On Friday week the House of Lords, on a question
asked by Lord Avebury, discussed the possibility of the reduction of armaments. Lord Fitzmaurice declared that the Govern- ment hoped to be able to reduce expenditure next year, but to diminish cost was not the same thing as to disarm. The difficulty in disarmament was to find the unit, and a tribunal to enforce its application. The Hague Tribunal might afford a solution, and, if the Government thought it desirable, the question would be raised at the coming Conference. Lord Lansdowne in a very wise and moderate speech welcomed the Government's proposed economy, but deprecated any attempts at general measures of disarmament. Arbitration was most valuable, and, if properly used, might greatly limit the area of war ; but he agreed with the Bishop of Ripon that there were cases where arbitration could never avail. For such contin- gencies, which were inseparable from national existence, it was necessary to be fully prepared. On this point the House of Lords showed complete unanimity. Safety must be the first object, economy the second. We agree with Lord Ripon that no harm will be done by England endeavouring to give other nations a lead in tle direction of the reduction of armaments, provided she does not compromise herself. No such agree. ment will ever come about except by several of the Great Powers making a simultaneous movement towards it; but there is no harm in any one Power preaching the doctrine.
Previous page
