THE DANGER OF ARMED CAMPS Despite the manifest importance of national unity on matters of foreign policy, the Opposition persisted in their attacks on the Government. On the ^th April^ Mr. Arthur Greenwood moved on behalf of the Socialist Party : " That, as the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government cannot arrest the dangerous drift towards war and is inconsistent with their election pledges, this House is of opinion that the issue should be submitted to the country without delay.'* This issue, however, was one which the Opposition leaders seemed more anxious to use as an argument than to fight over. It was indeed growing increasingly clear in the country that their programme of military alliances and provocatively self-righteous declarations would almost certainly result in, war, and a War Party was likely to be extremely unpopular with the average voter. Mr. Greenwood's speech seemed designed to avoid any reference to the terms of the Motion he had proposed. He contented himself with taunting the Government with cowardice, declaring with a fine disregard of historical accuracy " that Great Britain had never leen so humiliated since the seventeenth century when Van Tromp sailed up the Thames." Not only did the Opposition make no attempt to avoid the appearance of national disunity, but its members felt no obligation to ease the strained international atmosphere by any moderation in their utterances about foreign statesmen. The spokesman of the Socialist Party referred to a recent'speech by the head o the Italian State as one of " iragg, ttuf, braggadocio and cowardice." At the end of his speech, Mr. Greenwood made two references which read curiously in the light of after events. " We would rather have a peace conference before a war than one after the next war" " The people of this land, in the words of Disraeli, want peace with honoury and it is the responsibility of the Government to give our people that which they At 4.50pjn. the Prime Minuter rose to reply.