DISARMAMENT.

HC Deb 01 April 1926 vol 193 cc2387-427

Mr. PONSONBY

I take advantage of this opportunity to raise the question of disarmament, which it is impossible to raise on any other occasion. When the Service Estimates come before the House, although expenditure on armaments can be discussed, the general and broad question of disarmament cannot properly be debated. It is a question of very great importance just now, and it is likely to be discussed in the period before us on many occasions. There are two methods of approaching this question, the method of examining what view the people in the various countries, more especially in our own country, take with regard to armaments and war, and the other method, which I propose to adopt to-day, is that of ascertaining from the Government precisely how matters stand, more especially with regard to the forthcoming conference. Before I address certain questions to the Government, I would like to remind the House of one or two general considerations showing the specific obligations which exist and which bind us to consider the question of disarmament. The House will remember that in the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 8: Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest possible point consistent with national safety, and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. That was the first recognition of the pressing nature of the question. Later on, or at the time when the Treaty of Versailles was submitted to Germany, the German Government in their Note said: Germany is prepared to agree with the basic idea of the army, navy and air regulations, provided this is a beginning of a general reduction of armaments. The Allies, in reply to that, said: The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make it dear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible for Germany to resume her policy of military aggression; they are also the first step towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about, as well as the most fruitful preventatives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote. That makes it clear that there is a very strong obligation upon us. I do not want to continue with other quotations, but from time to time it has been re-asserted that the necessity of disarmament is a pressing need. The Geneva Protocol insisted on disarmament as a condition. That was a very important consideration. In the explanatory memorandum of the Third Committee the phrase occurs: A conference for a reduction of armaments is indissolubly bound up with the whole system. That is to say, the Protocol could only come into force provided a Conference on Disarmament were called. That was not the case with the Locarno Treaty. The Locarno Treaty spoke of disarmament, and the Foreign Secretary, in various speeches, referred to disarmament and said disarmament ought to follow, but the Conference which is about to be held is not "indissolubly bound up" with the Locarno Treaty, and therefore we are faced with the very serious situation, that if the forthcoming Conference in May breaks down or proves abortive, we shall still have the obligation—should Germany enter the League of Nations and the Locarno Treaty be ratified—not only to defend a fully-armed France against a disarmed Germany, but also to defend a disarmed Germany against a fully-armed France. That is a very serious consideration and shows how the Locarno Treaty differs from the Protocol, in not having regarded disamament as an absolute essential to security. I need not quote any more passages to show the various obligations which rest on us and other nations to secure disarmament, but the time for action has now come because, whereas under the Protocol Disarmament Conference would have been called in June, 1925, we have already delayed it for a year, and people in Germany are becoming rather impatient as to whether these promises and words are eventually to result in action.

The second general consideration which I should' like to bring to the notice of the Government is that we have arrived at a moment now, if Germany joins the League of Nations, as we all hope will be the case in September next, when Germany within the League of Nations has to secure a position of equality with the other nations who are members of the League—an equality of status, an equality of position and the abolition of any distinction between the former Allies and the former enemy. In order to secure that end only two ways are possible. Either Germany must be allowed to arm again to the same standard as other Powers—and that proposal I think we must dismiss as impossible—or the Powers who are now nit tubers of the League should forthwith disarm to the same standard as that which was imposed upon Germany. One or other of these two alternatives is absolutely imperative, and we shall be faced with that question towards the end of the year.

The third consideration which I bring to the notice of the Government is the present position, amid all this talk about disarmament, with regard to expense. We found ourselves in this country in 1914 spending £72,000,000 on the Fighting Services. In 1926–27 the Government propose to spend from £117,000,000 to £120,000,000 on the Army, Navy and Air Force combined, and in addition they are beginning a programme of naval construction to cost £50,000,000 over four years. They are going to spend for the next six or 10 years upon Singapore—a purely provocative measure—a further £12,000,000, and it is quite obvious there is likely to be a further large increase in the cost of the Air Force. These figures may be declared to be misleading, but the League of Nations "Armaments Year Book" for 1925 gives the cost reduced to pre-War prices and the cost comes to £82,000,000 in that year, that is to say, 10 per cent. over the level of 1914. Competition is going on, perhaps not publicly but surreptitiously, and we know that, in spite of Germany being disarmed, in spite of the German Fleet being at the bottom of the sea, there are more armed forces in Europe to-day than there were in 1913. When people look at that situation and realise that they were told that the last War was "a war to end war" it is little wonder if they regard statesmen and Governments as pure and unadulterated hypocrites.

This Conference is to be held on 15th May, and I do not think its importance can be over-emphasised. It is a first step, and the first step is always important. Germany, the United States, and Russia are to be in this Conference— that is to say, we are to have a real, all. inclusive Conference which in composition will be better than the League itself. I sincerely hope that the words of Mr. Houghton, United States Ambassador to this country, when he declared that the Conference had been poisoned beforehand and was doomed to failure, may prove inaccurate, but we must necessarily feel somewhat apprehensive as to how this Conference is going to be conducted, and we sincerely hope that Geneva in May will not represent the same spectacle for the derision of the nations as it presented in March last.

I want to address certain specific questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is representing the Government in this Debate. My first question is: Has the hitch which, so far, prevented the Soviet Government from consenting to attend the meeting at Geneva, been overcome? I do not want to enter into details with regard to this matter, but I was glad to see the other day in the newspapers that Dr. Nansen was giving his good offices to act as intermediary between the Soviet Government and the Swiss Government. I hope his efforts will be successful. I trust His Majesty's Government are also exercising influence in order to make sure that whatever difference there may be between the two Governments will be tided over. I think if Russia is to be excluded from this conference, it will make a very serious difference. Certain eastern nations will not commit themselves to any sort of disarmament settlement or solution if Russia stands outside. It is of the utmost importance that Russia should be included, and those who declare that the Russian objections are founded on the fact that Russia is reluctant to come into this conference are not cognisant of the view of the Soviet Government on the subject. I would only remind the House of the very clear statement of M. Rykoff on this question, when he said: It should be clear to every worker in the Union of Soviet Republics and every worker abroad that the Soviet Government would be the first, to agree to disband all the armed forces of our country and dismantle the armament industry, provided only that other countries do likewise. I can say that in many conversations which I had two years ago with M. Rakovsky, time and time again he referred to this question of disarmament and expressed the desire which his Government had of getting on with it, of making some advance, and testing the sincerity of the European Governments as to making an end of this hideous form of competition. Therefore, as I say, the presence of the Soviet Government at this Conference is of the utmost importance, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to give us some assurance that there is a prospect that they will be represented.

The second question I want to ask is this: This is called a preparatory Conference, and I want to ask in what sense it is preparatory? Preparatory for what? Is it preparatory for a further Conference, in which more nations will be included, and which will come to certain distinct resolutions and decisions, or is it only preparatory as advisory to the League of Nations, which does not include the United States, or Russia, or even Germany yet? That is to say, I want to know exactly what is the procedure, and, if some progress is made at this Conference, what are the future steps that are going to be taken? I understand that Lord Cecil of Chelwood is to be our representative at this Conference. I think the Government are fortunate in having among the Members of the Cabinet a man whose devotion to the League is well known and who, I think, fully realises that the subordination of Nationalist ambitions is essential to the promotion of international cooperation. I think that in him we have a representative who can be trusted, and I do not think any party in this House would doubt his sincerity in the work which he is going to undertake. But what is Lord Cecil going to do, and what is he doing now?

