HC Deb 04 March 1926 vol 192 cc1655-704

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[The Prime Minister.]

4.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)

The forthcoming meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva have aroused so much interest in this country, as in others, and so much anxiety, that His Majesty's Government have felt that not only was it right that some statement should be made on their behalf before their representatives leave to attend, but that an opportunity should be given to the House for a discussion of that statement. I can only say, for myself, that I feel it is much easier to increase the difficulties with which we shall in any case be confronted at Geneva than to lessen them by any words that I can say; that I am conscious of the delicacy of the occasion; and that I hope I may succeed in giving some satisfaction to the House without increasing anybody else's difficulty, and that the House itself will be mindful of the situation in which we are all placed, and careful in what it says of the susceptibilities of other Powers. The meetings which are to take place next week are twofold. I am not sure that it has been realised in all quarters that the Council meeting is a meeting held in the ordinary course of its procedure—one of the four quarterly meetings held in the year, and held on the date on which it is customary to meet. It is only the Assembly which is summoned specially for an extraordinary session in consequence of the application made by Germany to join the League of Nations.

I think the House is already aware that His Majesty's Government have selected my noble Friend Lord Cecil and myself to represent His Majesty's Government as the principal delegates to the Assembly, and I shall go to this meeting of the Council as I have made it my business to go to every meeting of the Council since I became Foreign Secretary. It has been a wish very close to my heart that in my tenure of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I might carry the general sentiment of the nation with me, and that nothing in my language or my attitude might make the issue of foreign affairs a party issue between parties in this country; and, if I feel that about foreign affairs in general, I feel it even more strongly in what concerns the League, for support of the League, adherence to the League, and development of the League is a policy which is common to every party in this House, and, I think, to every section of opinion in this country.

I must confess that it is not without great anxiety that I have watched the progress of the international controversy which has arisen on this occasion. Whatever view may be taken of the particular questions which are at issue, it has seemed to me that the case for or against a particular proposition is often argued on wholly wrong grounds and on grounds which strike at the very spirit and essence of the League. The League was established to find by common agreement, and after common consultation, a solution of difficulties which it might otherwise be impossible to solve by peaceful means, and for anyone to argue for or against a particular policy in relation to the composition of an organ of the League on the ground that it will strengthen this party or that party within the League seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the constitution of the League and of the spirit of the League and to be a danger to its continued usefulness. We meet there, no doubt, coming with many different and often conflicting views and claims; we meet there, naturally, inspired by the feelings of our own country, the traditions of our own country, and mindful of the national interests that we have to guard. But if the League is to continue to grow in influence and power, as I am happy to think that it has grown, and grown more rapidly of late, we must, when we get there, talk, as M. Briand says, not merely our own national language, but we must talk the language of Europe, and, indeed, the language of the world; and it is in proportion as we succeed in that effort that we shall overcome our difficulties and realise the hopes of the world when the League was founded.

It seems to me that there has been too little recognition of that point of view in much of the controversy that has been carried on in the public Press of different countries, and if that or if extreme forms of controversy represent the real and unchangeable mind of the nations among which it appears we might well take a gloomy view of the situation. But I am encouraged to hope for better things from the moderation of the statements made by the representatives of the nations who are perhaps most closely concerned. Whether I look at the speech of Dr. Luther, the Chancellor of the German Reich; whether I look at the speech of the President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, or of those of the Foreign Ministers of Belgium or Poland, I find, in all of them, evidence of the same sense of the difficulty and the delicacy of the situation, proof of the same moderation of outlook, and of the same earnest desire to arrive at an agreement which we can all of us accept.

Let me say, at this point, that for myself and for the Government we share the regret that is so widely felt here that the large issues as to the composition of the League should arise on this occasion and should have to be discussed now. We did not raise them; we did not instigate anybody to raise them at this time, and since I have been attending these meetings I have sought as far as was in my own power in such conversations—and there have been many conversations—to postpone these larger issues to a later date. If, therefore, they are now to be discussed, it is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. It will not say that it is the fault of anybody. It was, perhaps, inevitable. I think it was inevitable. After all, at each meeting of the Assembly the composition of the Council comes under review. The temporary seats have to be filled by reelection or new elections; and sometimes in the Assembly itself, and more often in the lobby, there is much talk about what is the proper organisation of the Council, whether it should be enlarged, and, if so, in what way, how the temporary seats should be allotted, and for what periods they should be held.

