WAR AND RUMOURS OF WARS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22517, 27 September 1938, Page 15

WAR AND RUMOURS OF WARS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—R. T. Willan's opinion "of the Labour Government's contribution to national defence will not be shared by the average person who has kept pace with national affairs during recent years. In 1930 or 1931 the United Government, under the leadership of Mr,

Forbes, reduced the territorial army to a skeleton force composed of cadres consisting of a few enthusiastic officers., n.c.o.'s, and men who gave their services at the cost of considerable selfsacrifice, and in the face of official discouragement. To all intents the territorial force went out of existence, and although the international situation continued to deteriorate, neither the United Government nor its successor, the Coalition Government, took steps to provide this country with an adequate system of defence. Therefore, when the Labour Government assumed office in 1935, not the least of its problems was the reorganisation and re-equipment of the defence forces. It has succeeded to the extent that 9000. territorials are enrolled: the Air Force has beeip modernised and expanded: and an adequate system of anti-aircraft defence is being developed. The Government'! achievement in this direction is perhaps better appreciated when it is realised that two factors have operated against the completion of its programme, the first being the difficulty owing to the demands of the British rearmament programme, of obtaining equipment. The other, which explains why only 3000 men went under canvas this year, is the refusal of many employers to grant their employees the necessary facilities for annual training.—Yours, etc., H. J. EGAN. September 26, 1938.

i THE MANTLE OF SEDDON CO TH» BDITOJI OV Ml PBMS. Sir, —It is rather amusing to find my critics still harping on what I did not say. H. J. Egan has written to show that I am wrong in saying that Mr Hamilton is the rightful heir of Seddon. I have already explained that after showing that Mr Savage had no right to claim the mantle I mentioned, by way of emphasising the point, that Mr Hamilton actually had more right to it than Mr Savage. If I say that two is closer than one is to three, I should not be accused of arguing that two is one.

F. W. Bourke says mjc letter is a "tissue -of evasions." What are the evasions? Mr Bourke credited me with statements I did not make, I corrected him and he jaersists, with assertion and without evidence, that I denied that Seddon's legislation was Socialistic.

Mr Bourke evades the following noints: —That Seddon, being a Liberal, was individualistic and at no stage had the Socialist State as his objective, so that fundamentally he was separated from Mr Savage, who has the Socialist State as his objective. That as Mr Savage has this objective, and Stalin boasts that he has reached the Socialist State as the first stage to Communism, these two are closer than Mr Savage is to Seddon. That Mr Hamilton is closer io Liberalism than is Mr Savage. Mr Bourke says that what "The Press" said of Seddon is germane to

the statement by me that Mr Savage has no right to claim the mantle of Seddon. My reply is that I was not am not, and will not be responsible for the editorial statements of "Tbk Press," whether I agree or not wjtk them. Also that "The Press" may faav*been wrong about Seddon, but as thi» view does not affect, one way or tteother. the simple .statement about Mr' Savage's title to Seddon's mantle, iteannot be germane to this argument. - May I again state the point? Seddon' was a Liberal and Liberalism is fun-* - damentally opposed to the Socialist State: Mr Savage is leading a party* which is heading for the Socialist State. Therefore. Mr Savage is not the heir of Seddon. Finally: Neither, of my opponents - touched the point raised bv my first ' letter. It stands untouched by then or anyone else.—Yours, etc., _ , " „ LIBERALISM. September 26. 1938. [This correspondence is now closed.- : Ed.. "The Press."