Mr Chamberlain’s Speech

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1922, Page 1

Mr Chamberlain’s Speech

AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. LONDON, Oct 13. The Rt Hon Austen Chamberlain, leader <>f the Unionist Party in the Coalition, delivered his speech on the political situation at the city of Birmingham. He said that her could not say when the General Election will take place. The reason was that it was Mr "Lloyd George’s prerogative to dissolve Parliament. He (Chamberlain) was convinced, however, that in any new Parliament, there must be a Coalition Government. If Labour obtained a majority at tho elections, he said, he would foreshadow a Government by the Labour Caucus, also with a capital levy. Such levy would destroy industry. Therefore, he declared, they must not permit the National reconstruction experiments to fall into the hands of a subversive, if not a revolutionary party. Hen«e tho need of another coalition in any new Parliament.

Mr Chamberlain said that lie spoke : under a great sense of his obligation to the Party which lie bad represented in Parliament for 30 years. He thought that in these elays of struggle and of stress, he should subordinate liis own party’s aims and bis personal considerations to the welfare of the Empire. He had worked with Mr Lloyd George in perfect harmony. The latter had strengthened the Unionist element in the Cabinet. There was. ho said, no question of principle that had ever separated them. Mr Chamberlain, continuing, said: —‘‘l could not pretend to say in what circumstances and conditions co-opera-tion between ourselves and our | lesent allies could best be obtained in a new Parliament. I can say with conviction that the Union should be onr first consideration, but it would be criminal to allow'narrow party prejudi-es to sacrifice tho country’s interests and to betray the great cause which we, ns a party, should cherish and maintain, and which, if it were abandoned or betrayed bv us, cannot be sustained by any other forcci within the realm.” Ml - Chamberlain, referring to Foreign Policy said :—“We have* been determined—as far as lay in our power—to prevent the war which devastated Asia Minor from spreading into Europe.” Ho believed tho Government’s •policy to have been successful, but success was not due to any help received from the Opposition. “In the remit crisis,” ho said, “wo have been heirs to Mr Asquith’s and Lord Grey’s policy.” /, No question of principle divided his Liberal and his Unionist colleagues at the present time. These were not the days for reviving differences, hut for rallying all parties to the* defence of the constitution. and of their social anil economic order. He had no doubt that when the now House of Commons came into bein*, it would become very different from the present House, if, ho assented, Labour chlainod the majority, ■then heavy would be tho responsibility of those who could not take a National view in the time of a National danger. Direct action would triumph over a Government who, as Rt lion Mr Clyncs (Labour M.P.) had said, would not be allowed to lead, hut must take its instructions from the Labour Caucus.

Mr Chamberlain, in concluding, emphasised the neutrality of the Government as between the Greeks and the Turks. The Kemalist« .-had been encouraged by some divergence of. the Allied Policy, and by their victory over the Greeks, To try conclusions with the Allies. Britain’s main object bad been to prevent Constantinople from sharing the fate of Smyrna. The value of Lord Curzon’s services in tlie matter could not be overrated.

Mr Asquith and Lord Orcv (the Liberal lenders) were always praising their diplomacy of other days, but the end of their skilful diplomacy, however, was the great war. The Allies hoped, arid they were en<xmraged by cx-Prcsident \A ilson to be-lievo that America would take an active part in the settlement of pence with Turkey. They had been disappoined. Subsequent events, such as the uon-ratifieation of the Pence Treaty of August 1920, and the recall of King Tini» to Greece noiw profoundly affected the British Government's policy. M. Bullion (French Minister) f had visited Angora, anti other events i had encouraged the Kemalist proton- ' sinus, and gave the suggestion of a j possible want of unity among the AI- I lies. who. including the French, had j previously agreed that any attack by ■ cither the Turks or the Greeks on the , neutral nones should l>e forcibly repel 1- j ed. The French military bad received, instructions to withdraw, and Bri- . tain was confronted with a serious ; problem. Thu I Nivoninu'nt therefore had decided to maintain the freedom ; of the Straits, until they handed them over to the I,vague of Nations. I Inis the Straits had been preserved from , danger, and a peace conierenre bad j beta secured.

MR CI.YNF.S REPLY. LONDON, Oct 14

Tim 1U Hon Mr .). 1!. Clyues, Labour M.P., replying to Mr Austin Chamberlain, in a speech at Beading said:— Bolshevism was produced in Russia by the suppression of all popular liberty; and a rebellion can he also fermented in Britain by the Ministers seeking to put the Labour Party outside tiu> pah- of constitutional action. Mr Chamberlain's pronouncement, ho said, was a menace to Labour; and it would, deepen the existing rlas.s-n.utn-gonisms. •The Labour Party," said Mr dynes “is as constitutional as any other political partv. It cannot always be. blamed for decisions which the trade unions may reach on the industrial epicstion.” The trade unions, ha added, had recently threatened to advise a strike, in order to prevent another war; but if the Ministers failed to use the- Lonerne of Nations and if they kept 1 arliament closed in the time of a crisis then they ought not to he. surprised at the threat of strike action.