It must be remembered that in the main the claims which are now put forward for representation or for altered representation on the Council are not now raised for the first time. They have been heard of before; they have been discussed before; some of them have been voted on, and it is, I think, natural that those who have cherished these hopes and have pressed their claims and have been put off time and again because it was felt inexpedient to make any change in the composition of the Council at that moment, should now renew their claims when, owing to the entry of a fresh nation the whole question—I will not say the whole question—owing to the entry of a new nation not merely into the Assembly but into the Council and owing to the proposed allocation to that nation of another permanent seat, the question does appear upon the agenda and must come under discussion. If it had been realised more widely that this was, as I think it was, inevitable, I do not think that the same colour would have been given to the discussion that it has taken upon itself.

If I rightly understand the causes of the anxiety that have been shown and the mind of the British nation, it is not that we are unalterably opposed to any change of the council or to any addition to it, not that we desire here and now a priori to reject a particular claim without discussion; but it is due to their surprise at having these questions opened now, to the fear lest through opening these questions you endanger the results of Locarno and perhaps, above all, to a sense that there is something in the air which is not fair play, something of which one of the Powers might rightly complain and which is repugnant to the spirit of the game as we are accustomed to play it in State affairs no less than in other activities of our lives.

Dr. Stresemann in a speech which he made the other day drew attention to the portrait of Lord Castlereagh in the Foreign Office room in which the Treaty of Locarno was signed. He called attention to it in order to draw an inference, and I think he drew the right inference, that the policy of Great Britain now is the same as that which Lord Castlereagh pursued after the Napoleonic Wars, adapted to the circumstances of the present day, and using the League of Nations as its instrument where he had to use a conference of the great Powers. What was that? It was, in the first place, to protect the world against a repetition of the evils which it had suffered and the dangers from which it had just escaped, and having obtained security against that repetition then he welcomed back the enemy of the day before into the concert of nations, and he worked steadily for reconciliation, friendship, and in time, cordiality.

That I believe to be the policy, and those are the objects which induced His Majesty's Government to send me to Locarno, and that is the policy we embodied in the agreement at Locarno, and to us it is a cardinal and essential feature of our policy that the work of Locarno should continue, that the spirit of Locarno should prevail, and that the reconciliation in which we have made progress perhaps of greater value than is always recognisable from day to day should continue towards the goal which we have set before us. It is, therefore, and must be, a guiding principle for the representatives of His Majesty's Government in the discussions at Geneva that they should be parties to nothing there which endanger the success of Locarno, or which would make it impossible for Germany at the last moment to enter the League of Nations even when she presents herself at its door. It was an essential feature of British policy and our assent to the Treaty of Locarno and the guarantee of the League of Nations that Germany should give to the world the assurance of peaceful intentions and the guarantees of security that are embodied in the Covenant of the League. Therefore the Government regard it as of the first consequence that that resolution should now be fulfilled, and that nothing should interfere at the last moment which prevents her carrying out the intentions she has expressed.

With that guiding line, I turn to consider the more detailed question, the minor question of the organisation and the composition of the Council. I am sure there is a much greater variety of opinion at home than on the other side, and there is a variety of opinion amongst the different nations who are members of the League. There have been moments, as news reached me from one quarter of the world after another, when it has appeared to me that there were as many different opinions as there were nations members of the League. There are differences which are the outcome of national conditions, particular national dangers, and particular national fears. There are differences which arise out of the geographical situation and geographical groupings, and there are difficulties which arise from the quarrels of yesterday not yet forgotten, and from the suspicions of yesterday which are only too ready to revive in every quarter at the slightest provocation, and above all, when any rash or provocative word is spoken by a statesman or written by a publicist in a hasty article in a daily paper. How all these differences of opinion arise, no man can say. It is clear that if there were no machinery for their solution except an exchange of diplomatic notes, there would be little chance of agreement, and it is for that very purpose that the League of Nations in its Assembly and its Council were created in order that they might afford the opportunity of personal intercourse, of easy and friendly exchange of views, and in order that in that exchange of views and personal intercourse methods of solution might be sought and found which would never emerge from controversial wrangling.

