BRITISH ARMAMENTS

Evening Star, Issue 22463, 7 October 1936, Page 11

BRITISH ARMAMENTS

LABOUR PARTY’S ATTITUDE LIVELY DEBATE AT CONFERENCE fcroH Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, October 6. (Received October 7, at 1.30 a.m.) “ I am going to speak bluntly. Britain in 1931 was secure in a military, naval, and air sense. To-day that security is gone. If a Labour Government was in power to-morrow it would be compelled to proceed with an increase in British armaments,” said Dr Dalton, in moving the draft resolution which opened a lively debate at the Labour Conference at Edinburgh. He proceeded to say_ that treaty breaking tad become a daily Fascist habit. The Government had a crusading responsibility for what had happened. The sly evasions of Sir John Simon, the prim pretences of Sir Samuel Hoare, the feeble amiability of Mr Eden, the lazy lack of leadership of Mr Baldwin, and the senile vanity of Mr Ramsay MacDonald contributed to the plight of Britain and the world. '} POINTS OF THE DEBATE $ LONDON, October 6. .(Received October 7, at 11 a.m.) Dr Dalton, in moving the armaments motion, after criticising the present Government, said; “.The time has come when Britain must tell the Fascist States that ‘ There is a limit. So far and no further.’ But she must also say, ‘ Come and join us and state your grievances.’ ” Mr Arthur Henderson, in seconding the motion, said the raw materials of the world must be pooled. Lord Strabolgi said; “The time has come when the Democratic and Socialist Powers must be armed for mutual support, I do not want the Labour Government to be weak in the face of open bullying, blackmailing, and threats of the Fascist Powers.” Mr G. Lansbury opposed the motion. He said armaments could not save the world. Even the dictatorship nations must be brought to the round table and led along the road of peace. Mr Dukes said: “The dictator nations should be told that if they want decision by the sword we will not flinch.”

Major Attlee, winding up _ the debate, denied that the motion committed the Labour Party to the Government’s rearmament policy. Labour would continue to criticise the armaments programme, and decline to give a blank cheque. That did not mean that they said no arms were required. Collective security must be backed by a force sufficient to deal with an aggressor. “ We are not prepared t 6 be conquered by Fascism, either from without or within.” A card vote resulted: For the motion, 1,738,000; against, 657,000. “ LEAGUE GROWN WEAKER " WHAT LABOUR WOULD DO. (British Official Wireless.) * RUGBY, October 6. (Received October 7, at noon.) At the Labour Party conference Dr Dalton said the League of Nations had grown weaker, not stronger. International treaties had been broken shamelessly without penalty, collective security had not been organised, and British internal security had gone by the creation of great forces within striking distance. If a Labour Government came into power, British armaments under the Labour Government would be part of the planned system of col lective security. Armaments must be at such a level, Dr Dalton added, as to make sure the aggressor should, not succeed. [A previous message stated: “ The Labour Executive, to overcome the arms policy dilemma, is drafting a resolution for the impending Edinburgh conference, declaring that the armed strength of countries loyal to the League must be governed by the armed strength of a potential aggressor; therefore it reaffirms the policy of maintaining forces consistent with Britain’s responsibilities as a member of the League, but declines responsibility for a competitive armaments policy.]