BRITISH POLICY NOW [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]

StR,—Sir Arnold Wilson's article in your last week's issue invites many questions.

As a Liberal I wish to confine myself to two, which I hope that he will answer.

Referring to the four-days debate in Parliament, which he describes as " an ill service to the country," he writes : " The most bellicose speakers from the Liberal and Socialist benches were those who, like the parties to which they belong, have steadily opposed a policy of military preparedness for the past 40 years, have discouraged recruiting, and have poured scorn upon the profession of arms."

Will Sir Arnold Wilson name the Liberal speakers he refers to and substantiate his charges against them ? Sir Archibald Sinclair, the leader of the Party, is now 48. He must, therefore, have started his nefarious activities very young. At the age of 19 he joined the Life Guards (not the best place from which to " pour scorn on the profession of arms "), he served through the War and is now President of the Caithness Territorial Association—a difficult position from which to " discourage recruiting."

Perhaps he is not one of the delinquent speakers to whom Sir Arnold Wilson refers. Who are they ?

Passing from the record of individuals to that of the Party as a whole, Sir Arnold Wilson must be aware that from 1935 onwards the Liberal Party in the- House of Commons never divided against the Defence Estimates, and that from 1936 onwards they have actively supported them.

If we take the period before 1935, may I remind Sir•Arnold that his late leader, Mr. Baldwin, proudly boasted (October, 1933). that " disarmament was carried out almost entirely by the Conservative Government and the Coalition Government in which the Conservative Party predominated " ?

Sir Arnold can hardly suggest that it was the duty of a small and misinformed Opposition to keep his Party straight. I say misinformed, because neither the Opposition nor the country were told the truth.

Mr. Baldwin explained his own reticence to the House of Commons (November, 1936) in a burst of what he himself described as " appalling frankness." " Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment ? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the Election from my point of view more. certain."

In May, 1935, he had admitted to the House of Commons that in his previous estimate of future German air strength he had been completely wrong. Even in November, 1936 (after he had won " his " election) when Mr. Churchill pressed for an adequate increase in .our Air Force on the ground that we were not maintaining air-parity with Germany, Sir Samuel Hoare assured the House that " the position was satisfactory " and Mr. Baldwin denied the accuracy of Mr. Churchill's esti- mate of German first line air strength. The only fault of the Opposition partici lay in believing Mr. Baldwin instead of Mr. Churchill.

So much for the immediate past. But Sir Arnold Wilson's indictment covers the last 4o years. I come to My second question. I should like to ask his considered opinion of the comparative " military preparedness " of this country for war in 1914, after eight years of Liberal Government, and its " military preparedness " a month ago.

" We have not,prepared ; we have hardly begun, to prepare ; we do not know how all the failures that occurred during the crisis can be avoided next time."

This condemnation of the present Government was not pronounced by Liberal or Socialist partisans, but by one of their own most eminent civil servants.

" Has such an admission ever been made on behalf of a Government professedly engaged for 31 years in perfecting the protection of its people ? " asks The Observer (a newspaper untainted by either Liberalism or Socialism).

If the Liberal Government of 1914 had been convicted of such gross incompetence and so flagrant a neglect of their duty to the country as is now revealed, I think the Party to which Sir Arnold Wilson belongs would have called, and rightly called, for their impeachment.—Yours, &c., VIOLET BONHAM-CARTER.

qo Gloucester Square, W.2.