The one thing, the one solution the British Government will not lend itself to under any circumstances whatever is that it will be no party to trying to recreate in the Council of the League camps of opposing forces which were the curse of Europe before the War. I have said that several times, and I repeat it to-day, partly because it must be a second essential principle of any policy pursued by any representative of this country. I repeat it also in order once again to draw attention to the futility of any such attempt. Of what use is a majority on the Council to anyone? Of what use is a vote more or less when, unless upon all essential matters the Council is unanimous, the Council can take no decision and come to no results? There are those in this country, perhaps, as in other countries who see the weakness that this need of unanimity may be on some critical occasion, and who are apt to think that it would be better that the Council should decide by a majority. There may be exceptional occasions in which there is reason for adopting some such course, but very exceptional I think they must be, because, if you once agree that the Council is to decide by a majority, then indeed it must become an object to every possible nation to secure a majority for itself, and the election of members to the Council will no longer be directed by the wish to make the Council as strong, as widely representative, as authoritative and final as possible, and it will become the subject of constant lobbying to obtain majorities for this or that purpose. It is, therefore, in my opinion, essential for as long a time as possible, and until changes take place which I do not expect to see, that this rule of unanimity should be preserved if for no other purpose than to prevent that kind of intrigue, and prevent the Council being denatured for the purpose of creating a majority in order to obtain a particular decision.

Having said that I doubt if there is anybody who has at any time represented the British Government who is prepared to say with confidence that the form first given to the Council was the form that it must always retain, or that there should be no alteration in it, either in its permanent seats or in its temporary seats, except particular additions which were foreseen as presently to come even by the original founder. It is not even true that the Council remains what it was as originally created, because two additional temporary seats were added. But the Assembly has gone on for good reason on the whole year after year re-electing the same States to the temporary seats and postponing the decision about how these seats are eventually to be made to circulate among the powers who do not have a permanent seat. But you cannot postpone it indefinitely. The impatience of the Assembly with the simple re-election of the same members has been growing, and I doubt very much whether the Assembly would have been content to re-elect them last year, if it had not been in the knowledge that the whole subject was shortly to be reviewed again.

It is impossible, and undesirable if it were possible, for the representative of one country to attempt to lay down in advance a plan of action for the Council or the Assembly on such a matter as this, which is essentially one for common discussion, and for a solution which shall be the result of the interchange of ideas and the free play of thought and interests within the body of the Assembly and the Council. What is our object? It is clearly our object that the number of the Council should be kept within manageable bounds so that for practical working purposes it may be an effective instrument. On the other hand, it is equally important that the Council should be sufficiently numerous to make it fairly representative of the whole body of States incorporated in the League, and authoritative, within its own proper sphere, as to the opinion of that body. When you come to the permanent seats in particular, any increase in their number must, of course, be examined with a very particular scrutiny. There is greater objection to according permanent seats than to according to any particular nation a temporary seat, which it is in the power of the Assembly to refill at whatever time it thinks it necessary to do so, when, perhaps, the particular reasons for putting that State on the Council have ceased, whether they be national or whether they be, as they may sometimes be, personal in the character of the personal contribution which the State brings to the Council, and when, perhaps, the very reasons which impelled the Assembly to put the State on may now lead the Assembly has gone on, for good reason on the whole, year after year re-electing the the past the position that there should be no addition to the permanent seats except on the entry of Germany, of the United States of America, or of Russia. Discussions have taken place before now. Rather more than four years ago there was such a discussion in the Council. It was a private one, and I do not feel at liberty to say anything about the attitude taken by other Powers; but at that time the British Government supported the claim of Spain, and I see nothing in what has happened since which should make His Majesty's Government change their attitude to that claim on principle though the time when that claim should be pressed is a different question, with which I am not dealing at this moment.