That is the point. He is a representative of His Majesty's Government. What instructions has he got? Is he going to be told that we have got to go out there with an open mind? That is a most objectionable idea. An open mind means an empty mind, and anybody who goes to a conference with an open mind is constantly swayed backwards and forwards, and no sort of decision is come to. Everybody knows, who has any idea of dealing with business in which he is specially interested, that if he goes with a clear cut proposal and with his mind made up in a particular direction, he can fill other people's empty minds and do a great deal to carry his own way. I want to know from the Government: Is any special plan being worked out? This is rather an important point, and I should like an answer to it. By whom is it being worked out? Have the Foreign Office been studying this question in all of bearings, and have they made up their minds that this country can go to the Conference with certain specific proposals? Or is the matter being simply left to the Committee of Imperial Defence, dominated, as it is, by the Services? Are we simply going to consult generals, admirals, and air marshals as to what they think? This is a matter of policy, of high policy, of foreign policy, and it is not a matter in which the Services should have the major voice. They must carry out whatever plan His Majesty's Government decide upon, and I venture to say that if our representative is simply to be a shuttlecock between the Services of this country, and go out with an open mind, and without clear instructions, then necessarily this Conference is bound to fail.

I want to ask if there has been any preliminary interchange of communications between this Government and other Governments on the subject, discussing certain methods, ideas, projects, and procedure before the Conference meets, It is a vast subject, and it requires careful research. The League of Nations has done a good deal of preparatory work, but it requires also some firm resolution on the part of His Majesty's Government. Then, I want to ask whether the. proceedings and discussions will be public, because we are a little in the dark. We have not got papers, and we have been kept in ignorance to a large extent as to what this Conference implies and what is going to be done. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some enlightenment to-day.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson)

I am not quite sure whether I understand the hon. Gentleman. Does he mean whether the proceedings at the forthcoming Conference will be made public?

Mr. PONSONBY

Yes. I want to know whether the Conference will be held in public or whether it will be a private Conference, whether it will be held in public, whether the discussions will be public, whether reports will be issued to the public giving an account of what has taken place in the Conference, or whether we shall hear nothing at all about it till it is all over? One of the most important questions that will be discussed will certainly be the manufacture of, and traffic in, armaments. A certain amount of preparatory work has been done. The hon. Gentleman will know the Report of the League of Nations on Arms, Ammunition, and Material of War, which gives very full information. We are bound on this point as specifically as on the general point, because in the Covenant of the League of Nations we find: The members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. I do not think the House and the country have noticed what the Temporary Mixed Commission that sat at Geneva have published with regard to the manufacture of armaments, and I would ask the indulgence of the House if I just read to them their conclusions, which I am very anxious should be made as public as possible. On this subject of the un-trammelled private manufacture of armaments, this Commission reported:

1. "1. That armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armaments.
2. 2. That armament firms have attempted to bribe Government officials, both at home and abroad.
3. 3. That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programmes of various countries, in order to stimulate armament expenditure.
4. 4. That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.
5. 5. That armament firms have organised international armament rings, through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.
6. 6. That armament firms have organised international armament trusts, which have increased the price of armaments sold to Governments."

I do not think I could have found words for a more terrible indictment of the system of private armament manufacture than has been given in this official document. I could, only I do not want to occupy the time of the House much longer, give illustrations on very nearly all those counts, and I daresay many other hon. Members could too. There is something rather hideous about this business of the manufacture of armaments that goes on, and the cynical indifference as to whether these armaments are used by our own forces or by the forces that are drawn up against us. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) the other day gave an illustration of the guns at the Dardanelles and Gallipoli being of British manufacture, and I can bear that out, because when I was in Constantinople, at the end of last century, there was a man who, one might almost think, was attached to the Embassy, who was one of the representatives of one of our big armament firms, and he was so successful that he received an order from the Turkish Government by which the Dardanelles was so magnificently equipped with modern armaments.

12 N.

There is in Bedford Park to-day a gun, captured by the Bedford Regiment, on which there is an inscription describing the gallant way in which the gun was captured, and, on the other side of the gun, is the inscription of Armstrong, Whitworth and Co. The Conference on armaments which reported a. short time ago really exposes the most hideous state of affairs as to the export of arms going on. We ourselves in three years exported £14,000,000 worth of armaments to various countries, and the astonishing thing is that in 1920, when we had hardly ceased fighting the Russians, we immediately sent out £45,000 worth of heavy artillery and £1,68,000 worth of military stores. The dictates that actuate the armament firms, that is to say, the desire for profits, are so strong, that they are completely indifferent as to whether they are equipping our potential enemies or our actual enemies. We see the state of affairs in China now. The Chinese, the most peaceful people in the world, have been fighting for the last two years. Why? Because it was a pity that the surplus stock of munitions, manufactured by the Christian Western Powers, should be wasted, and so it was sent to China.

Commander BELLAIRS

Did any of the arms come from the Soviet Government?

Mr. PONSONBY

Yes, but they got their arms from Koltchak and Denikin, who were supplied by us. An official of the League of Nations has lately been to China. He travelled in an international train which went right through the war area. He there found French and Italian officers in command of Chinese regiments on both sides. He found 200 brand new French aeroplanes, and a great quantity of munitions lately supplied to China by the Western Powers. I do not want to delay the House, but one could give in stance after instance of how this traffic is going on. We in this country are going on with it. My constituents are turning out shells, tanks and armoured cars to-day. I believe they have designed a magnificent new tank. I believe it is a tank with three guns, and can go over everything, and has got impenetrable armour. I believe another department of the same firm is devising a shell which will penetrate that armour. My constituents support me, but they are, by economic pressure, by the screw of our present social system, kept at work on manufacturing these armaments, and they find all that the Government say to them is, "Starve, or forge instruments for your own destruction." That is the position in which they find themselves. This hideous world scandal goes on, and I ask the Government to-day to say whether we are going in a hole-and-corner way to Geneva to talk the thins; over, or whether we are going to make, courageous proposals, and ask that al, end shall be put to this terrible world scandal?

I believe we can take the lead. We are in a position to take the lead. Are we going to take the lead, or are we going to behave, as we did in Geneva in March, as a third-class Power? Courage in international affairs is everything. When a small nation takes a courageous attitude, it gives a lead to the rest of the world, like Sweden did recently. A great Power like ours, if it takes the lead, if it makes a big offer, if it goes further than the Washington Conference with regard to naval armaments, and sees that a comprehensive scheme, including not only naval armaments, but air and land armaments is come to, then I believe we may make a move of which this country can be proud. It is necessary that there should be a comprehensive scheme. It is neces- sary that all the Departments which minister to this business of war should be included. It is no good detaching the Navy, although that concerns us very closely. The Air Force is most destructive, and that must he dealt with. So long as armaments exist, there can he no question that these pacts and these treaties are of absolutely no use. Security can only conic when armaments have been destroyed, and until you get that, you cannot really make any progress at all. As Lord Grey said in his book, "Great armaments lead inevitably to war." Some of us saw that before 1914, and we were told that we were fools to call attention to it.

Competition has begun again. We do not see it openly, like we did before 1914, but it is going on behind the scenes among the experts, who are fighting one with another to see who can make the most destructive gas, and science is being enlisted in order to perfect these diabolical engines of destruction. The people are watching. They have been watching for eight years to see whether this "war to end war" is going to mean anything at all. They see that the statesmen lack courage, and are obsessed by the fear of the unprovoked attack of some aggressive Power. There is no such thing. No war was ever caused by the unprovoked attack of any aggressive power. The enemy is always presented in that light by each country. It has never been the fact. This fear is groundless. This lack of courage is deplorable, and until we get some fearless statesman who will go out and speak on behalf of this country, and take a lead in the right direction, we must be content to drift on in the old way, as we are doing at present.

I do ask the House, even though we are raising this at the fag-end of this part of the Session, on an Adjournment Motion, to realise that this question is going to be the overshadowing question of the future. All that I ask for now is that we should have full information from the Government—not the sort of information given just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who dismissed the question by saying he could say nothing. We must be told what is going to take place. We must have the full data, and know if plans are being prepared, and I hope we shall hear that the Government are making full and adequate preparations for dealing with this question seriously, comprehensively, and courageously.

