OMINOUS DECISION

Northern Advocate, 3 May 1935, Page 7

OMINOUS DECISION

BUILDING SUBMARINES VIEWS EXPRESSED IN COMMONS LABOUR AND LIBERAL LEADERS lUnited Press Association —By Electric Telegraph. — Copyright.] (Received 1 p.m.) LONDON, May 2. Mr. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. S. M. Bruce, Australian High Commissioner, Sir James Parr, New Zealand High Commissioner, and Mr. J. W. Dulante, Irish Free State Commissioner, were in the Dominion Gallery and most of the foreign ambassadors except the German were present in the House Of Commons to hear the debate on foreign affairs. Mr. MacDonald said that he was most surprised that Germany had chosen the present moment to announce a shipbuilding programme, especially including submarines. Though the German submarine decision was ominous, the Government was still prepared for naval talks with' Germany. The Government was already taking steps to extend and accelerate the Air Force, but still called on the Powers' to undertake to limit their air arms. “Our policy is to combine defence and collective security with an international arms agreement,” he said. It did not aim at military alliances. The understanding between Britain, France and Italy was a guarantee of peace. It threatened nobody. Mr. George Lansbury, Labour Leader, following Mr.' MacDonald, said Labour was very disappointed with the Prime Minister’s statement. After three years’ disarmament talk, it largely dealt with the increase of armaments as a preliminary basis for peace. Had the Government gone back to the League Covenant in favour Of relying on four or five nations? Labour had no confidence in peace pacts, based on enormous armaments, but had great faith in peace through the League. He congratulated the Government on leaving the door wide open for Germany to come in. Public Opinion.

Sir Herbert Samuel, Liberal Leader, said that public opinion would not support whole-hearted alliances and other Powers against Germany, because of an uneasy consciousness that there was some substance in the German allegations that the Powers refusing to disarm were equally guilty of a breach of the Versailles Treaty as the Powers , that were re-arming. At the same time, Herr Hitler had consolidated British opinion to an extent that could not have been forseen. Germany should be. given to understand from all quarters of the House that if she pursued her present course and came to no arms limitation agreement, she would compel the resentment and disapproval of the British people. , Mr. MacDonald’s statement, despite its strong tone against Germany, caused considerable restlessness among Conservatives, particularly those pressing for a vast Air Force. The impression in the lobbies was that Mr. MacDonald still hoped for Germany’s cooperation in collective security. The Conservatives say the Government must immediately be forced.. to work every aeroplane factory in Britain to capacity.

SECURITY PACTS. DOOR OPEN FOR GERMANY. INVITATION TO LONDON NAVAL ' PARLEY. [British Official Wireless .] (Received 2.3 b p.m.) RUGBY, May 2. Continuing his statement in the House of Commons on foreign affairs, Mr MacDonald said that the German Chancellor, during Sir John Simon's' visit to Berlin, declared his willingness, in principle, to negotiate a multiple non-aggressive pact with Eastern European countries. Although they had hoped Germany would be prepared to join in a more comprehensive arrangement, nevertheless, the proposals put forward by Herr , Hitler ought to be allowed to drop, and they trusted Germany herself would take immediate steps to promote, in more concrete shape, the idea which the Chancellor had formulated. There was no reason why such a non-aggression pact should not harmonise with the mutual guarantee pact which France and other Governments were now negotiating, and, indeed, in his (Mr MacDonald’s) opinion the two could very well supplement each other, and thus help forward creating a complete system of collective security in Eastern Europe. “I wish to make it clear,” said the Prime Minister, “that so far as this Government is concerned, we did not, and do not, consider that the security which the London declaration is meant to establish can be complete without German participation. “When the whole declaration was reviewed at Stresa, the policy pursued by the British delegates was to maintain the possibility of such cooperation. All these activities assumed the idea of collective security in some form or another. The general attitude of the Government is to approach the problem with a flexible mind, in order to obtain as far as possible the realisation of that idea, with its effective Check upon aggression.