CENSURE MOTION DEFEATED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22519, 13 March 1935, Page 7

CENSURE MOTION DEFEATED

LONDON, March 11. (Received March 12, at 10 p.m.) Mr Amery welcomed the White Paper as ending make believe. While Admiral Keyes was speaking two young women sitting in the front row of tlie gallery. rose and hurled a bundle of green leaflets to the floor of the House. While being ejected they shouted, "Not a penny for war. Tear up the White Paper." The disturbance lasted only half a minute. Sir Stafford Cripps said the objects of those who established the League and arranged every pact and treaty was to get rid of armaments. Now these- very pacts were being used as an argument to justify increased armaments. While Sir Arthur Samuel was winding up there was more leaflet throwing from the gallery and two more young women were ejected. Sir John Simon contended that our regular and territorial armies were now smaller than in 1914. The increased expenditure included £750,000 for restoration of pay and pension cuts. Another big item was the provision of better barracks, many of which did not reach civilian standards. " I wish to make a definite statement, with full Government authority, that its policy is unalterably based on membership of the League." Every State in Europe save one belonged to the League. His and Captain Eden's forthcoming journeys were to search for a basis for Germany effectively to rejoin. "We are determined to endeavour to secure this result, because we are convinced that there is no security in the world comparable with the effective working of a real universal League of Nations." Britain's efforts regarding the- Saar, Hungary and Jugoslavia were all under League machinery. The London declaration was approved by all parties in Britain and abroad. They were glad that Germany welcomed its fair and friendly spirit, and it was in that spirit that he and Captain Eden would visit foreign capitals. They were striving in a spirit of realism to find a basis for strengthening European security. They were seeking to do so in equal conference with all the States concerned. The responsibility rested with the Government. There might have been an easier course to take than face the facts as they found them, but with a responsibility to discharge not only to'the people of Britain but to the Empire he asked the House overwhelmingly to justify their policy. Major Attlee's motion was defeated by 424 to 79. Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment was carried by 412 to 78. Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment declares: "The House of Commons, faithful to the country's obligations as a member of the League and desiring limitation of armaments by international agreement, recognises that these objects are unobtainable by unilateral disarmament, and it approves of the Government policy as equally necessary for the defence of its own people and the discharge of our international obligations." POMPOUS SOCIALIST TALK LtNDON, March 11. (Received March 12, at 10 p.m.) The News-Chronicle, in a leader, says: " Mr Baldwin, in jauntily defiant mood, not only refused to apologise for the White Paper on the occasion of its publication but deliberately justified both. His defence at best was a half truth. He gave no assurance that the Government was not proposing to abandon the idea of collective security." The Daily Mail, in a leader, says: " Britain cannot be defended by fine phrases or leaving protection to other nations, which is the real interpretation of the pompous Socialist talk about collective security and the League. A large loan to provide an imposing air fleet would be perfectly justified." The Times, in a leader, says: "If dictatorships believe that their countries must he self-sufficient in war time, democracies would be feeble defenders of the collective system if they alone believed that they "could remain inadequately armed. British democracy will certainly mainly agree with Mr Baldwin's and Sir* Austen Chamberlain's statements." THE FRENCH VIEWPOINT PARIS, March 12. (Received March 12, at 11.15 p.m.) Mr Baldwin's speech is regarded as a vindication of the Franco-British work for " peace —but not at any price." It favourably impressed official circles, who see in it" a parallel to M. Flandin's recent speech. Both, it is pointed out. proclaimed the anxiety of their respective countries to organise peace and security, while maintaining that the moment had come for an overhaul of defence arrangements.

HERR HITLER KEPT INFORMED LONDON, March 12. (Received March 12, at 11.50 p.m.) The News-Chronicle's Berlin correspondent says: " Herr Hitler has been kept specially informed of the progress of the House of Commons debate, portions of the speeches directly bearing on the German situation being telephoned to Munich from London and relayed to the Chancellor's home. COLLECTIVE SECURITY LONDON, March 11. (Received. March 12, at 5.5 p.m.) Sir Herbert Samuel asked were they to ring down the curtain on the Disarmament Conference as a failure, like the World Economic Conference. Disarmament was the only road to security and our duty was not to despair of the League but to do the utmost to complete the system of collective control, seek agreement against the private manufacture of arms, and inoculate our people against the insidious, infectious war fever. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in submit' ting his amendment, said that 'Major Attlee talked of putting faith in collective security, but it was not serving the League to pretend that it could do what it could not. The type of war known as accidental war, by the sudden arousing of national feelings, could be prevented now by opportunities for conciliation. The real fear which was- causing world unrest was a war planned of set purpose to achieve some national ambition, aggrandisement or revenge, which could not be satisfied by peaceful means. " Let us try to strengthen collective security but it should not be supposed that a multiplication of pacts or definitions of aggressor will prevent the kind of war where a nation sees a good prospect of success if it throws the dice for a war of this sort. War can only be prevented by making it clear to the aggressor that there will be .such n massing of forces against him that there can be no prospects of success. We still stand one of the great Powers, and if we use our power wisely and justly we might have a great influence on the world, but if we left our owji defences to others what, encouragement would it give them to undertake such obligations? "