The Struggle For Peace

I DO not think it will be necessary for me to trouble the
Committee with any very long observations this after-
noon. During the Debate which took place yesterday the
House was never uncomfortably crowded, and those * who
listened to it must, I think, have been very much impressed
by the contrast in the general atmosphere in which the
discussions were conducted, as compared with that which
has prevailed when we have considered these defence questions
on previous occasions. I, myself, felt that there was an
absence of those strong feelings of controversy or of those
symptoms of anxiety which I had noticed before, and I have
derived the general impression that Members in all parts
of the Committee were being forced by the pressure of facts
and by the realisation of the realities of the situation, towards
something like general agreement as to the necessity for the
armaments programme which we are carrying through, as
to the manner in which it is being conducted and, particularly,
as to the way in which it is to be financed. That is a
considerable change from the past.
" I recall, for example, that last year when the House was
asked to approve of the proposals in the White Paper on
defence, the party opposite expressed the view that it was
only by collective security through the League of Nations
that the safety of the country could be ensured and the
maintenance of peace secured. I was very much struck by
the fact that during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member
for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who led off for the
Opposition, there was no mention of either collective security
or of the League of Nations, and that seemed to me to indicate
that the Party opposite had, at any rate, come to a realisation
of the fact that it was of no use in present circumstances ^to
appeal to the League of Nations to obtain collective security
for us, but that we had to trust to other means o
peace and keeping this country safe."
AN IjpN, MEMBER: "You destroyed it/31
393