Lieut.-Colonel HEAD LAM

No one on this or any side of the House, can but share the hon. Gentleman's wish that we should have at the forthcoming Conference on Disarmament a full and ample discussion upon all the ways and means by which disarmament can be brought about. But I think the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, rather inclined to over-estimate the importance of a conference upon disarmament as a means of preventing war. I quite agree with him that competition in armaments is a wholly bad thing, and may ultimately bring about a state of things which will lead to war. We had an example of it not so very long ago, and many of us suffered from it. At the same time, disarmament in itself could not possibly prevent war, because it is perfectly clear that every State must be armed to a certain extent. Every State must be armed to ensure peace at home, and peace on its marches, and you must remember that all Governments ultimately rest upon force. But far more important than discussion about disarmament is the spirit which is behind it. So long as you have the spirit which exists in the world to-day, war is always a possibility, and no sane statesman, who is responsible for the government and the safety of his country, can possibly neglect to see that his arms are efficient.

This may sound a very unsatisfactory state of things, but I submit that it is common sense, and, therefore, when the hon. Gentleman talks as he has just talked, and suggests that soldiers, sailors and airmen must not be allowed too free a hand at any Disarmament Conference, it seems to me he puts those people in a very unfortunate position. It is perfectly clear that if you grant the premise I have laid down—and if you do not grant it, I am afraid we must agree to differ, because it seems to me, in the present state of the world, as I have already said, you must face the possibility of war—soldiers, sailors and airmen, who are finally responsible for providing our defence organisation, must he allowed to give their advice absolutely untrammelled with any idea except that of the defence of the country.

The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the object of soldiers, sailors, and airmen was to make war. Allow me to say—and I do not speak for soldiers, sailors and airmen any more than anyone else who has served in the forces speaks for them—that to suggest such a thing is absolutely wrong. The very last people in the world who want war are soldiers, sailors, and airmen, because they know exactly what war is, and, therefore, their whole object is to prevent war. It is a sign, no doubt, of optimism; indeed, it is the very essence of Christianity, that we should all try our utmost to do everything in our power to eliminate the possibility of another war so far as it is humanly possible. But it is equally the sign of an optimist to run away with the idea, that because we want a thing very much, other people want it, too. I think in this country we have shown since the War, more than any other country in the world, our desire to reduce armaments, and to try to maintain the peace of the world. That being the case, I think we can do very little more than we have done ever since the War ended to emphasise that fact and to try and show the nations of Europe that we are really in earnest in this matter and that, if it be within our power, we will bring about disarmament, which must, however, be general. Disarmament by us alone would be useless, and I believe the hon. Gentleman himself will admit that it would be useless. It would do more harm than good. You must get a general acceptance of the principle of disarmament before you can take any real step forward in that direction. There is that form of optimism to which I have just alluded which evokes caustic comments, the sort of optimism which makes a person believe, that if with head hidden in the sand, he cannot see his enemy, he will also remain unseen by them. This is alleged to be the characteristic of the ostrich which even moved the patient Job to irritation; the ostrich … is without fear because God bath deprived her of wisdom, neither bath he imparted to her understanding. Optimism is a fine quality and ignorance may be bliss—it is also very English—but of all the dangerous combinations that which is the most dangerous is a combination of ignorance and optimism.

Mr. RENNIN SMITH

The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Barnard Castle (Lieut.-Colonel Head-lam) to which we have just listened is the kind of speech which we have had in this country and throughout Europe in the last 100 years. It indicates an attitude of mind which so long as it persists will inevitably lead to new wars in the future. I regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not relate his attitude of mind to the concrete situation with which we have to deal. Anyone who looks over Europe sees one outstanding fact, namely, a condition of one-sided disarmament among the several political societies of Europe. The figures are really very impressive, when we compare the state of society in 1914 and at the present time. I find that Germany, Austria and Hungary, in 1914, had 1,176,000 soldiers, whereas the British Empire, France and Italy, neglecting the other of our Allies, in 1914, had 1,830,000 soldiers. That means that the preponderance of Allied soldiers was half as much again as that of our enemies in 1914. I find in 1924, 10 years later, that the three armies of Germany, Austria and Hungary amounted together to 165,000 troops, whereas the armies of the Allies amounted to no fewer than 2,073,000, whereas the Allies, in 1914, had half as many mobilised troops as our enemies, to-day they have between 12 and 13 times as many. If we take the matter from the point of view of expenditure, then, comparing Great Britain and Germany, we find that in 1913, just before the War, we were spending £72,000,000, whereas Germany was spending £81,000,000, and that, according to the latest figures available, those for last year, we were spending £115,000,000 on the three Services, whereas the total expenditure of Germany had shrunk to £22,000,000.

This unilateral disarmament is the outstanding fact of this problem with which we have to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ponsonlay) has put forward in a most cogent and impressive speech the foundations of that policy, and he has asked very pointed questions of the Government, which I hope will receive very full and detailed answers. I would emphasise, from this point of view, that the continuance of a one-sided disarmament can only be a menace to the future peace of the world. We cannot go on enforcing unilateral disarmament and hope to have a peaceful development of European society. We must face that fact. Germany will never consent, inside or outside the League, to go on in perpetuity as a disarmed nation in a world so largely armed. Moreover, we cannot expect to face all the implications of the Locarno Pact when we are giving guarantees to the most highly-armed Power, on the one hand, and, on the other, are giving similar guarantees to a nation which has no armaments at all.

We shall be driven to abandon this position of unilateral disarmament. So long as it continues we are inevitably faced with a steady tendency to increasing competition in armaments among those Powers committed to armaments. We can see this perfectly clearly in Great Britain. While Germany is disarming we are pitting ourselves against France in respect of air service, and partly against Italy and to a less extent against Japan, and, in respect of naval service, we are pitting ourselves partly against France, and much more against the United States and Japan. We are only just at the beginning of this competition, and, if we work out the logic of this policy over another 10 years, we shall see exactly the same thing taking place as took place between the Boer War and the Great War in the matter of progressive armaments. Therefore, I shall be stating the view of every Member if I say that the only alternative to rapidly increasing armaments which culminate in war is that of facing frankly this problem of hew to proceed as rapidly as possible from a condition of unilateral disarmament to one of general and universal disarmament. If that be a fair statement of the case, then we are driven to the position that, if we are to make any headway at all with this supreme problem, we can only hope to do it if Great Britain is prepared to give a lead in action. We cannot expect Germany or the defeated Powers to do any more. The only possible lead and the only possible movement in politics from unilateral disarmament to general dis- armament must come from one of the major victorious Powers in the late War.

I want to press upon the Minister, first, the question that was put by my hon. Friend: What do the British Government really intend to do in the course of this year to face that problem of getting away as rapidly as possible from unilateral disarmament? Are they prepared to accept the German model as defined in the Peace Treaty as the model for Great Britain, at d are they prepared to recommend it as the model for all the Powers that will be meeting round the conference table at Geneva? Are they prepared to set out definite, detailed recommendations for handling the problem with regard to the British Army, the British Navy, and the British Air Service? I would specially stress that it is no use trying to separate these three Services. It is no use isolating the Navy and making recommendations regarding the Navy alone. There call be no effective treatment of this problem, as recent experience in America has shown and as loud and increasing complaints on the side of France have shown, which does not accept a frank treatment of Ill three. Services, and which does not handle the problem along this unified line.

I would like to suggest that easily the most practical step we can take is not to be over much concerned about the Army problem, and not to be so much concerned about the Air problem. We hold a supreme position as the great naval Power in the world. It has been our distinction in military history to be the outstanding naval Power in the last 200 years, and therefore, if there be any practical contribution that Great Britain can make in this year, it is definitely to offer a practical programme for naval disarmament to this forthcoming Conference. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to say to the House this afternoon that the British Government will recommend a definite naval programme for disarmament provided that other rival Powers will agree to that programme? Are they prepared to submit that kind of programme?