On the question of time, I have spoken earlier. Having dealt with the question of time, and having said, although I failed to make my meaning clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that, if it had lain with us no question of other alterations would have arisen—having said that, I am now dealing with the general principle which should govern selection for the Council, not with the moment at which changes, if there are to be any changes, should take place. But I should be astonished to hear that any British representative at any time—the right hon. Gentleman's or any other—would have been prepared to say that the claim of Spain was not worthy of consideration, or to stand alone in the Council to reject it No British Government, and I speak with some knowledge, has been prepared in all circumstances and at all times to confine the permanent seats on the Council to the particular number originally allotted, but I agree, as I have said, that any extension of the permanent seats must be justified on the merits of the particular case which is being argued. It must be viewed with great jealousy, because you cannot have a large extension of these seats, and they can only be given in special circumstances and for special reasons. It is less objectionable in some ways to add to the non-permanent seats. There are States which are clearly not qualified for a permanent seat, but which, at any particular moment, it may be greatly in the interest of the Council and greatly in the interest of peace to have represented within the Council, there to argue out their differences in that atmosphere of conciliation and camaraderie which does prevail among the Council members, and which has done so much to secure our past agreement and will be so valuable for securing future agreement.

If I may summarise what I have said, it is that the guiding principles for the representatives of His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting are that nothing should be done to jeopardise the results of Locarno; that nothing should be done that gives any Power the right to say that it has been unfairly treated, or entrapped into a decision the consequences of which it did not understand; and that additions to the Council must be jealously watched. They can only take place if the whole Council is unanimously in their support, but, if the whole Council were unanimously in support of a particular claim, we should have to judge the claim upon its merits, but we do not say, and are not prepared to say a priori, that no such claim can be admitted under any circumstances whatever.


I should like to be clear. Does the right hon. Gentleman says that no such claim can be admitted in March?


No. Under-any circumstances whatever. I am not prepared to say. I want to be quite frank. His Majesty's Government would have preferred that these further questions had not been raised at the present time. No action can be taken upon them except by common accord at the Council, by unanimous vote of the Council. But, if the way of peace is found, after consultation, in an agreement of all the Council for a particular admission, we should certainly not reject or oppose that admission now on the ground that we should have preferred to have discussed the question in September.

This morning I received a message from the German Ambassador that he was anxious to see me. He came, on the instructions of his Government, to say that they desired that a meeting should take place between their representatives, myself, and those of other Powers—a Locarno conversation—before the Council entered on its discussions; and he was instructed to inquire whether I was pre pared to agree to such a meeting, because in that case the German representatives would come in time for it to take place before the Council met. I replied that I accepted the proposal with great pleasure, that I regarded it as absolutely vital that, before any discussions took place in the Council, we who had signed the Treaty of Locarno should meet and freely exchange our views in continuation of those free and friendly conversations which took place at Locarno itself. I reminded him that so strong was my feeling on that point that I had already—I think a fortnight ago, though I have not verified the date—communicated to the German Government my earnest hope that we might meet at Geneva for such a conversation before any decisions were taken; and I added that at the same time I had expressed the same hope to the other Powers who signed the Treaty of Locarno, and that I thought I was not misinterpreting their views if I said that they were as desirous of such a meeting as I was. If I have pleaded with my countrymen—


I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, because it is very crucial, does that mean that, in the absence of an agreement between all the parties, of which Germany would also form one, the British representatives will not vote for the addition of a member to the League?


I am not prepared to go beyond the statement which I have made, after full consideration by His Majesty's Government, that it is for us an essential principle that the fruits of Locarno should be reaped, that the work should be consummated, and that nothing should be done to prevent Germany from entering the League. If I have pleaded' with my countrymen that some latitude should be allowed in discussion and in negotiation to its representatives, it is not, I would beg the House to believe, because I am filled with conceit at my own knowledge personally; it is because, if each of us takes up a rigid attitude before we get to Geneva, we shall come, and can come, no nearer to agreement at Geneva than now. I want to stretch out my hands to others, and to see them stretch out their hands to me—not to have my own tied to my side, so that the most friendly gesture that I can make is a futile one. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the same plea is put forward by those other representatives, and they also, and for the same reason—because we want an agreement and peace—have refused to bind themselves hand and foot before they start on their journey, but have reserved liberty of negotiation and of discussion, without which nobody can ever reconcile differences. M. Vandervelde, I observe, in a speech which he made the day before yesterday, after explaining the general view of the Belgian Government, said: He would not ask the Chamber to come to a conclusion, and would not do so himself, because it was essentially desirable that we should go to Geneva without any preconceived plan, to seek, in a spirit of reciprocal conciliation the solution most favourable to a good international understanding. I believe that to be the spirit. He indicated his general attitude, as I have indicated the general attitude of His Majesty's Government. He indicated the difficulties he felt, as I have indicated the difficulties which are felt by His Majesty's Government, and he ended by appealing, as I do, that the Chamber should come to no decision, and stating that he himself would come to no final decision, but that we should be left to put our contributions into the common stock, and, meeting there as friends and colleagues at this great Council of the Nations, seek a solution which shall not renew or prolong difficulties, which shall not recreate or increase suspicion, but shall make this meeting at Geneva one more step in that progress of reconciliation and appeasement to which all of us are now committed.


