THE H. B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1925. THE LOCARNO SPIRIT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 14, 30 December 1925, Page 4

THE H. B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1925. THE LOCARNO SPIRIT.

The full reports that are now tn hand of the debate in the House of Commons on Sir Austen Chamberlain’s motion for the ratification of the Locarno Pact make very fine reading. They show that the spirit that was infused into the international gathering at the little Swiss town on the shores of Lake Maggiore was carried also into the representative assembly of the people of Great Britain. It has been one of the most marked characteristics of Mr. Stanley Baldwin’s leadership of the dominant party in the House that, even while differing from them, he has invariably treated with the most courteous respect the opinions expressed by his political opponents. He has gone, too, a good deal further than this in that he has also never failed, when opportunity offered, to make graceful acknowledgment of tb« work done by previous Ministries. This fine example, making so much for sane and dispassionate discussion of the many distracting problems with which the statesmen of the Old Country are faced, was followed to the full by his Foreign Secretary in his speech by way of explanation of the meaning and hoped-for effect of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee whose endorsement in the name of the British nation he was seeking. “The House,” he said, “will observe that in the policy which we have pursued we have built on the foundation afforded to us by our predecessors, that we have taken up the work' which they were pursuing in their time but which they were unable to complete, and that we have carried it on with the same desire to help Europe to move out of the rut of war thought and war suspicion and war fears into a better atmosphere, which is the only sure foundation for future peace. It was,” he w r ent on, “a great thing for His Majesty's present Government and for their Foreign Secretary in particular that the reparation question had been removed from the field of controversy before we were called upon to deal with the international situation, and I desire once again io express my indebtedness to the work of my predecessors and to recognise that, if they could not in the time allotted to them carry the work as far as we have carried it to-day, they were aiming at the same object and pursuing the same end, not always, I admit, by exactly the same means, but animated by trie same purpose, which is not a party nurpose but a national purpose common to all parties and al! sections of opinions in this country.”

It is true that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s response to this very handsome tribute to the groundwork laid by his Administration seems to lack something of real cordiality. Still, it was as much as might be expected from a political leader not yet able to forget the bitterness of a decided and unexpected set-back at the hands of the British electors. Thus his theme was more in the nature of pointing out what yet had to be done rather than in a hearty acknowledgment of what had been actually achieved. “I am sure,” he said in opening his speech in reply, “that every party in this House will join in congratulating and in praising anyone who, either’ of his own initiative or in cooperation with others, has done something to make peace in Europe more secure than it has been, and I think that the speech to which wc have listened is a very substantial contribution to that end. We may say, as has been put down on the paper, that the work at Locarno must be supplemented. I think that it is very desirable that the House should indicate in what direction that supplementary action

should take place, but, after all, the best tribute that can be made to any really substantial peace effort is to look at it with one eye that is very sympathetic and another eye which is equally critical. Only by that double process of examination do we pay the homage that a good substantial piece of work ought to have paid to it. That is what we arc doing this afternoon.” Thenceforward he devoted himself to pointing out not the merits, but what he considered the defects, of the work done by Sir Austen Chamberlain. It was only natural, of course, that Soviet Russia, though the cause of his own and his party’s downfall, should hold a very prominent place in his animadiversions. It is quite probable, however, that this would not have been the case had he then had before him the expressions of absolute contempt and hostility for and to the League of Nations that have since conic from the Bolshevist rulers of Russia. In fact, he has been compelled to admit that any attempt to bring .Russia, as at present governed, into the Pact or into the League was foredoomed to failure. On the whole, however, the Leader of the Labour Party, even if somewhat reluctantly, yet paid some tribute to what his successor in office had accomplished. In strong contrast with Mr. MacDonald’s rather grudging acknowledgment was the manifest spontaneity of Mr Lloyd George’s wholesouled recognition of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s fine work. The old Liberal Leader was in his very happiest vein when he opened by saying: “I have already had an opportunity in public of felicitating the. Foreign Secretary upon his achievement at Locarno, and I should like to reaffirm here the sentiments I then expressed. Mr. Chamberlain made very generous acknowledgment of the part played by others in this accomplishment. . . . The right hon. gentleman has received flowers from many nations, great and small. I should like to add to the nosegay the humble leek. The Leader of the Opposition mixed a good many thistles with his bouquet. There were more prickles than perfume, but there were one or two criticisms of his with which I certainly agree, notably that about the Dominions. Still, 1 am frankly delighted, as one who has taken a part in many of these Conferences, at the unquestionable advance which this represents in the cause of European peace. If there are any criticisms, they are criticisms with a view to there being amendments in future Conferences. . . . From the bot-

tom of my heart I congratulate the Foreign Secretary upon his achievement.” His main criticism to follow was with regard to the failure to secure in advance the approval of the British oversea dominions to what was in contemplation. With that objection, however, the Foreign Secretary dealt in the most sympathetic yet convincing manner, showing how impossible it was to consult the dominion Governments on a subject that was developing from day to day. Then, another speaker on the ministerial side made rather a neat but quite goodhumoured point when he incidentally mentioned that Mr. Lloyd George himself, when in control, had not troubled to consult the dominions when, in 1922, he launched an ultimatum that nearly plunged the country into war with Turkey. But for the slightly discordant note from the Labour leader, the spirit of Locarno ruled the assembly.