§ 47. Mr. RAFFANasked whether the League of Nations, in its reply to the invitation of the Supreme Council that it should undertake the mandate for Armenia, stated that it would endeavour to find a mandatory, but that in order to have some hope of success it must first have assurances from the Supreme Council as to the military question, the financial question, and the question of Aremenia's access to the sea; and, if so, why the Supreme Council did not act on the recommendations of the League?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe reply of the Council of the League of Nations to the Supreme Council was to the effect that, while they were entirely in favour of the mandate for Armenia being entrusted to one of the Powers, they would hesitate to sound the Powers as to their willingness to accept it without knowing more of the intention of the Supreme Council on certain fundamental points, namely, the military question, the financial question, and the question of Armenia's access to the sea, which is part of the general question of the frontiers of Armenia on which President Wilson has been asked to adjudicate. There has been no question of disregarding the recommendations of the League.
§ Lord R. CECILHave any further communications passed between the Supreme Council and the Council of the League with reference to the mandate for Armenia?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe have communicated from San Remo to the Council of the League the decision arrived at with regard to the United States of America.
§ Lord R. CECILSince then I understand that America has definitely declined the mandate. I do not know whether that is so or not. Has any further attempt been made? Perhaps I had better put down a question?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not at all sure. Speaking from memory, I do not think that America has officially declined.
Sir J. D. REESWill the Prime Minister explain how the League of Nations is to function, without pounds, shillings or pence, horse, foot, or artillery?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter which can be raised in the course of Debate.