The Week in Parliament Our Parliamentary Correspondent writes : The
motion for the Easter adjournment unexpectedly produced a full dress foreign affairs debate. Thus once again the traditional object of these adjournment motions, which is to enable individual members to raise in quick-fire sequence questions of local importance in their constituencies was destroyed. The debate emphasised the deep feeling of indignation felt in all quarters of the House at the Italian massacre in Abyssinia, but beyond that it is doubtful if it served any other purpose. * * * * There was little sense of realism in any of the speeches. What is the use, for instance, in demanding, as did Mr. Arthur Henderson in a speech that was both eloquent and well documented, that the League should send out a Com- mission of Enquiry to Addis Ababa ? The Italian Govern- ment would be as little willing to accept such an enquiry as would the British Government have been in 1920 if it had been suggested that a committee of foreigners should investi- gate the circumstances of the Amritsar tragedy. The analogy of Gladstone and the Armenian atrocities was freely quoted; but that concerned Turkey, which was in a very different position compared with Italy today. She had not just emerged from a successful war in which she had successfully defied fifty nations of the world. The Leaguefiasco last year brutally proved that moral indignation is merely an irritant and an incitement, unless it is backed up by the will to fight. No suggestion was made as to what should be done if Italy refused a committee of investigation, except the futile expe- dients of first expressing the outraged feelings of civilisation and then expelling Italy from the League. * * * * At the close of the debate Mr. Lloyd George appeared at the despatch-box in his best fighting form. But it is unfortunate nowadays that he seems so often to choose the moment when his chief adversaries are absent and the reply is in charge of an Under-Secretary. He raised three questions—the position of Great Britain with regard to the Locamo Treaty, the urgency of making renewed attempts "to restore the independence of Abyssinia or at the very Worst to secure good terms for the people of that country in the very unfortunate circumstances that have occurred," and the precise attitude of Great Britain if the Italian troops in Spain were not withdrawn or indeed were reinforced. These were problems of such searching importance that it was obviously quite impossible for Lord Cranbome, in the absence of Mr. Eden, to give a categorical answer. Mr. Lloyd George did not indeed press for an answer to his questions, but the fact that he had put them at all raised Lord Cranbome's speech to an importance that in the critical conditions of Anglo-Italian relations it ought not to have been made to sustain.
* * * * The debate on armaments contracts, opened by Mr. Tom Johnston in a moderate and persuasive speech, suffered from the fact that no authoritative reply was given by a represen- tative of great business interests. It was obviously a chance for a man of the calibre of Sir Robert Home. He did, in fact, make one pertinent interruption, which seemed to foreshadow a powerful contribution, but a few minutes afterwards he walked out of the House and was seen no more. In subsequent speeches the debate degenerated into a rather futile wrangle on the refusal of a Government contract to Messrs. Ransoms and Rapier, of Ipswich. The Opposition contended that no orders had been placed with this firm because they had offered to work on a non- profit-making basis. Mr. Duff Cooper had no difficulty in demonstrating how ludicrous it was to contend that the Civil Servants in charge of public contracts would really prefer to pay high rather than low prices, and that quite other considerations had governed the decision not to place orders with this particular firm.
Previous page