We on this side of the House are often accused of not being prepared to submit details. I would like, if I may, to put one or two definite suggestions forward. Will the Minister say to us to-day that he is prepared to recommend to the forth- coming Disarmament Conference that Great Britain will take a naval holiday, say, for 15 years, if the other rival Powers will agree to it? Will the Minister say to us this afternoon that he will be prepared to recommend to this Conference that Great Britain will apply this idea of a naval holiday not to one particular category of ships, but to all classes of ships which comprise the British Navy? Will he, for example, suggest that there should be an immediate general reduction, say of 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., of all categories of ships now in existence if other Powers are prepared to accept the same kind of policy? Will he take the view that in future we will not build any of the larger kind of cruisers, that we will make the kind of limitation on the size of ships that was laid down for Germany in the Peace Treaty itself, that capital ships shall have a maximum size of 10,000 tons, that light cruisers shall never go beyond 6,000 tons, or destroyers never exceed 8,000 tons, or torpedo boats never go beyond 200 tons? Will he make that proposition, not in isolation, but with a condition precedent that other rival naval Powers will accept this standard.

The Minister might go forward with a, practical programme of this kind, which, I submit, would not in its working out undermine in the very least the security of Great Britain, because, even from a military point of view, the whole working out of this policy would be entirely relative. If we agreed to it the others would agree to it, and our relative naval strength would remain the same, and therefore, as far as a Navy can secure any population, we should be just as secure under these proposed conditions as we are at the present time. I venture, therefore, to press these very practical questions upon the Minister this afternoon. It is no use, if I may say so with all respect to the previous speaker, merely to use the language of words at this time. The only thing we can do, if we are to escape a further period of competition in armaments, and if we are to save the possible effective breakdown of the Locarno Pact and the League, the only thing, to avoid these things is to strike out along this other line. There is a cumulative weight of evidence to make it perfectly clear to all thoughtful persons that the time has now come when, if we are to profit by the experience of the last 15 years, we must do so, not as a matter of idealism, but as a matter of practical common-sense in the midst of this civilisation in which we now live.

I do, therefore, press very strongly upon the Minister that he should get away from the language of promises, the language of fears, and the language of high sentiment which so often characterises discussion on disarmament in this House, and come down, like a practical business man, prepared to realise that nothing will be done in the matter of disarmament from any point of view unless we take the initiative. We have the moral right to take the initiative, because we are the biggest firm, the biggest partners, and it is up to us to do something. I should like the Minister to devote himself frankly and honestly, and in some practical and definite way, to giving us some assurance that we are going, in the next seven or eight years, to get away from the language of talk, and get really to the language of first-class statesmanship, and some kind of action in regard to disarmament. If the hon. Gentleman will only come to us in this spirit and face the problem in this way, he will soon find that he is the centre of a new kind of Conservative party in this House and in this country. He will soon have the Chancellor of the Exchequer falling upon his neck, and we shall not have the Conservative party coming here with this pitiful display of the Economy Bill. We will not have the Minister of Education running round all kinds of corners in order to avoid his obligations. If, in the ideal spirit of the Prime Minister, we can have a different policy applied in connection with this matter there will be millions of pounds available for a real policy of education and in other problems which require solution.

I would, therefore, press very strongly and very urgently upon the Minister that to-day, at the end of the Session, whilst we are surrounded by memories of ancient ceremonies, of ancient things in regard to the nature and way of human life, when we are passing away from old pagan ceremonies, from the dead past to the living present and to a still more living future, when in the name of universal religion we are breaking down old customs, old powers, old tyrannies, and looking forward to new hopes and new beliefs, he should, in the spirit of all this, jump off his pedestal and give to the nation, and not only to this House, a real message that in 1926 we shall have done with talk, and that we are coming out as great leaders in a common-sense practical policy for the disarmament of the nations of the world.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My hon. Friend who has just sat down was quite right when he said that the gratitude of very many people, not only in this House, but further afield, would be given if the Government could make some such pronouncement as that which has been asked for. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will not, I am sure, think that I am not very appreciative of his courtesy to this House, and the great ability that he displays when I say that I regret that his Departmental Chief, the Foreign Secretary, has not found it possible to be present, for it would have been better if the reply could have come from the Foreign Secretary. However, doubtless the hon. Gentleman will make up for that by accepting the invitation of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith). It seems to me that the solution of our difficulty here in regard to disarmament, at all events a, possible solution, lies in the direction of complete openness and frankness. We cannot possibly tolerate another Geneva Conference like the last, where you have wirepulling and logrolling going on behind closed doors.

Disarmament has only a chance of being brought about if the appeal is taken away from admirals, generals, and air marshals, from politicians, newspaper proprietors, armament-makers, and the rest of them to the common people themselves. They are the people who are bearing the burden. In every country—in the United States, France and Spain—the difficulty is in getting the rank and file to march with willingness as before, towards militarism. I believe that the ordinary working people of this country, and of all other countries, look with horror on a continuance of this expenditure on armaments with the inevitable result that if it goes on this competition will lead to another great war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Barnard Castle (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) spoke about having to face the possibility of another war. Yes, of course, we must face the possibility of war, but what causes war but the continuance of a policy which makes war inevitable.

It is perfectly useless to leave this question to the professional fighting men. You might just as well leave the problem of the abolition of horse racing to the bookmakers and jockeys as to call together generals, admirals and air marshals to discuss the policy of a reduction of armaments. They are perfectly honourable, are these people—their whole life has been spent in the making of their respective services efficient, and their whole soul is in their work—I know from my own experience. This matter is quite outside the run of their work, and they are constitutionally incapable of working for the limitation of armaments. Anyone doing it would be looked upon by their comrades as traitors. Here and there you get an exceptional man endeavouring to do something of the sort, and he is usually opposed by his own professional chiefs.

There are countries very much concerned in this matter. Take, for instance, our good friend France, which is passing through a financial crisis at present and yet is keeping a greater army in arms than before the War, and also an enormous air force, three times the size of our own. She has a great conscript army. More submarines than ever are being built by her. She has built more submarines than Germany did in her heyday before the War. I am sure the French people will be with us in trying to get rid of this intolerable burden. At the same time, I think that we must on our side be prepared to yield up a good deal too. I would throw into the scale our right to blockade by sea, if you can get general agreement. We should be willing to carry matters still further under the Washington Convention and limit the number of cruisers, so as to show that we on our side are prepared to make sacrifices; otherwise, you cannot have the Powers agreeing. They would say: "While you have certain vessels we must have a similar number of others; while you have a fleet of cruisers, we mast build submarines." We must be prepared to show that we are willing to make great sacrifices. But these sacrifices will save us money spent on war and for other destructive purposes.

Consistent with national safety we have expressed our willingness to reduce armaments, but has that been done? Then, again, in finance we possess a weapon. England, America, Holland and Switzerland have financial powers in their hands in relation to the other Powers, and they should refuse to allow their nationals to lend money or to give credit, and export credits and trade facilities should not be granted in relation to any Power that stands in the way. We do not want another Brazil coming along in the way that Brazil lately did. Therefore, it is necessary for our purpose to go into such a Conference as that which has been indicated with a settled plan. I do not know what plans the Conference may have. So far no definite and thought-out plan has been put before us, and the absence of such a plan, I am afraid, suggests that it does not exist. If the Conference fails it means that Germany will be permitted to increase her armaments, and it may be to start building submarines again. That would be a tragedy, and that tragedy will lie on the British Government as much as on anyone else for not making the proper preparations.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

This matter is one of very great importance, and I am very sorry that it should have been raised, as the hon. Member for Bright-side (Mr. Ponsonby) says, and quite rightly, in an almost empty and weary House after an all-night sitting. This question of disarmament is of the utmost magnitude for the whole world, apart from considerations of humanity and apart from considerations as to the progress of civilisation. An enormous expenditure would be saved if we were able generally to disarm all over the world. In fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) pointed out quite clearly that we were spending £120,000,000 sterling in the ensuing year on our fighting services. Of course, if we could get general and complete disarmament the whole world over this huge sum, so far as this country was concerned, could be used to feed the roots of national life.

