KING’S SPEECH

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 292, 7 November 1928, Page 8

KING’S SPEECH

3.15 P.M. EDITION

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

LABOUR CRITICISM.

(United Press Association.-—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received November 7, 1.5 p.m. RUGBY/Nov. 6. The dehate on the Address-in-Beply to tho King’s speech opened in the House of Commons this afternoon.

Mr Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour leader, criticised the general policy of the Government in regard to foreign affairs. He condemned especially the reservations regarding the Kellogg Pact and the Anglo-Frencli naval compromise. Mr Baldwin, the Prime Minister, in the course of his reply, stated that the Government could not reply to tho attack on their actions in regard to foreign relations until they had heard the full case of tho Opposition. While they had heard Mr MacDonald, they had not heard Mr Lloyd George. It would be a discourtesy to the Liberal Party to attempt to deal with the criticisms in these circumstances. FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

Mr MacDonald asked whether the Government had no statement at all to make on foreign affairs. The Prime Minister replied that the Government had published a full White Paper on the Anglo-French naval compromise. They knew that later they were to he censured on this matter, and that ws an occasion on which tho Government proposed to state their case.

Mr P. Snowden (Labour) supported the demand of Mr MacDonald for a statement by the Government on foreign affairs. In the absence of such statement, he declared, it was no use to proceed with the debate, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the House. Mr Baldwin defended the absence of a statement by pointing out that for many years the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the King’s speech had nearly always been of a general character. He understood that amendments relating to the matters in dispute, including one by the Liberals, were to be moved. The Government had been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and very hard things had been said of them in the country. The Government desired to see whether—what was equivalent to a vote of censure moved upon theni —the same things would be said in the House as were said in the country. The Government had a perfect right to reserve their reply for that occasion. In these circumstances lie could only congratulate Mr Snowden on going back to the old constitutional practice of moving the adjournment of the debate at an early hour, and he had pleasure in accepting it. The motion for tho adjournment was agreed to without division and the House rose.

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS. In the debate on the King’s speech in the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury, speaking for the Government, protested against the description “Naval Pact” being applied to what was really a provisional accord reached with the French Government, which the British Government communicated at once to all the other Powers concerned. Undoubtedly that naval arrangement was now at an end. It was confronted with a reception which was not at all encouraging. Lord Salisbury greatly regretted that lie did not know how the problem of disarmament was to be solved unless there were preliminary understandings, which would be communicated at once to the other Powers interested.

QUESTIONS TO MR BALDWIN,

“LAST ACT OF THE DRAMA.”

LABOUR LEADER’S STATEMENTS,

(Australian Press Association—United Service). Received November 7, 12.5 p.m. LONDON, Nov. 6. In the House of Commons, Mr Macdonald stated that “this was a queer King’s speech.” The Ministry, he said, while signing the Paris Pact, had been doing its best to confine the activities and development of the League of Nations. Britain was solely responsible for the 'suspicion created by upsetting the confidence of all the nations of Europe. Did we undertake to waive objections to France’s trained reserves if no notice were taken to conscript civilians militarily trained? Any disarmament agreement was not worth the paper on which it was written. Had disarmament been dropped? Had we abandoned the round table idea? Had we replied to America’s Note? Mr MacDonald invited Mr Baldwin to answer these questions. The Labour leader concluded: “The curtain has been raised on the last act of the Government’s four years of sorry drama. The gallery is getting restive and wants the actors to have a rest. . Mr Baldwin, in replying, said that Mr MacDonald had not enjoyed the drama. “When we meet again there will be many changes. I hope they will meet the satisfaction of the majority of the members.” (Laughter and cheers).