BRITISH POLICY

Wairarapa Age, 11 February 1927, Page 5

BRITISH POLICY

ADDRESS4N-REPLY DEBATE. LABOUR LAWS AND CHINA. MORE OPPOSITION CRITICISM. Di further passages of the British Address-in-Reply debate, Mr. J. H. Thomas vigorously condemned the Government’s proposed industrial legislation. Mr. Lloyd George supported the Government’s policyin China, but said that some Ministers were doing a great deal of harm in trying to identify the Chinese Nationalist movement with Bblshairism. (Received Thursday, 7.15 p.m.) LONDON, February 9. In the House ctf Commons, Mr. J. IL Thomas, returning the debate on the Address-in-Reply, said that few King’s Speeches had been so meaningless. Mb Baldwin’s new cry was shorter hours for members of the House of Commons and longer hours for miners. He was unable to introduce new constructive legislation, and was taking away the only bargaining power, namely collective bargaining, possessed by the workers. To put a plea for industrial peace int® a King’s Speech in which an attempt was foreshadowed to remove the workers’ rights compelled the workers to say: “Your talk about peace is a fraud.” "Whatever might be said about the conduct of the mining dispute and the causes of the general strike, the main responsibility rested upon the Cabinet. Sir Austen Chamberlain ’s Birmingham speech was one to which a large majority of the people subscribed, but while negotiations were going on Sir Austen Chamberlain’s Cabinet colleagues were despatching a defence force, and Mr. Amery at the same time was declaring that Britain had said her last word. All this neutralised the effect of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech. Mr. Lloyd George remarked that the Cabinet had achieved concrete unity by postponing every controversial topic. He warmly approved Mr. Baldwin’s statement yesterday on China, but the position was complicated by The fact that wo Lad been driven to an exhibition of force. Amid cheers, Mr. Lloyd (Teorge declared: “If there was any real peril to life and property, the Government was bound to act. They would have betrayed their trust if they had not acted if-the facts were such as to give any reasonable apprehension of danger.” He did not think the Government could take the responsibility for evacuating the British from Shanghai. Th'is would be a serious blow to our position in the East. The mere fact that certain eventualities which might occur did not occur would not be a condemnation of the Government for sending a force to Shanghai. He approved the decision to 1 land the defence force at Hongkong, and sincerely hoped it would be possible to avoid landing troops at Shanghai. Mr. Lloyd George asked whether the Paris newspaper “Lc Temps’ was correct in saying that the whole Consular Corps in Shanghai deprecated sending troops, and what was the view of the man on the spot on the subject. There was a danger of British judgment being deflected by the talk of Bolshevik interference. Personally he could not say whether the Reds or the “See Reds” were the worse element. Probably on the whole it was the latter. He was of opinion that the Chinese Government was not Bolshevik, but essentially Nationalist. The Chinese were not Communists. In fact, they were the only Tories left outside the Liberals. Undoubtedly there was propaganda on both sides. Sir William Joyason Hicks and Mr. Churchill were doing a great deal of harm in trying to identify the Chinese movement with Bolshevism. “From my heart,” said Mr. Lloyd George, “I identify myself with Sir Austen Chamberlain’s pacific policy, and hope he will not allow his colleagues to interfere with the triumph of that policy. ” —(A. and N.Z.)

MB. CHURCHILL’S DEFENCE. RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. (Received Thursday, 7.45 p.m.) LONDON, February 9. Mri Winston Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer) described Mr Thomas’s speech as that of a patriotic Labourite putting himself right with his own extremists by belabouring the Government. Dealing with the alleged attack by the Government on the workers’ right to collective bargaining, Mr. Churchill asked were the general strike, mass intimidation and compulsory contribution to union funds parts of the rights of reasonable ■collective ■bargaining? “If not,” he said, “then the Government’s proposals in no wise affect these rights.” The Government had no reason complain of the tone and temper of the Oppositionists’ references to the policy in China, but Mr. Churchill said he strongly deprecated Chen’s communications to the Labour Party. This dual diplomacy was dangerous. The Government was offering conciliation to all parties in China in an attempt to get justice and rcasonab 1 / consideration for Britishers. An-glo-Russian relations had not changed since Sir Austen Chamberlain’s declaration last year, “but we believe ourselves to be the object of insidious and hostile propaganda throughout the world. We are determined if this continues and at any time comes to a head, that it shall be countered by British public opinion, vigilant, warned, and ready to meet the danger.” The debate was adjourned.—(A. and N. 8.) AN IMPRESSIVE STATEMENT. EARL BALFOUR’S POINTED QUESTIONS. In the House of Lords, Earl Balfour welcomed the fact that no responsible Oppositionist had encouraged the preposterous notion that bur despatch of troops to the Far East was connected with any policy of territorial conquest in China. Conditions in China were chaotic. There was not any single body with which a foreign Power could negotiate. There was also a special agitation against Britain for which there was not the smallest ground. The despatch of troops had been criticised as indiscreet and ill-advised. "What would Oppositionists have done if in power? The evacuation of our nationals from Shanghai was out of the question, even if possible, as it would leave vast pecuniary interests to mob pillage while we were helpless, with troops a thousand miles away. The

only method of avoiding that danger was to send troops. After emphasising the fact that Sir Austen Chamberlain ’s present pro-blcms were unprecedentedly difficult, Earl Balfour said that the Government was anxious to use the League of Nations wherever possible to smooth out international difficulties. A full account of the existing situation and policy which had gone to the League concluded: “The Government deeply regrets that it does not appear that there is any way in which the League’s assistance in a settlement of the difficulties in China can at present be sought. If any such opportunities arise, the Government will avail theinselves thereof.”

The Earl of Reading, on behalf of the Liberals, uncompromisingly and unhesitatingly supported Earl Balfour’s statement. The House then rose.—(A. and N.Z.) LABOUR AMENDMENTS. IDIVEBSION OF TROOPS PROPOSED (Received Thursday, 8.25 p.m.) LONDON, February 9. A Labour amendment to the Address-in-Reply, to be moved by Mr. Trevelyan to-morrow, expresses regret at the Government’s delay in dealing with the Chinese situation, deplores the despatch of armed forces to the Far East, which is calculated not only to increase the risks to which British subjects in various parts of China arc exposed, hut to put obstacles in the way of an equitable and permanent friendly understanding with the Chinese people on the basis off a frank recognition of their national independence. The amendment invites the House- to call for an immediate diversion or recall of the troops on route to China.

A second Labour amendment w’ill be moved by Mr. Clynes regretting the reference in the King’s Speech to proposals defining and amending the law regarding industrial disputes as indicating the intention of me Government to continue their partisan policy shown in recent industrial conflicts and to diminish the power of organised labour to resist, encroachments on the already inadequate standard of living of the workers.—(A. and N.Z.)