Commander BELLAIRS

What about pensions and everything else? Not £117,000,000?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Well, I took the figure of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and anyhow they are vast sums; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) pointed out, we cannot really do this until we can dispel once and for all the international suspicion which now exists, and that I do not think can ever be done until the leading nations of the world show that they are in earnest and set a good example. I would like to say that His Majesty's Government are in earnest about this question. Hon. Members know what was the origin of this Preparatory Conference. At the last Assembly of the League, all the Governments represented concurred in reaffirming the principle that disarmament ought to be preceded by security, but, in spite of that reaffirmation, there was a very strong movement indeed in the League for proceeding without delay with the preparation of a general programme with a view to convening later an International Conference. The result of that strong movement was that a resolution was passed inviting the Council to set up a Commission with this purpose, and, in accordance with that resolution, the Preparatory Commission was set up in December last. As hon. Members are probably aware, it consists of representatives of all the State members of the Council. Six other States who are members of the League were also invited, for the reason that they had a certain geographical situation which enabled them to discuss this disarmament problem from various points of view. Three non-members of the League were also invited—Germany, the United States and the Soviet Government—and I may say that all these invitations were accepted, except that sent to Russia. More recently, invitations have also been sent to the Argentine Republic and Chile.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

When the hon. Gentleman says the invitation was not accepted by Russia, ought he not to say that if the Conference took place in Switzerland it could not be accepted, but that othewise it would have been accepted.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am coming to that in answer to a question by another hon. Member. Further, provision was also made that any State not represented on this Commission should be able to submit memoranda to the Commission, and that it should be able to be called in support of any particular memoranda that any State wished to submit. Now I wish to deal with the Russian question, on which I was asked a question by the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Labour Government. I very much regret that Russia is not going to be represented. When the invitation was issued to Russia, the Soviet Government replied to the Council that they were genuinely anxious to participate in this business of disarmament, and to be represented, but that, pending the settlement of the dispute with Switzerland, they could not send delegates to the meeting if it took place on Swiss territory. At the same time, or shortly afterwards, the Council received a letter from the Swiss Government, and it may be worth while to quote a few words from this letter. The Swiss Government stated: The Federal Council was willing to renew its assurances that any delegates whom the Soviet Government might send to the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference would receive at Geneva the same treatment as the delegates of any other Government, and in particular would enjoy the same facilities for entering Switzerland, and the same privileges and immunities in the conduct of their business with the Commission, with all such measures of protection as the Swiss authorities might think it necessary to take in order to ensure their safety. On receipt of that letter the Council of the League wrote immediately to the Soviet Government quoting the Swiss assurances, and saying they could not believe that in this matter the Soviet Government wished to insist on any exceptional treatment, and, therefore, hoped they would accept the invitation to be present. But I am sorry that, in spite of this, the Soviet Government have up to the moment declined to come in. As the late Under-Secretary pointed out in his speech, it is especially unfortunate, because the attitude of those countries bordering upon Russia must necessarily be affected by the fact that Russia does not come in.

Mr. PONSONBY

May I ask whether we may know something about Dr. Nansen acting as intermediary, about which I put a question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I believe that Dr. Nansen did act as intermediary at one stage, but, after all, it is really a domestic concern between Switzerland and the Soviet Government. It is really and entirely a domestic concern, so far as the dispute is concerned.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Is it not the case that the publicly-stated reason why the Soviet Government have refused to send delegates to the proposed conference is that the Swiss Government have not apologised for the murder on Swiss territory of an Ambassador of the Soviet Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I really do not very much want to go into the question of what is a domestic dispute. There was a long discussion between the Soviet Government and the Swiss Government, and I understood that at one time an amicable understanding had almost been reached; but for the moment., I am sorry to say, that dispute has not been quite settled. But the door of the Preparatory Commission is still wide open if the Soviet Government want to come in, and if they decline to come in, well, really, it is their own doing, and it is nobody else's fault.

This Preparatory Commission, as I want to make quite clear, is to have the help and co-operation of all the organisation of the League. There will be a permanent Advisory Commission, which will be able to advise in regard to military, naval, and air plans, and there is going to be a. Joint Commission representative of the economic, the financial, and the transport, organisation of the League, and also of the workers' group of the governing body of the International Labour Office; and any other experts whom it is thought necessary to bring in will be invited to attend. What are the powers of this Preparatory Commission? It is very important to realise this, that the Preparatory Commission is only an advisory body and cannot come to any effective decision. All it can do is to advise and to make its report to the Council. Moreover, no International Conference on Disarmament will be convened by the League until the basis of such a Conference can be agreed upon.

The hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary asked me what exactly was meant by the word "preparatory," and what would be the next stage in the proceedings. When the report of this Preparatory Commission is ready, it will go to the Council, and, after the Council have deliberated upon it, it will go to the Assembly of the League, but probably it will not go to the Assembly of the League before next year—in September— probably not, because the question is enormously complicated, and a. great deal of ground has to be cleared in the first instance. I think the hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary will agree with me that any eventual success depends enormously upon the care with which the preliminary work is carried out. If an agreement be reached, as I hope it will be, there will then be a Disarmament Conference, and when we get to that stage we shall then not only be discussing the principles, but the manner in which those principles can be carried out.

With regard to the actual agenda before this Preparatory Conference, it will consider, as hon. 'Members are aware, certain questions that have been brought up to it. That list of questions was settled in December of last year by the Committee of the Council, after very difficult and very careful discussion. These questions are framed in general terms; for instance, I can give one or two of them.

Mr. DALTON

Might we not have them all, if they are not too long?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I afraid they are too long.

Mr. DALTON

Can we have the substance of each of them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I understand they have all been made public already, and are in the published documents of the League; but I think I had better give one or two of them in general form. This is one of the questions: What is to be understood by the expression armaments'? Again: What is to be understood by the expression limitation and reduction of armaments' By what standards is it possible to measure the armaments of one country against the armaments of another? Can there be said to be offensive as welt as defensive armaments? Can civil and military aircraft be distinguished for the purposes of disarmament?"— and so forth. Those questions, as I say, are framed in general terms, and that is the kind of business which will be discussed in that forthcoming Conference.

Mr. PONSONBY

This is very important indeed. Am I to understand that the Conference is going to be just simply a convening of representatives of the great nations to make definitions, and that no sort of proposal is going to be brought forward—simply an academic discussion of these definitions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

No; that is the worst of my merely having picked out certain parts of questions. The whole of these questions are published, so that I thought that in all probability hon. Members knew of them. I simply happened to pick out a few short sentences—to pick out a part of some of the questions that are going to be asked. One question, as a matter of fact, was omitted from this list, because the Committee of the Council could not arrive at an agreement about it, namely, that of international supervision so as to make sure the countries would keep within the limits of armaments; but I understand that matter is very largely safeguarded by Article 11 of the Covenant. I have got it here, but I will not read it. The task of this Commission will be to engage in a preliminary exchange of views as regards this list of questions, and it will refer, if necessary, as I pointed out just now, to the technical committees attached to it the examination of purely military and economic aspects of the problem.

1.0 P.M.

The late Under-Secretary put two specific questions. He raised the question of the manufacture of arms and the question of the traffic in arms. In regard to the manufacture of arms, this presents, as he knows, great difficulties. For instance, in some countries there is no State manufacture of arms at all and the Governments of those countries have to buy from private firms. That is merely one of the difficulties; but my general answer to the question he put to me is that nothing can be done until the reply has been received by the. League to the questions they have sent out to the different Governments. The League has drawn up a questionnaire and sent it to the various Governments concerned, and until the replies have been received nothing can be done in the matter. Up to the moment, practically no replies have yet come in. In regard to the question of traffic in arms that question was really dealt with last summer. A convention was drawn up by the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League. Our representatives were Lord Cecil and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), and as a result a convention was actually signed. It was largely due to the efforts of Lord Onslow in regard to the negotiations that the convention was eventually signed. Consequently, that question has really been dealt with.

