POLICY OF DISARMAMENT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 119, 17 February 1928, Page 9

POLICY OF DISARMAMENT

AND INTERNATIONAL , ARBITRATION BRITAIN’S ATTITUDE DISCUSSED IN HOUSE OF LORDS REDUCTIONS IN NAVY AND ARMY SINCE THE ARMISTICE A motion by Viscount Cecil urging the Government to accept the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in justiciable disputes by signing the optional clause was discussed in the House of Lords. The Marquess of Salisbury said that Britain would enter no agreement which the Government did not think it would be able to fulfil, and Ministers had come to the conclusion that it would be wiser not to bind the Government by signing the optional clause.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright

(Rec. February 16, 8.55 p.m.) London, February 15. In the House of Lords Viscount Cecil moved a motion expressing the hope that the Government mould press forward a policy of international disarmament, and after consulting the Dominions accept the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in justiciable disputes, by signing the optional clause. Viscount Cecil expressed the opinion that public opinion was miles ahead of the Government’s attitude towards international arbitration, which was the only alternative to war. He did not believe that twenty members of the ■ House of Commons would oppose the signature of the optional clause, and if they did fifteen would lose their seats at the general election.

BRITAIN REDUCED ARMS MORE THAN OTHER NATIONS.

Lord Cushendun, replying, said that Britain since the armistice had scrapped two million tons of fighting ships and made heavy reductions in the army. If she had kept these to bargain with at Geneva she would have'been in a very strong position. Other nations had not correspondingly reduced their armaments. He did not believe the signature of the optional clause would materially affect the question of peace. We had arbitration agreements with various nations, practically covering the war danger field, and doubtless would sign more. We set an example at Locarno and intended to do our utmost at Geneva to induce other nations to follow Britain’s example. Lords Buckmaster, Aston, and Phillimore, supported the signing of the optional clause. TREATIES TORN UP AT CRITICAL TIME. Lord Salisbury said that nothing had been more demoralising in recent years than the number of treaties that were torn to pieces when a critical time came. Britain would do her utmost, but would enter no agreement which the Government did not think it would be able to fulfil. Ministers had come to the conclusion that it would be wiser not to bind the Government by signing the optional clause. The motion was withdrawn; —A.P.A.' and “Sun.” AGITATION FOR HUGE NAVY CREATING DISTRUCT OF UNITED STATES A MENACE TO WORLD PEACE Washington, February 15. Representatives of peace, religious, and church organisations appeared before the House of Representatives Naval Committee and objected to the proposed naval programme as a menace to world peace. They declared that the agitation for a huge naw was creating distrust of the United States among other nations, particularly Britain and' Japan, which might end in war if the programme were carried out. Dr. William Hull, of Swarthmore Col-

lege, said: “If you gentlemen coma only talk with the American people outside Washington, you, too, would be amazed and startled by the hatred for the English people which is already flaring up under the stimulus of this proposition.” Dr. Arthur Brown, secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions, repeated to the committee a considerable amount of hearsay evidence of an alarmist nature, which, he claimed, he had received from American Navy and Army officers, to the effect that in certain circles war between America and Japan was regarded as inevitable. (Rec. February 16, 5.5 p.m.) Washington, February 15. Strong opposition was presented to the House Naval Committee on Wednesday against the 740,000,000-dollar warship construction programme by a delegation representing the World Alliance for International'"Friendship and the Church Peace Union. The spokesman, Dr. William Hull, Professor of History and International Relations at Swarthmore College, who claimed that the programme constituted “extravagance and a menace, because it will tend to militarise or navalise the people,” declared that whatever denial might be made regarding its competitive character, it was obviously in line with naval competition with Britain, and it was virtually so regarded bv British people, and if continued therefore must result, as did similar competition between Britain and Germany before the war. He added that hatred for the British people by the people of the United States under the stimulus of the naval proposition was already flaring up. —A.P.A. and “Sun.” COST OF BRITAIN’S DEFENCE London, February 15. According to a Treasury White Paper, the cost of the Navy for the year ended March 31 last was £57,817,000; the Army, £44,1'27.000; the Air Force, £15,648,000; and the Ministry of Pensions, £98,91'2,000.—A.P.A. and “Sun.” CONDEMNATION OF WAR IN DRAFT TREATY OF ARBITRATION Rugby, February 15. Tn the House of Commons, the Foreign Under-Secretary, Sir. G. LockerLampson, confirmed that the preamble of the draft Treaty of Arbitration with the United States, communicated to His Majesty’s Government, contained a clause condemning war as an instrument of policy in the mutual relations of the two countries. The United States Government had also communicated to the British Government, for consideration only, its draft for a Pact of perpetual friendship with Prance. He could not say at this early stage what action the Government would take, but the matter was under very careful consideration. Asked whether the proposals submitted to France would be taken into consideration in connection with the proposed Anglo-American Treaty, Mr-Locker-Lampson replied in the affirmative.—British Official Wireless.