NAVAL LIMITATION
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—In your "News of the Week," September 3rd, you say :—" It is plain that if the Naval Limitation Conference is to be reopened the advances must come from us " ! Why ? If negotiations between A and B break down after B has offered concessions while A has "stood pat," from which of the two should the next overture be expected ? (For A read America and for B Britain.) I admit that the role you recommend to us. is the one we have generally filled, notably in the genesis of the Irish Free State. But may we not carry our "humorous toleration" too far ?
As I am asking questions, will you permit another, sug- gested by Lord Cecil's resignation ? Is it not the fact that we have already reduced our fighting services to a larger extent than either France or Italy ? And. which of the three —Poincare, Mussolini, Baldwin--would you say most earnestly seeks peace and ensues it ? On the subject of war-abolition we might paraphrase Talleymnd and say :—" Que Messieurs les militaristes conunencent ! "—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