Some definite questions were put to me by the hon. Member for Brightside. He asked me two things. Firstly, what the policy of His Majesty's Government was: and secondly, what were the instructions which had been given to our representative? With regard to the instructions to Lord Cecil, they have not yet been framed, hut there is a Committee now sitting dealing with this question under the chairmanship of Lord Cecil. That Committee is looking into the whole matter. In reply to the questions put to me about the Fighting Services I may say that this Committee is having the assistance of many organisations outside the Fighting Services. The Report is nearly complete, and when it, has been presented the instructions to Lord Cecil will be determined. Until those instructions have been framed no possible decision can be taken as to when they will be announced to the House. Although Lord Cecil will know when he goes to Geneva the general lines upon which the Government have decided to go, I do not think that any hard and fast rule can be imposed upon him. I am quite sure that if such a rule were imposed with regard to particular details it would be quite impossible for him to negotiate when he got there.

With regard to the policy of the Government, I want to make it quite clear that they are ready to assist whole-heartedly in any international steps leading to a general measure of disarmament. In answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith), I may say that Lord Cecil will certainly go out to Geneva prepared to urge some definite scheme of disarmament. Naturally, we took the initiative at Washington with the United States of America in regard to naval disarmament, as we were a great naval power, but in all probability it will be more appropriate for some great military Power at Geneva to take the initiative in regard to military disarma- ment. This point was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnard Castle, but it was rather overlooked by the hon. Member for Penistone. The first definite step has already been taken, because at Washington an important Treaty was signed between five Powers imposing very definite limits on the Navies of those Powers. I think it was unfortunate that similar restrictions were not applied to submarines, but I am sure that very careful consideration will be given to the question of how much further these principles can be carried, and no doubt they can be carried a good deal further. The Government hope they will be carried further, and they are going to d their best in this direction.

I would like to say a word or two in regard to the three different arms of the fighting Services. In regard to the Navy, you have to remember that we did considerably reduce our naval force under the Washington Treaty and after the War. We have also to remember that we are in a very exceptional position, because we have very long and vulnerable trade routes, and we must do nothing to endanger our power of being able to protect them. I hope that submarines may be included in the general principle of the limitation in future. The naval question is much easier to deal with, in a sense, than the military question, because with the Navy you have chiefly to do with ships and guns. With the Army it is much more difficult, because there is no definite unit like a ship. So far as the British Empire is concerned I think the hon. Member for Penistone rather agrees with this—our Army is very small having regard to its world-wide commitments and enormously long land frontiers. The size of our Army is not regulated by the size of the Army of any country in the world, and it is only large enough to suffice for the duties it has to carry out, but even here the Government are very anxious to co-operate in any general scheme of limitation.

I will now deal with the Air Force. Of course, the limitation of the Air Force is a very difficult question, and it is airiest impossible to divest civil aircraft of all military character. Our Air Force was reduced almost to vanishing point after the War. Since then development programmes have been carried out, but here again the Government would welcome any scheme of reduction and limitation which would result in a measure, of equality being established between the Air Force maintained by ourselves and any other country. I can assure the House, speaking as a representative of the Government, that His Majesty's Government will not be behindhand in the international efforts now taking place to secure the peace of the world. Lord Cecil is going to be our representative, and I think that is a sufficient guarantee that our case will be conducted, not only with experience and power, but also with sympathy. We must-not place our hopes too high, but I do anticipate that something substantial will emerge from the Preparatory Commission, and that it will be one more, milestone on the long and difficult road to universal peace.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I am sure the House has listened with very great interest and marked attention to the statement made by the Under-Secretary to the effect that His Majesty's Government are going to make at the forthcoming Conference definite proposals for naval disarmament.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I did not specify any particular branch of the fighting Services, but I said that our representative would go to Geneva to make definite proposals.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I am sure the statement just made by the Under-Secretary will meet with general agreement, and I think it is even more hopeful than the interpretation which I placed upon his statement. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he preferred that proposals for military disarmament should come from the great military Powers, and I took it that our representative would make proposals more on naval grounds. I should like to ask the attention of the House to what I regard as a very essential feature of this problem. It is no good talking about our trade routes or international suspicion of one another. It seems to me that we have got to face the fact that in every country in the world and in our own country there are men who make preparations for mass murder, and the use of mass murder machines, and who make out of this business a handsome annual dividend. If that be so, and if there be an economic advantage to be gained out of the preparation of armaments, it seems to me that it is along the line of attacking the people who make profits out of munitions that we must go.

The hon. and gallant Member for Barnard Castle (Lieut.-Colonel Headlana) rather made out to-day that the nations which were prepared were the safest. I would like to ask: Is France in a safer position to-day than disarmed Denmark which possesses an army which you could scatter with a decent fire brigade? Is France safer than Switzerland which during the War was encompassed by armies on the march on all sides, some sympathising with Germany and others sympathising with France? They were united in one federation and came through free from the horrors of the Great War. We cannot get away from the fact that in this country it is our duty to deal with our Government, and leave other Parliaments and other Labour authorities to deal with their Governments. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a murder-profiteering trust in this country. I possess a copy of the prospectus issued by Messrs. Vickers on behalf of the Chinese Government, and they have contracted to sell them aeroplanes. There is no dispute that this firm is making large profits by supplying munitions of war to the Chinese. We have also been told that French armament firms are supplying China with munitions of war.

1.0 P.M.

We know that in the past arms were supplied by other countries to the Riffs, the Chinese, and the forces in Ireland, and these armament firms axe making large profits by supplying arms all over the world. Until we take some effective steps to stop profiteering in munitions it does not seem to me that we shall get very much further in the direction we desire to travel. We have seen the Report of a celebrated court martial in Japan in which a Japanese admiral is adjudged guilty of accepting bribes in the execution of his duty from one of the important engineering firms in this country supplying the Japanese Government with munitions of war. We have got to stop that, and, when war does come, we must have some machinery by which we can concentrate on stopping anybody making profit out of this business. That must be done. We have the amazing spectacle of people lending money at 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. and so on for the continuance of war in every country and mankind seems helpless in face of it. When the nations go to war and investors of that nation make money out of it, something has got to be done to stop it, and I suggest that here is a way out.

Let it be henceforth known in every civilised country in the world that the democracy will not honour loans borrowed for the purposes of war. Fay as you go. If we can make shells, let us pay for them. If we buy explosives and cotton and all the. rest of it, let us pay for them, but let there be no loans and no profits. What would happen then? If the world goes round from mass meeting after mass meeting that we will not honour any loan borrowed for the purpose of running mass murder, then the Government of the day in every country has two alternatives. One alternative is that they may still get loans from the financiers and the other is that they may make a weekly or monthly capital levy. Those are the only two alternatives. The financiers will not lend money when the working classes all over the country are proclaiming that they will not honour those bonds, and that when the day comes when they take office those bonds will he cancelled; there will be no lending of money. Then there must be a capital levy; just as in human life and in men's legs and arms and of small men's businesses, so too must there be a capital levy of the rich men's wealth and credit for running a war. If there is a capital' levy every month for running the war, I venture to say that in every country in the world within two months there will be a peace party that will stagger the warmongers.

What other way is there? What is the alternative? I hear people say, "Let us have a general strike." You cannot have a general strike when war breaks out, because the nation is in danger. But here is a method. Go to the alleged patriots, the fellows with their money bags who have hitherto made profits out of war. We have not paid off all the Napoleonic War finances yet and they are still with us, and we shall not be able to pay off the people who lent us the £7,000,000,000 or £8,000,000,000 of credit for the last War. We never can pay them off. But let the word go round that when war comes we shall say, "You declare war is necessary and the only way out of the dispute is mass murder. You cannot negotiate or arbitrate or stop it. Very well, put down the money for the war week by week even as other men put down their lives and limbs." Let us get some sort of propaganda, like that going on internationally to attack the people who make the money, and go for the people who manufacture the munitions and lend the money. Let the British Government go forward boldly with some sort of proposals like that. It is fresh and it has not been tried before, but it is on a bigger scale. Let us put that to the people of the world and see if there is a big answer from the peoples of the world. If we get a big answer, we shall be in a fair way of saving this country from the financial ruin which threatens us, from the enormous debts which lay on our shoulders for past wars and the enormous taxation which would come from future wars. If we go forward with some such proposal, we shall, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, begin to exorcise the demons who cause war in a way we have not been able to exorcise them in the past. It is profit and greed which is at the bottom of war, and until we face up to the n war will abide.

