DEFENCE MINISTRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22346, 18 February 1936, Page 11

DEFENCE MINISTRY

COMMONS DEBATE COMMENT IN THE PRESS MR. BALDWIN'S POSITION By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright LONDON, Feb. 16 The debate in the House of Commons on the proposal for a single Ministry of Defence was the subject of editorial comment yesterday. The Manchester Guardian's political correspondent says that whatever was the intention of Sir Austen Chamberlain's speech it must injure Mr. Baldwin's prestige with his own party. The Prime Minister no doubt hoped the memory of the Hoare-Laval blunder was fading, but Sir Austen has revived it and has shaken the confidence of the House of Commons and the public in Mr. Baldwin. There is a difference of opinion as to the degree of condemnation implied in Sir Austen's remarks. Some people see in them a simple warning that Mr. Baldwin will be bound to blunder if he thinks he is able to shoulder the burdens of defence in addition to his other duties. Others consider, especially in view of Sir Austen's reminder that Mr. Baldwin confessed himself completely wrong about German rearmament, that Sir Austen meant a definite jeproach of Mr. Baldwin.

Sir Austen's manner disclosed no trace of personal hostility, says the correspondent, and he seemed to admonish Mr. Baldwin regretfully as from a strong sense of public duty. Nothing could be wider of the mark than to suppose that Sir Austen was actuated by other motives. Radical Change Wanted In the opinion of the Daily Telegraph the whole tenor of the debate was in favour of a radical change, though on the forms it should take opinions differed widely. The Morning Post also concludes that some measure of reorganisation is inevitable, and urges that it should be carried out without any thought of prestige, place or politics. The Manchester Guardian in a leading article agrees that there is a general demand for some machinery that will secure the nation against the danger of wasted money, will guarantee the reconciliation or rejection of conflicting claims, and will assure that the policy of a department which is possibly conservative and obstructionist will be questioned and requestioned in the light of the views held by other departments by an independent staff and not by civilian intelligence. All writers recognise that the urgency of revision of the ideal of a general strategy of defence and the co-ordina-tion of aim of the three fighting services arises from the unknown potentialities of air warfare. It is generally admitted also that the deep public interest in the problem at present is due to concern that any expenditure now incurred shall not be wasted. Deficiencies of the Past The House of Commons in particular, as the Times says, will have to bear the J responsibility for very large expenditure upon making good the deficiencies of the past in the light of the new difficulties of the present. The debate, however, showed that there is far less alarm at the projected total of expenditure than at the possibility of waste in the sense that money misdirected will buy neither efficiency nor security. The House of Commons fears that, failing reorganisation, the answers to technical questions will be mistaken. The Times considers that the speeches proved there is a measure of concurrence completely covering the establishment of the defence organisation, calculated to secure what Major C. R. Attlee, Leader of the Opposition, called the unity of supreme direction, unity of plan and unity of outlook, and there appears to be a preponderance of opinion in favour of making a Minister whole-time chairman while there is complete agreement that he should be a civilian. Starting Point for New Plans Nothing, in view of an arrangement of this kind, would conflict with the "ultimate responsibility of the Cabinet or with the control of Parliament, adds the Times. Rightly used, the newspaper believes the debate should prove an excellent starting point for a new defence programme. Similar views are expressed by the Morning Post, which says: "It seems evident that if the Government rejects the Ministry of Defence as impracticable, it must at least be able to show that it wilt have unified executives and machinery to supply its place."