BRITISH PARLIAMENT,

Hokitika Guardian, 1 August 1928, Page 2

BRITISH PARLIAMENT,

Australian Press Assn.—United Service IN THE COALMONS. LONDON, July 31. In the House of Commons, in Committee of Supply, on the Foreign Offieo vote, Major Crawford (Liberal) directed attention to the situation in China and in Egypt. Regarding the United States pact, Alajor Crawford pointed out that Sir Austen Chamberlain’s letter of Alav 19th had practically reproduced all of the reservations that were made by the French Government, with one or two of his own in addition. It was mainly ujion these reservations, said the speaker, that the Opposition's criticism of the Foreign Office was based. The correspondence also showed that Sir A. Chamberlain thought it inconvenient if Russia were included in the Kellogg Fact, lie asked, did the Foreign Minister really think this pact would be of the maximum use if Russia were excluded? He declared that if all of the difficulties that were confronting Europe along the Russian and German borders were to he excluded from it. then this pact would be more useless than many hoped and believed. Rt. Hon. C. F. Trevelyan (Labour) said the Labour Party regretted that the Kellogg Fact had not been accepted by the British Governments without any reservations. He remarked: “AA e don't want another Monroe doctrine, with a roving application of a worldwide kind. This really means that Great Britain and (he British Empire hold themselves free in certain districts of the world— despite the pact—to use force, to make war, and to act as absolute arbiters.” Air Trevelyan added: “That is inconsistent with the international idea.”

Commander Hon. J. AI. Kenworthy (Labour) urged that there must be an international law of peace, instead o! an international law of war. He hoped that Britain would take the first step towards this.

LLOYD GEORGE’S OBJECTION LONDON, July 39

In (he Mouse of Commons, Air Lloyd George, speaking regarding the Kellogg Pact, said lie thought Sir Austen Chamberlain was disposed to underestimate (lie perils of the clause which set up a kind of Monroe doctrine lor ourselves. There was a great deal of misapprehension over the clause on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr Lloyd George asked for a clear statement as to what the Government intended to cover by this vague, indefinite, and obscure clause. He regretted that the words “ regarding selfdefence ” had 1 >ecn included, as there had never been a war when both of the parties did not claim to be “ acting on the principle of self-defence.” It was a pity that Air Kellogg was forced out of his first position of having a simple, unreserved declaration to outlaw war, It was also vital to bring Russia within the ambit of some obligation not to make war. There would never be disarmament until tliat was clone. He hoped that the Government would give reality to the pact by taking the initiative in cutting down armaments, and in withdrawing troops from the Rhineland.

The vote was agreed to. JAPAN’S IN CHINA. LONDON, July 30. in the House of Commons. Mr Lloyd George paid a tribute to Sir A. Chamberlain for faithful adherence to the attitude which he originally adopted towards China. He said lie was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary’s declaration that Manchuria was an indigenous part of China, and was not to be torn away from the Chinese Commonwealth. FRANCE AND BRITAIN. NAVAL RIVALRY ENDED. LONDON, July 31. Sir A. Chamberlain’s warmly-ap-plauded announcement that an AngloFrench compromise bad been reached on naval disarmament completely surprised the House of Commons. No official hint bad previously been given of the fruits of five months of negotiations, which, while primarily concerning a resumption of the deliberations of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission, have had a direct hearing upon those AngloAmerican negotiations which broke down at Geneva. It is believed here the Anglo-French compromise may lead to a formula of naval limitation agreeable to Britain and America, although the type of warship Britain and France have been considering is a submarine, and the hone of contention of the Anglo-American dispute was a cruiser. Britain, dependant on a large number of cruisers tor the protection ol her long trade routes, did not like the idea of the hulk of the American tonnage under the tonnage limitation scheme going into capital ships any more than she liked the thought of France utilising practically all her tonnage in the construction of a great submarine fleet. The last Disarmament Commission adjourned sine die. suggesting the two nations responsible for the failure should consult privately to enable the Commission to proceed. Sir A. Chamberlain’s announcement means that success has been reached in this intermediary step. How the points of view have been reconciled is unlikely to bo disclosed until particulars have been communicated to the other naval Rowers, hut it is know n tlie main idea of tile negotiations foi some time has been to secure an extension of the principle voted at the Washington Conference. 1921, when the Powers agreed to limit the number and size of capital ships. A month ago it seemed inevitable that the British and French ideas would prove irreconcilable. Britain desired to exchange information regarding their constructional programmes, hut France declined to disclose the secrets affecting her destroyer flotillas and seaplanes, and especially her ocean-going submarines, and she maintained her contention for the fixing of the maximum total tonnage, with free competition within that limit; while Britain wanted an agreement in regard to the number of units jn eacli category. It is expected the date the Armaments Commission assembles will be fixed when the League of Nations meets in September. LONDON, July 31.

The closing days of the Parliamentary session were enlivened by the

Safeguarding of Industries controversy. Following on a speech by Mr Winston Cliurchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer), who argued on free trade lines, then have come the speeches of Mr Aniery (Colonial Secretary) and Sir W. .Toynson Hicks (Home Minister), advocating .an extension of the Safeguarding Act to the iron and steel industries after the next General Election. The “Daily Telegraph” understands that the Cabinet’s attitude, defined by a recent meeting, may be summed up as follows: Iron and steel cannot be included in the Safeguarding Act, because this would involve a geneial tariff. The advantages of safeguarding have been amply demonstrated in other industries. Therefore, the Government may propose a modification of the present procedure, but this will not involve any great change in the fiscal system. The majority of the Ministers are unwilling to countenance any advance in the direction of a general tariff believing that it would he dangerous to the Conservative Party’s fortunes, ns it was in 1923. Moreover, Mr Baldwin is anxious that nothing should detract from the prominence of rating reform. Meantime Conservative members yesterday reaffirmed their loyal support of the Premier, but they also reasserted their faith in the safeguarding of iron and steel as a remedj foi unemployment. The Opposition press is naturally featuring this controversy as a split and a revolt, and they even suggest that Air Amerv has proffered his resignation.