Governments before the Conference. If the failure of the Conference brought Mr MacDonald to recognise a rush ot’ public discussion is not always the best method of arriving at an agreement, then he had learnt something. There were other negotiations in progress with tin l I n>t<d States, in regard to the subject. The Government will have to enter into Ihe fullest correspondence and consult a t ions with th-’ Dominion Governments before .-in answer could be given to the proposal which had been made. Sir A. Chamberlain said that he could not agree that every dispute between nations should be i * t’ei red to the Judicial Tribunal. He recalled that the Bryan Spring-Rice Treaty provided tha* anv dispute between two nations should I--' referred to a committee of conciliation, whose r port should be availed before taking io anus. lie was not sure that the in the present stat • of Europe, the next advance might not be along the lines "f Hint treaty, inth-r than along the st rirt lines of arbitral agr'emeiits. On behalf id’ the Government he could say that our naval building was non cuinpetit ivc. Our pi <-grammes weir framed with a vi w Io necessary protection of British interests. the failure of the Conference had not lessened the desire of the Government that naval programmes should be modified, as shown by the Government’s lessening advance programme for two years. Sir A. Chamberlain further explained that there was a third reservat ion in the new treaty which prevents there being a complete all-in agreement for arbitration. The American Government found it necessary to reserve the constitutional right of the Senate to be consulted on each individual reference to the Court of Arbitration. That reservation was in th" existing treaty, but it was a reservation of the widest scope ami most important character. Mr Ponsonby regretted any appear- • of dampening down enthusiasm in favour of a general agreement for a rbit rat ion. TWO BYE-ELECTIONS PENDING. LONDON. Frbnuuy 8. The .linth of Mr Trevelyan Tlr.nlson, nieknamed “The Ranker M.l . (Liberal. Mi. 1.11, M-r'.ugh West), and the elevation of Mr -I. A. Hnwke, K.C. (<•„„„ rvntive. Si Ives) to the Judicial Bench, involves further notable bye-