HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 15 April 1939, Page 7

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE

Labour Criticism of Prime Minister MR CHAMBERLAIN ON NECESSARY CHANGES SOME REFERENCES TO ALLIANCE WITH RUSSIA (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 13. Speaking in the debate in the House of Commons on the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) on the guarantees given to Greece and Rumania and on other aspects of the European situation, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. R. Attlee), said it was not clear that the Prime Minister did not intend to continue to follow what had been a disastrous policy. At this point Mr Chamberlain interrupted Mr Attlee and when the latter repeated, “I thought the Premier said he intended to pursue the policy he had introduced,” he said, “What I said was that I thought it right at the time. I did not say that the changes which have taken place would render it right to continue the same policy. (

Continuing, Mr Attlee said he welcomed the fact that the British Government had undertaken these responsibilities toward Poland, Greece, and Rumania, but he pointed out that in so doing it was necessarily facing grave dangers. He argued that what tne Government had done was at last to undertake obligations which it had refused to accept under the League Covenant at a time when it would have ensured peace and which now brought all the dangers it nad been formerly argued the Covenant involved, without any of the compensating advantages that would have been given. Tne Government was plugging leaks here and there as they appeared, but there was still no sign that it had constructive plans for building and strengthening the dam of collective security against war. Mr Attlee stressed the importance of associating Russia with any league of Powers against aggression. SERIOUS NEW POLICY. Mr Anthony Eden (Conservative) disagreed with Mr Attlee that the Government was pursuing that same old policy. It seemed to him that it was very definitely engaged upon a new policy. There could be no more serious new policy than the commitments that had been announced that day to Greece and Rumania. Britain and France, he contended, were doing what they could to build up what might be called a peace front. Faced with the methods which had been adopted by other States, Britain had first of all to cry a halt, but she must make it absolutely plain that she was doing that not because she was filled with dislike or animosity to any people anywhere on earth but simply because if that process went on >t would be impossible to hope to preserve peace. COMMON IACTION IN PACIFIC. Dr Hugh Dalton (Labour) said that it would be better to suspend the operation of the Anglo-Italian agreement if it was not to be denounced. He suggested that Britain should call a conference of the Montreaux Powers. Labour desired an Anglo-French-Russian military alliance. Russia was a great Pacific Power in the same way as Britain, and in lesser degree France. New Zealand, Australia and Canada all touched the Pacific. It would be common sense for Britain, Russia and France to act in concert for common action in the Pacific. SIR J. SIMON REPLIES. Replying for the Government, Sir John Simon, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he trusted that the House would realise that the suggestion that Russia was not being consulted was not justified. Dr Dalton at this point interrupted to ask if the Government at any time had proposed a definite military alliance between France, the Soviet and Britain. Sir John Simon replied that it was difficult to state certain things in a ' public debate, but he would meet thepoint in another way. There was no objection in principle to such a proposition. Britain’s traditional policy had been to commit herself by precise assurances of military and naval aid in certain definite cases only. Regarding Europe generally, particularly those parts furthest from Britain. Britain’s policy h's been that she should not undertake precise commitments. but would act as the case warranted. There was no fact more striking. said Sir John, than that it has been possible to transform this policy by adding a series of most formidable .commitments with the approval of the people. It would be well if the heads of totalitarian states considered the change. It was not a change in the nature of the British people, nor a sudden loss of British historical senses, but was a change in Europe. The debate was adjourned till next Tuesday. In the course of the statement with which he opened the debate in the House of Commons, Mr Chamberlain disclosed that when Lord Halifax saw

the Italian Charge d’Affaircs, Signor Crolla. at a late hour on Easter Eve. Signor Crolla communicated a message from Signor Mussolini which stated. among other things, that the neighbouring countries—Yugoslavia and Greece —were perfectly calm and that it was very clear that Italy was not going to cause trouble in neighbouring countries. On Saturday Signor Crolla drew attention to information in his possession that the English Sunday Press was likely to discuss the possible course of action by the British Government, including the occupation of Corfu. He assured Lord Halifax that the Italians were not going to threaten Greek independence. but state that any British occupation of Corfu would have a very dangerous reaction. Lord Halifax told him that he could dismiss from his mind the idea that <he British Government had any intention of occupying Corfu, but Lord Halifax also ■ made it clear that Britain would take a very grave view if anybody else occupied it.