I have listened with the most anxious sympathy to the speech the Foreign Secretary has just delivered. I have done so with a sincere desire to find agreement with it. I regret to say that is not possible. It is impossible for two reasons. The description of the situation given by the Foreign Secretary lacks a little in realistic detail. The difficulty in which we find ourselves has not been created by a spontaneous uprising on the part of certain countries putting claims in for permanent seats on the Council of the League. That is not what is disquieting us. No one is disquieted if Spain, in pursuance of a long and back-dated claim, is raising the question again. We are not disquieted because Poland feels that its present position in Europe is such that it would be better and more convenient for it if it had a permanent seat in the Council of the League of Nations. That is not it at all. We are disquieted on account of the circumstances in which the whole thing has arisen. We are disquieted because we have noticed from day to day those countries being encouraged to go on not, it is perfectly true, on account of anything positive that our Government or any other Government appears to have done—at any rate I only refer to our own Government—but on account of the things they have not done. They have allowed Poland to pursue its inquiries, to make its approaches to Government after Government, and all the time they have stood by. They have no opinions upon it, and now we are told that on account of the very delicate and very difficult situation that has arisen by these claims being carried to a point which involves the honour of the nations making the claims, it is inexpedient and it is wrong for this House to tie the hands of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva. That is the situation we have to face and that is a situation which I think this House has a perfect right to profoundly regret.

The right hon. Gentleman said this is no party issue. It is not. I decline to make it a party issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The usual sneer comes, but if any hon. Member would read the newspapers of the country, would read the speeches that have been made by men of all parties who desire to support the League of Nations and to protect its future efficiency and well being, they would find that in the position I take up there is no party distinction. Conservatives have been as enthusiastic and as sincere as we have been, and Liberals have been the same. I have never known in all my life a situation which has so united the nation as the issue we are discussing to-day has united the nation. We can run this doctrine of a free hand a little too far. As a matter of fact, no one knows what it means. Every man who represents a nation in places like Geneva, or anywhere else, knows perfectly well that he has to abstract himself every now and again from himself and remember the elements whom he is representing. To that extent there is no such thing as a free hand.

A free hand, free within limits, laying down your goal, laying down your purpose, removing suspicion and enabling people to understand what you are driving at, and then asking for that confidence which will enable you to negotiate to that end and use to the greatest advantage your opportunities, may be a perfectly sound request and, as far as I am concerned, I hope I shall never refuse it to any Englishman going to represent the nation on such an important body as the Council of the League of Nations. But is the right hon. Gentleman free? There is a freedom to two bodies, or to two allegiances. He may go away to-day saying he has a free hand from this House. Is he free in relation to any pledge or any promise that he has given with reference to what he is going to do at Geneva? I put that question because no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that that question has been canvassed in every newspaper in the country. Has he pledged himself to Spain? Has he pledged himself to Poland? I am going through the whole category. Has he pledged himself to Brazil? When he talks about a conversation with Germany and suggests that during that conversation he is to discuss with them the business of the Council of the League of Nations in respect of the claims of these States, is Germany going to initiate the conversation or is he?

I was not able to follow precisely how much meaning there was in the German Ambassador's dispatch. I was not able to follow what he meant in detail. Did Germany raise this question of Spain, or is Germany going to be pressed to agree to A, B or C being admitted with its consent?


If I said a word that indicated that this message from the Ambassador implied that there was a change of German policy, I misled the right hon. Gentleman. It does not imply any change of policy, and there cannot be any change of policy until they meet and their representatives discuss the matter. It amounted only to a desire for free conversation with France and ourselves and the other Locarno Powers before the Council entered upon the discussion of those matters at all.


