BRITISH POLITICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 January 1930, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

IN THE COMMONS. (British Official Wireless). (Received this day at II a.m., RUGBY, Jan. 27. Mr Henderson movo,d in the House of Commons a. resolution authorising the Government to ratify the signature of the Optional Clause. binding Britain to submit disputes to a permanent court of international justice at Tile Hague. The British signatme took place on 19th September last. M.r |Henderson said this was an important development of the old treaties of arbitration, which before the war this country put into use. These old treaties were agreements between Governments but experience showed they had important limitations. They all contained an eld reservation relating to. honour and vital interests which the reservation was subject to interpretation, by each Government to suit itself and the result was that in a given ease, the Government could refuse recourse to arbitration. The Optional Clause removed all defects of the pro-War arbitration system. It conferred jurisdiction upon a permanent court in all international disputes, which could be settled by means of law. Under its terms no State could refuse to allow the dispute to go before court. No special agreement for submission of a dispute would be required. iNo State by dishonest -quibbling could avoid the obligation it was under to go to the court. “We regard these changes,” said Mr Henderson, “as conferring great advantages upon the British Government. I say so because the British Government so often in the past have desired and in future we believe will always desire to arbitrate in international disputes. We regard acceptance by this country of the Optional Clause as the logical sequence of our committment to the Paris peace pact of a year ago.” If the pact was to be of real value and if it was not to become a scrap of paper its word must be followed by actual deeds. Ft was in part because the Government believed they would be strengthening the power of the pact of Paris, that they had desired as one of the first actions in their foreign policy to accept and rectify the Optional Clause.. The Government were of the opinion that a general acceptance of the Optional Clause by all members of the League of Nations would be the most powerful factor, directly as well as indirectly, in increasing international security against wai. They were convinced the creation of true international security was inseparably associated with the establishment of signing and the comprehensive scheme of arbitration.

Mr Henderson said he wanted to say very clearly and definitely that three classes of disputets were excluded from the British declaration of acceptance of the Optional. Clause. They were':—Firstly, disputes with other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Second'll —Disputes upon matters falling within what was called domestic jurisdiction of a State. Thirdly—Disputes for the submission of Which to some other method of peaceful settlement provision was made by existing or future agreements. . None of these reservations diminished the value of the Optional Clause. In all our legal disputes with other nations without the exception of the permanent court would remain the final arbiter. Mr Henderson referred to the amendment put down b\ the opposi tion making acceptance of the Optional Clause, if subject to addition, reservation relating to laws of war on sea laid down by the Foreign Secretary at Geneva on September 22nd, 1924, as being absolutely necessary to safeguard freedom of action of the British navy.” Mr Henderson said the operations of the British fleet to which he was then referring at Geneva were exclusively operations in a case when we were engaged in warlike operations on behalf of the Covenant ot the League of Nations and with the approval of the Council or Assembly at Geneva. It was in these ciicumstanecs only that he said it was necessary in general interests as ue as of the interests of Great Britain that the British fleet should be able to operate with the freedom a uc 1 might be required to secure a successful termination of sanctions. Neither in 1924, and certainly not in 1929. was it ever dreamed that in becoming a member of the League of Nations and accepting all the obligations of its covenant, we were going to claim the old time freedom that wo had before there was any League of Nations.

In conclusion, Air Henderson said all the Governments of the Dominions had signed the Optional Clause. The British Commonwealth of Nations was absolutely united in the decision to take this great stop forward in the acceptance of international arbitration and substitution of the rule "f law for the rule of force. ITe asked the House for a unanimous decision, which would strengthen the lead which the Government was endeavouring to give other nations.

Sir Austen Chamberlain in moving an opposition amendment said we had not yet reached such a stage ot world opinion that any one nation could sav we were in a position to depend alone on the good faith ot others for our security, and safety. He declared the whole argument of Mr Henderson’s was not really based mi the Peace Pad of Paris but on

the obligations of tbo covenant of the League. of Nations. Those obligawore in force in 1924 just as much as they were now. V\ hy then was the naval reservation so necessary in 1929, now unnecessary. lie confessed that the reasons which the Foreign Secretary Intel adduced as having led him to abandon her reservation which lie thought necessary \u 1924. onlv confirmed him in the opinion .that that, reservation was perhaps something more than a resetvat ion and was necessary -to our national safety and security. Mr Samuel (Liberal) said his party would whole hearteqly support the policy and the action of the Government.