THE PEACE LETTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20288, 22 December 1927, Page 11

THE PEACE LETTER

MR BALDWIN’S REPLY. AN ENGLISHMAN’S PRIVILEGE. take up arms in defence. (Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, December 20. (Received Dec. 21, at 10 p.m.) Mr Baldwin, replying to Mr Arthur Ponsonby’s letter, which was signed by 128,700 Britons who refuse to support or render war service to any Government which resorts to arms, said he had given the matter most careful consideration. It should not be necessary for him to say that the Government is as earnestly desirous to preserve peace as any signatory to the petition. Support of the League of Nations had oeen constant preoccupation of the Government but the petitioners should reflect that if tne British navy and army ceased to exist the inevitable result would be ‘he collapse of the League. No greater incitement to war could be imagined. Without arms Britian could not honour the sixteenth article of the covenant, which details the armed forces with which the Powers should support the League. Intain would then be obliged to leave the League, and gone would be the immense influence ws wielded in .the Council and the Assembly in the cause of peace. He added that the same reasoning applied to the Locarno treaties. “ The efficiency of the League lepends most largely upon the knowledge of 'll parties that in the - event of an unprovoked attack the might and weight f Britain would be thrown into the scale against the aggressor. You cannot strengthen the League by weakening the British Empire. Britain disarmed would be an easy prey to hostile forces, and nothing would be more likely to excite cupidity and hostile intention. If we sank to the level of a fifth-rate Power our colonies would be stripped from us, our commerce would decline, and famine and unemployment would stalk the land. We are pledged by the covenant tu reduce national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement of international obligations. That pledge we are determined to carry out, but we hope to reduce armaments still further by means of an agreement with the other Powers. Finally, it is the privilege, as well as the duty, of Englishmen to take up arms in defence of their home and country. A war of agression is an abomination and horror, but a war of defence is very different. Terrible and ghastly as were the horrors of the last war, could we have dishonoured our pledged word? Would the world have been better if wo had stood idly while Prance was being invaded and Belgiumn destroyed ? I have yet, to learn that the cause of peace can be served by rendering our country impotent. Mr Ponsonby, in a brief reply, says that the signatories to the letter do not consider that security based an armaments or the ultimate sanction of force is likely to succeed, or strengthen the League’s authority.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

Mr Arthur Ponsonby, Labour member for Brightside, presented a peace letter to the Prime Minister signed by 128,700 Britishers, and setting out that " we hereby solemnly declare that we refuse to support or render war service ,o an Government which resorts to arms.” Mr Ponsonby, in a letter of explanation, said : ” Many of the petitioners are disillusioned ex-soldiers and women who are determined that their children shall not bf blown to atoms in purposeless slaughter. Our unusual message is a blunt but simple declaration—a signal to a new and more enlightened patriotism of Britons not to shrink from necessary sacrifice, but to show a heartfelt loathing for inflicting, by new diabolical methods, suffering and death on innocent nopulations with whom we have no quarrel.” Mr Baldwin replied that he would think the matter over carefully in order' that the reply might he more than a mere acknowledgment.