“Never Allowed a Fair Discussion"

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 274, 9 February 1928, Page 11

“Never Allowed a Fair Discussion"

DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS FOREIGN SECRETARY ON ARBITRATION By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. Reed. 12.10 p.m. LONDON, Wed. In the debate on the Addrese-in-Reply in the House of Commons, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain, said that the British Government regretted that the programme that Mr. W. C. Bridgeman, First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Cecil took to Geneva was never allowed a fair discussion at the conference. Personally he now thought that it would have been better if there had been confidential semi-official exchanges of views between Governments before the conference. If the failure of the conference had brought the Lender of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, to recognise that a rush of public discussion is not always the best method of arriving at an agreement, then he had learnt something. There were other negotiations in progress with the United States with regard to the Arbitration Treaty. He could not speak fully, but the treaty the United States had submitted to us was the same as that submitted to France. He could also say that it was like the old Root-Bryce treaty. It was not an unlimited treaty for arbitration on every difference. It was confined to what was called justificiable disputes, like the old treaty, except that certain questions of agreement are subject to alterations and reservations. The Government had to enter into the fullest correspondence and consultations with the Dominion Governments before an answer could be given to the proposal which had been made. Sir Austen did not agree that every dispute between nations should be referred to a judicial tribunal. He recalled the Bryan-Spring-Rice treaty, which provided that any dispute between two nations should be referred to a committee of conciliation whose report should be awaited before taking up arms. He was not sure that at the present stage in Europe the next advance might not be along the lines of that treaty rather than along strict lines of arbitral agreements. On behalf of the Government he could say that our naval building programme was not competitive. Our programmes were framed with a view to the necessary protection of British interests alone. The failure of the conference had not lessened the desire of the Government that the naval programmes should be modified, as was shown by the Government’s lessening the advance programme for the present two years.—A- and N.Z.