BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 26 March 1925, Page 2

BRITISH PARLIAMENT

DEBAT'D IN COMMONS,

BRITAIN FOR FACT

[Reuters Telegrams. I

LONDON, Alarch 2-t

In Hie House of Commons lit. Hon. A. Henderson (Labour) initiated a debate on the Leave Protocol. He declined to believe that the Protocol was dead. He did not believe that any live power pact, or any other arrangement would influence the progress ot universal compulsory arbitration, to which the Government should consent.

In reply. Mr Chamberlain (Foreign Secretary) recalled that the -MacDonald Government had rejected the Treaty of Mutual Assistance proposed bv the J.vague of Nations, on the ground that the guarantees therein cere insufficient to justify the State in reducing its army, while the Treaty won 111 necessitate an increase in the British navy. He said he leared that the Labour Government had not applied the came tests to the Protocol. The ideas of M. Harriot and Air Alai - Donald, as regards security were poles asunder. T'lTe Labour Government’s idea was the .suppression of individual pacts and regional agreements by one vast, universal .scheme ot international insurance but that was never tin- policy of foreign governments, which did not mean to abandon local alliances. On the eontraiv, they regarded the protocol as something which must be followed by special subsidiary agreements. The protocol displayed a lack of appreciation of its implications for an .Empire, such as ours, scattered over the world, and based primarily on sea power. I lie whole of the terms were framed for tne special purpose of the States with land forces, who were anxious regarding their Iroutiers. Britain, like the Dominions and India, was unable to -ign the protocol because she did not think that it would promote security or disarmament. The United States made no official declaration in that connection, but as far as he knew the t:end ot American opinion, the protocol would he viewed there as a possinlo cause of war. rather than as ai increased security for peace. LONDON, March 25.

Air Chamberlain, in his speech, added that the German Government was sincerely and honestly attempting to produce a better state of eMail.-. T herefore the British Government .ser-

iously discussed their proposals, whicl; amounted, in fact, to this; That Germany was prepared to guarantee voluntarily what hitherto she only accepted under the compulsion of the

Treaty of Versailles, namely tiie status quo in the west. She was prepared to eliminate war both east and west, as an engine by which alteration of hoi ticaty position could be obtained; though she was not prepared to renounce her hope ot eventually modiIviug parts ol her eastern frontier by peaceful means. These proposals constituted a signal advance and it was essential that they should be carefully examined, in order to ascertain what advantages could be drawn from them,

to make them a basis of real seciuity uud peace. Any arrangement into which wo might enter should he purc!v defensive in character, framed in (he spirit of the League Covenant, and working in (lose harmony with the League. Britain’s obligations and friendly adjustments should load the nations to cultivate friendship, if only once they got away from the atmosphere of yesterday and turned to an altitude ul' the future. It was essential to such an agreement that Germany should enter the League ol Nations. taking a place in the Council oil a looting of equality. Otherwise, the atun qiliei e. would be '>ne ol fear- and suspicion in fact the attitude of an armed camp ant Europe would ultimately be given up to a new struggle. Any future generation having to pay the penalty of unnecessary war would harshly judge the statesmen who failed to take timely measures by which it might have been prevented. British influence had lost something owing to hesitation and inconsistency, but the German proposals constituted a new chance. The British Empire was detached from Europe by the Dominions, but it was linked to Europe by these islands, and it could do what no other nation on tiie lace of the earth could do. He added; “From east and west conic: the cry: It is in the hands of the Empire that, there shall be no more war. Mr AlacDonaUl. defending the Protocol, said that what was essential to Europe was to try and change the military mentality. Instead of thinking of alliances as the basis of security. they should adopt a new habit of thinking ol arbitration, leu >''ais of the protocol would lend them to that, lie feared that, more evil would result from honest attempts to carry out different interpretations of the League Covenant than if the parties had been enemies for years. Air Baldwin, replying to the debate said the Government was now waiting to see what the possibility might be of the interested parties coining together. The Government- was trying to tinil an agreement. but it was too eail\ -.'(- to say what might happen. I hey did not mind how inclusive the Pact was. They could not say who would come into it. The only clear thing was that, however, inclusive the pad might be. we would not undertake any direct of mutual guarantee beyiinM what they had indicated. They did not want to extend Britain's ~|>Len that wav. although whatever countries it might be possible to bring in an inclusive pact, they would welcome them, if it proved practicable. The Government, throughout, was keeping in the closest touch with the Dominions. He hoped that eventually sc the issues would be comparatively so simple that it would lit- possible to negotiate with the Dominions to allowtheir representatives who were to attend the Assembly of the League of Nations in the autumn, to come to Britain in sufficient time Indore the conference at Geneva, in order to confer together, and. il possible, go united to Geneva.

In the House of Commons, Mr Lloyd George critcised the Protocol, which he described as a “booby trap lor Britain, baited with arbitration. He urged the Government to take a mui al lead in Europe in setting up a more general aibitration treaty for the purpose of settling international disputes by more effective methods than war. Mr Lloyd George’s speech was Ids tirst public appearance since ids dluess, and it was delivered with his old vigour. When attacking the Protocol lie stressed the unlikelihood of the Eastern countries agreeing to arbitration. Instancing lloumania. Czechoslovakia, and Poland, he declared that the hitter were already five Al-sace-Lorraincs, and they wanted a sixth, namely Dantzig.

Thereupon Mr Chamlierlaiii created a mild sensation by interposing: “I tnink Mr Lloyd George is talking vei'v"iaslilv. I dissociate myself from what lie is saying.” LONDON, March 24. In the House of Commons in the debate on foreign affairs, Mr Henderson said that the Government had taken a most serious step in declaring against the policy of the Geneva pro-

tocol, thereby encouraging a return to the discredited and dangerous policy of separate, limited, alliances and undertakings.

Air Chamberlain’s speech has Ircen favourably received. The details of the German offer are welcomed.

Tli “Alorning Post,” describing Air Chamberlain’s pronouncement as “A Policy at Last,” interprets his speech as an intimation that the Government has made up its mind to proceed with the proposed pact. The paper expresses the opinion that tho real test of Germany’s good faith will ho her behaviour in Eastern Europe. The “Daily Telegraph” comments that “the magnitude of the German offer is such that it provides a reasonable hope of a settlement at last. It goes without saving that the Government will do all in its power to bring the negotiations to a fruitful eonconclusion. AVe hope that Germany will lie met by the other Powers in the same spirit as by Great Britain. Air Hall, ALP., a native of Melbourne in bis maiden speech in tho House of Commons, dealt with defence and the Singapore base from an Australian standpoint. He appealed to all British parties to hack tip the White Australia policy.