Commander BELLAIRS

I am afraid that the disarmament crusade throughout Europe advocated by the hon. Gentleman opposite will take a long time, and we desire to achieve results much earlier in the day. In connection with that, a very interesting difference of opinion developed between the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith). The hon. Member for Brightside wanted an international agreement on all the questions of Army, Navy, and Air armaments as a whole, whereas the hon. Member for Penistone was willing to get practical results from the Navy. In the very interesting and very full complete statement, considering the time at his disposal, which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has made, he said he was willing to get anything from any international agreement, and that is the practical statesmanship of the situation. It has been suggested that we should have a fresh Washington Conference, and the Government would have agreed to it. Who was the obstacle I do not know, but, however that may be, that seems to me the practical way of approaching the problem. For us, it is mainly a naval question, and I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that we ought to be ready with our proposals for bringing about disarmament. Already we have done a great deal. We were the authors of the proposition to scrap the finest submarine fleet in the world, and, if there was international agreement, to do away with the submarine altogether.

I always deplore the fact that when speeches are made from the Opposition Benches it is implied that in some way His Majesty's Government are standing in the way of disarmament. The hon. Member for Brightside, when he dealt with the figures, gave only the figures for this country. For instance, he said that we were spending more money on war preparations than before the War. As I said just now, it is mainly a naval question with us, and the hon. Member for Brightside ought by now to be familiar with the statistics in regard to naval disarmament. The First Lord gave them the other day in the House. The hon. Member will acknowledge that the noneffective services, such as pensions and so on, cannot be touched. If you take out the non-effective services of the Navy and compare the Navy Estimates for 1914 with those of 1925, on the prices of 1914, the First Lord showed that there had been a reduction of 38.36 per cent. in naval expenditure. Surely, it is more patriotic and right that we should call the attention of the nations of the world to that fact rather than pretend it is we who are keeping up armaments in the face of Europe.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside went on to the question of armament purchases, and, as was pointed out, some nations have to go to private firms for them. But there is another aspect of it. There is the fact that if we did not supply these armaments to nations which require them, another foreign nation would do so. It can only be dealt with by international agreement. Take the question of the guns at the Dardanelles, referred to as having come from British armament firms. It was a direct advantage to us, because, otherwise, they would have come from German firms, and the fact that they came from British firms made the Turks dependent on British munitions to fit those guns. We made a great mistake when the Turks wanted to buy old battleships from us. We refused. The Turks went to the Germans, and the consequence was that the Turks had to get their munitions from Germany, and they got them easier from the Germans than they would have got them from us when at war.

Two or three Members on the other side have contended that we should not depend too much on the experts' advice. I agree up to a point, but you have got to have expert advice, and one of the great mistakes which the late Government made, when they were negotiating the Geneva Protocol, was that they failed to have with them a representative of the Naval War Staff. It was only when the Admiralty heard what was going on and they were largely committed that a representative of the Naval War Staff was rushed to Geneva, and they were able to get rid of some of the mischief, but not all. The record of the League is not a very successful one on the question of disarmament. As was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this question, it was an express covenant of the League that disarmament should come about. It was also an express understanding that there should be disarmament as a result of the Versailles Treaty. Therefore, Geneva compares very unfavourably with Washington where only five Powers negotiated and actual disarmament did come about. I agree with the hon. Member that it is very desirable in this question of disarmament to secure widespread agreement.

I think there has been no publicity as to the part of France in this question of disarmament. There has been no publicity of the fact that the Prime Minister of France's Government was Prime Minister when the Washington Treaty was negotiated and that he signed his name to the Root Resolutions to do away with the horrors of the submarine and air warfare against helpless commercial vessels. There has been no publicity of the fact that the militarists of France have successfully committed the French Government to adopting "sink at sight," which was really invented in France in the eighties and nineties of the last century. I am perfectly certain that if there were publicity public opinion in France—the more chivalrous—would function to bring about a change of sentiment in France on these matters. I rejoice that Mr. Houghton should have given that interview in Washington, stating what were the real causes at work to prevent disarmament. Hon. Members should notice that he gave great credit to England as acting as a good European in trying to bring about disarmament by every means in her power.

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND

There has been a very dangerous overlapping in this Debate of talk about disarmament with the necessity of making a careful analysis of the possibility of limiting armaments. The limitation of armaments proportionately should be the aim of everyone who has at heart the social uplifting of their own and every other country; but to talk about disarmament is self-delusion about the unachievable. It is pernicious when it tends to induce the electors of this country to shut their eyes to an ever-present danger of being some day caught unprepared, and against this danger the British nations should be warned every day, and from day to day. While the limitation of armaments is possible, as at. Washington, and while I hope it will be achieved, disarmament should be shown up as impossible, for reasons which are patent to every student of history. Nothing has in the past or will in future prevent a nation which is rapidly over-growing in population, in wealth, in power, and in organisation, from wanting armaments and having armaments. We see, in the present condition of the world, two nations answering that description, Japan and Italy. Their population is constantly growing, their Imperial sentiment is constantly being fostered as a religion, and it is growing; and what will happen to us if we do not preserve the safeguards of our own Imperial sentiment? That which has happened to Germany without an army or an air force—the small consideration received recently at Geneva.

Why was the opinion of some other Powers throughout the world unfavourable to permanently admitting Germany at once? It was because there was doubt whether Germany was as great a Power as other aspirants, because Germany to-day has not the armaments which are still a measure of greatness. Unless the people of England continue to be willing to keep up and, pay for them as an insurance for the safety of their trade and their food, and to preserve the means to create them rapidly when wanted, unless we persuade the people to be willing to spend for the purpose of armaments, we may any day be treated by other Powers in the same way in which Germany has been treated by a jealous combination at Geneva. believe it is the duty of every patriotic Englishman who understands the. Empire, who has travelled, who knows what the sentiment is in other countries, to go to the electors of England now and preach against any diminution of the. Army and Navy until other countries have diminished proportionately their preparations in regard to their armies, navies and an forces to a point where all neighbours are safe. I am well aware that in these days it is not thought popular to go before the electors and preach the maintenance of expenditure for the Army and Navy; but that is a mistake; educated electors understand these dangers. At the last election in the Lancaster Division, I spoke strongly and repeatedly about the necessity and the duty of every patriotic Englishman voting for a strong Army and Navy, and those speeches were always cheered. Even last week, at a general meeting of my constituents, I repeated the same warning as to the necessity for the safety of England as a thing beyond price a, and this was cheered to the echo.

There is no section of this British community for which the upholding of armaments, and especially of the Navy, is more necessary than those represented by the Labour party, because everyone knows that we can only produce in this country enough food for three months of the year, and that for the other nine months we must obtain food by exchange from overseas, that is to say, by working. Exports must be carried by our fleets through the trade routes, flanked on every side with rivals, some of whom have already declared their determination to build up their Empire on the ruins of ours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is that?"] It is sufficiently well known to need no digression.

There is one point that we should remember in discussions about the limitation of armaments, namely, that the promises made by statesmen depend upon the probability of ever-changing public opinion in their countries, honouring those promises in a crisis under conditions that are the secret of the future, and, although my hon. Friend on my right (Mr. Johnston) may have spoken with authority and knowledge as to the future public opinion and mentality of British working-men as regards their indefinite aversion to war, my hon. Friend is not in a position to inform, this House, nor can anybody attempt to prophesy who has not travelled in those countries what has happened as regards the public opinion of countries like Japan and Italy, with an overflowing population and with a public opinion which is likely to depend on individual dictation and to be lasting in those countries, where the same incentives will obtain long after we are dead and buried.

