6. Mr. SMITHfurther asked the Secretary of State, in connection with the British proposal to the last Assembly of the League of Nations to consider what questions were and what were not within the sphere of action of the League, whether the Government intends to press this proposal; and whether any statement can be made to the House on the subject?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs the result of the British proposal, the Assembly of the League passed a Resolution which meets the case made by my noble Friend, Lord Cecil, and which would appear to render unnecessary any further initiative by His Majesty's Government.
Mr. SMITHDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that we should endeavour to define in particular what is the work of the League, and is it not far better that a country like ourselves, which has an unwritten Constitution, should not press for a definite written constitution for the League?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir, I am not at all in favour of rewriting the constitution of the League, but I think my Noble Friend did a real service to the League when he called the attention, of the Assembly to the danger that the true purposes of the League might be overlapped by activities which did not require international co-operation, and which impinged on the sovereignty of the States members.
Mr. SMITHDoes the Foreign Secretary think that the activities as regards the mandatory question, for instance, come under that category?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir.