PREMIER’S REPLY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 31 August 1927, Page 7

PREMIER’S REPLY

TO VISCOUNT CECIL RESIGNATION DEEPLY REGRETTED. London, Aug. 29. Mr Baldwin has sent a letter in reply to Lord Cecil (published yesterday), stating: “ I deeply regret your resignation, but it is a source of satisfaction to know it was not duo to any personal difficulty. I am concerned with your statement that you and the Cabinet cannot agree on the broad policy of disarmament. However, an examination of your views inclines me to the opinion that, having decided upon your resignation, you exaggerate any differences that have arisen. Shortly after we came into office our views on the broad question were stated in Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech at Geneva on the subject of the protocol in terms which were approved by the whole Cabinet. He said the British Empire shows by deeds, as well as words, the fullest accord with the League’s ideals of arbitration disarmament and security. Successive administrations in Great Britain, with the full approval of the self-govern-ing dominions, not only favoured thd arbitration theory, but availed of the practice, having disarmed to the limits of national safety. Essentially this policy does not differ from your own views even as now stated. We have pursued it ever since with considerable effect on disarmament and the peace of the world. Our differences with you do hot arise from the broad policy so much as from views on the most effective means of forwnrding them, but even here we have largley agreed. Regarding the League preparatory committee you yourself presided over the sub-committee preparing the British case and practically drafted your own instructions. “Regarding the recent three Power conference, again I think you exaggerate the differences towards the Government, but this, I must say, 1 can take no blame to myself or my colieagues for. Until the very moment a telegram from Geneva informed us the conference had ended we were still working for a compromise, which might yet attain the twin objects of limitation of armaments and national security. REFUSE TO SHARE PESSIMISM. “"Regarding the future I refuse to share your pessimism. It is true there has not yet been any great progress made along the lines of world conferences, but there has been progress already through other -less amibitious methods, for example, the Washington and Locarno treaties and the settlement with Turkey. All these led to some measure of disarmament. Our own aggregate expenditure on armaments has fallen yearly,. and yearly Governments and peoples are more deeply realising the importance of the question. Ido not mean that I. am hopeless of the three-Power conference, despite its apparent failure, yet the result would have been an early reduction of naval armaments and in the long run a better understanding of each other’s problems. The difficulties, as is always known, are many and great, but, that in my opinion, is no reason for throwing up the sponge. It is the task of statesmen to learn from failure as well/as from success. Aly only regret is that you a~e no longer willing to continue as our principal representative at international discussions on disarmament and that we must seek elsewhere for the help for which hitherto we have turned to you.”—(A.P.A. and “Sun“ cable.) EARL OF ONSLOW. . MAY GO TO GENEVA. London, Aug. 30. It is understood the Earl of Onslow is replacing Lord Cecil at Geneva. Viscount Cecil interviewed, said “It is possible I may go in the future as a representative of Britain without being a member of the Government, but that does not rest with me. I feel I can better work for disarmament outside of the Cabinet than inside.” The “Morning Post” regrets the resignation, but thinks no reproach rests on the Government. The Liberal press opines that Lord Cecil is irreplaceable. The “Morning Post’s” Geneva correspondent reports that high League officials express the opinion that it would bo a serious blow if Lord Cecil’s resignation were to entail bis dissassociation from League work, especially as it follows that of M. de Jouvenel.—(A. and N.Z.)