Any pact made regarding the limitation of armaments will be liable to alteration with uncontrollable changes of opinion when causes of war arise. Probably, for the next 15 years, say, during the life of a generation that has seen the horrors of war and does not want them repeated, there is no real danger of any great war. [Interruption.] The time will come, however, when those who have seen war at its worst will be under the ground. It might be 20 years hence, but, when that time comes, we must realise that covenants and pacts may not be kept by nations of another mentality. Statesmen will do, in future, as in the past, that which the public opinion of the nation calls for at the moment, and, when that time comes, it will be possible to manufacture aircraft and poison gas and submarines in a few weeks, if not in a few days. It is no longer a question of ruling the world with battleships, which require years to build. It will be possible to collect armies and armaments and organise them in secret better than is being done to-day, notwithstanding pacts; submarines will be held in preparation, and no pact will stop their being built by a great Power. There is only one reliable defence that any country can have, namely, that which is taught us by Holy Writ: When a strong man armed keepeth palace, his goods are in peace. The strength by which this Empire has been raised, and by which it can alone be kept safe, is by persuading the electors of this country of the necessity of continuing to provide money for armaments in proportion to our trade, in proportion to our population, in proportin to the great interests in the scattered British Empire which we have to insure against the vicissitudes of human needs and passions. Human nature will never change, and nothing will ever stop the human race, when population overflows, from fighting for living space upon the face of the earth rather than lowering its standard of living. Some country, perhaps France, may not continue to overflow with population, but other nations will, and, therefore, there will be war in the future, as in the past. Nations will combine for at-tack and defence, and we shall he in a dangerous position and we shall be treated as inferiors by other nations in this grouping if we do not continue to bring up our children in the old principles of Empire, and safety, making for peace by being always prepared for emergencies.

Mr. DALTON

I shall be very brief, and the requirements of brevity will prevent me from following the hon. Gentlemen who has just spoken, because I think he lives in a world quite apart from that of the rest of this House, and of others who have addressed the House on this subject, even from the other side. I think it will be admitted that this Debate has been useful, and I should like at once to say that the statement we had from the Under-Secretary seemed to me to be, to put it no higher, moderately satisfactory. I am hopeful that the present opportunity and the possibilities of achieving something big in the way of disarmament are present to the mind of the Foreign Secretary, though we can quite understand that he is prevented by other duties from being here this afternoon. All that I wish, in summary, to do, is to comment briefly upon some of the things the Under-Secretary told us, and, perhaps, to raise one or two further questions on what he said.

On the question of Russia, I wonder whether it would not be possible—I am not. asking for a direct answer, but only making a suggestion—for the good offices of this country to he used, now before it is too late, to try to get over what, if my private information is correct, are very trivial differences between the Russians and the Swiss, differences that can be narrowed down to quite small points—according to one account, to whether a certain adverb shall or shall not be inserted in a letter of regret. They are differences of a babyish character which are discreditable to great nations in the face of intricate problems, and, in view of the immense advantages that would accrue from the presence of Russia, and the disadvantages of her absence, particularly in regard to the Baltic States and Poland and Roumania, could we not make some efforts to induce Russia or Switzerland, or both, to try to get over this really rather ridiculous and discreditable obstacle which still remains in the way of Russian participation?

I am not myself a, believer in the possibility of unilateral disarmament by this country, but that makes me ail the keener in hoping that we shall be prepared, when the time comes, to put forward a really bold conditional offer of disarmament, conditional upon what other important countries may do. A conditional offer would cost us nothing, and, on the other hand, it may set the pace for other peoples to mobilise their public opinion in its favour, and, generally speaking, to loosen the earth around this problem. Suggestions have been made on these benches as to what points might be embodied in a conditional offer, and the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) was quite willing, for his part, that that should be done and be pressed. That being so, I hope we may imitate, mutatis mutandis, the attitude of Mr. Secretary Hughes at Washington, when he made a bold practical suggestion at the very first sitting of the Conference, and brought it to great success within prescribed limits.

I understand from the Under-Secretary that Lord Cecil's instructions are not yet framed, and I will only commit myself to saying that I think they have been a little slow in getting framed, having regard to the fact that this matter has been before us, in one form or another, for so long. I only hope that it may yet be possible for us to hear what is the general tenor of Lord Cecil's instructions before the date arrives for his departure for Geneva, so that we may, perhaps, have an opportunity of further discussion here. I need not add, in repetition of what I have said before, that I hope his instructions will encourage him to be conditionally audacious. I am not quite clear a.-gout the question of traffic in arms. I understand—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that both the traffic in arms and the manufacture of arms will come, in one shape or another, before the Disarmament Preparatory Commission.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

In regard to the manufacture of arms, it rather depends upon when the replies from the countries of the League are received.

Mr. DALTON

We have sent in our reply already, I understand.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am not absolutely certain whether it has actually been sent.

Mr. DALTON

But will it be sent in time, so that we shall not be told that this Commission cannot do anything at al., because, among other countries, this country has not sent its reply? We can guarantee that, I hope.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I cannot definitely say exactly when it will be sent, but I presume it will be sent in time.

Mr. DALTON

I am sure we all hope that that will be so. That is in regard to manufacture. With regard to traffic, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is a partial Convention which has been signed. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that has also been ratified by this country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. DALTON

That is obviously an important matter, because, as we know in the sphere of the International Labour Conventions, many things are signed but few are ratified or operated. There is just one further point, which I take from the hon. Gentleman's statement. He was telling us that at the meeting of this Preliminary Commission there will be—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I am informed that the Traffic in Arms Convention has not been ratified yet, as we are waiting in order, if possible, to get simul- taneous ratification by all the countries. With regard to the manufacture of armaments, there is no doubt that our reply will be received in time.

Mr. DALTON

I am very much obliged. I hope again we shall make a conditional offer that we will ratify if they will do the same. That seems to be the minimum of audacity, which costs nothing. It looks more audacious than it really is. Finally, at the preliminary exchange of views that is to take 'place at the Conference there seemed a slight danger, when the hon. Gentleman read out the questionnaire, that it might be simply logic chopping and definition splitting. I am glad to gather from him that in addition to what I might call those academic examination questions, what are armaments, what is a gun and so on, we really have concrete questions on the paper which may lead to positive action without undue academics. I was glad to hear that, and I should like to press him to convey the suggestions made to him by myself and the whole of the hon. Gentlemen behind me that we should not try to split our responsibility towards initiative and say, "We did very well at Washington. That proves that we are sound on the Navy and we need not do anything more. With regards to the Army we need not do much. We are not a great military Power. We will leave that to the French. The French have three to one in the Air Force, and they ought to take the initiative there." I hope we are not going to say that.

What I would suggest is that we should be able to make a, conditional offer in which what we are offering to do with regard to the Navy shall be in part conditional on what other people will do in regard to their Air Force and Army. The whole disarmament problem—Army, Navy and Air Force—has to be discussed together at this Conference, and it scorns to me there is no reason why we should he backward in coming forward with our initiative, and why our initiative should not cover the whole ground, even though in some eases other nations are more directly concerned than we are. As one who spent a little while at Geneva as an observer last slimmer, and talked with people of all nationalities and political complexions, the general impression I gathered, which is borne out by the impression of others who had the same experience, is that if only this country would stand up and give a lead, there would be a tremendous following from all sorts of perhaps unexpected quarters. People still believe abroad that the British Empire stands for something and is the most powerful organised force in the world for good, for evil or for inertia as the case may be. And if only we came in with both feet we can swing into line behind us a whole mass of small States whose total influence is very considerable, though individually they are small, and I believe we could simply over-ride—I do not mean violently, but in our influence on opinion over-ride practically any obstacle, provided we play our part boldly and skilfully in regard to this disarmament problem. I hope Lord Cecil will be encouraged in every way possible to go, representing what I believe is not only British, but world opinion—a very passionate desire for a big forward movement to be made. We have allowed many years to go over our heads since the War without taking much advantage of them, and I hope that at last there will be a little more vigour, a little more imagination and a little more positive putting up of propositions, which I believe will be accepted if they are put up with sufficient vigour and persuasiveness.