I am very glad of that, but my impression was that it was embedded in an argument that seemed to indicate that there had been some change, and I am sure we are all glad that that has been removed. Apparently what has happened is that, on account of what is going on, Germany has become apprehensive. This communique is not the expression of Germany's spontaneous desire to have this thing discussed but, owing to the propaganda of some countries, the negative position of other countries and the positive pledges perhaps of some countries—"Well, I will wait and see how things go on, and I will not make up my mind until the last minute"—that sort of negative encouragement given by other countries, Germany at least, quite properly, has become apprehensive of the situation and asked for a conversation to take place.


I think the right hon. Gentleman misinterprets the intentions of the German Government. Some time ago I expressed to the German Government and other Governments the hope that such a discussion would take place. The German Government heard nothing further, and I understand it was because they had heard nothing further of this hope that they would also desire a conversation that they now inquired whether I was prepared to meet them, because, if so, they would arrange their arrival at Geneva accordingly.


I am only dealing with the conversation so far as it was indicated by the Foreign Secretary that at this conversation the question of further admissions to the Council was discussed. That is really the point. That is the situation, and that situation has given rise to disturbance in our national mind and in the national mind of every other country. We know what some of the Baltic States have done and said, and we know the position Germany has taken up regarding the whole thing.

5.0 P.M.

My first point is this. Assuming the changes are required—and I am going to deal with that as a second point—can anyone imagine a more inopportune moment than this even to talk about it? Can anyone imagine a more unfortunate diplomatic method than when you are admitting this new State, with all the circumstances that you have of a State that has been an enemy and very largely an outcast until quite recently? You gave an opportunity for mischievous Newspapers on the Continent, in particular, and they took it, to say: "This is a makeweight: this is a counterbalancing arrangement. Because Germany is in, we must defend ourselves on the Council." That has been said; that has been debated. Even apart from that, every one of us will agree that that is so wicked that it ought not seriously to be taken into account. The whole circumstances are such that the inevitable appearance of a diplomatic move like this is to indicate a suspicion that the Council of the League of Nations must be protected against Locarno. It is not carrying out Locarno; it was never discussed at Locarno; it was never sought, so far as I know. I have never even heard it publicly or privately whispered. Nobody at Locarno during the Conference said, "Of course, Germany, when you come in, others will come in at the same time." No, the Locarno spirit, the Locarno goal, was: "Get Germany in." That was the specific point and the specific goal, unless there were some very secret conference and understandings—which I do not allege for a moment. Un- less that were the case—and I do not believe it—there was not a single diplomatist and national representative who left Locarno who knew, who even expected, that before Germany came in all this question would be raised; and that it would be partly settled, at any rate, at the same time that Germany came in.

The Spanish claim! I have had to go into it. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Spain has not been asleep all these years, since 1921 or 1922, I think he said, when she first preferred a claim for a permanent seat. It is not quite correct to say that ever since 1921 the policy of the British Government has been that Spain should be admitted to a permanent seat. Spain has been at it all the time, and it is a grave injustice to the Spanish claim if that claim is going to be used as part of a bargain. It is a grave injustice for Spain to enter the Council of the League of Nations under the suspicion that has been raised on account of the way these matters have been handled during the last few years.

The opinion of our people—surely every public representative is perfectly willing to agree—the opinion of the public is twofold. First of all, it desires that the British Government this month in Geneva should deal with one question only, so far as admission to the Council of the League is concerned. We want to abstract that from everything else. Surely hon. Members of this House will recognise that that is a big enough and solemn enough event to stand apart from everything else. If we want to signalise the admission of Germany into the fellowship of Europe, as we are going to do next week, will it not diminish the importance and solemnity of that occasion if it is brought in alongside of minor acts, or an act of the same kind? Our nation, I believe, feels that. It is an instinctive, dramatic, commonsense view that, if we are going to have the full, hearty co-operation of Germany in the future decisions of the League of Nations, the claims of Germany alone should be considered this month. The others can be postponed to a later date. That is the first thing.

The other point is this, that I believe our country, without being able, perhaps, to go into all the details of the reform of the Council of the League, and so on, does feel that our Government ought to take up a very firm attitude at Geneva; that next week the general reform of the Council ought not to be mixed up with the admission of Germany. There is a very important sequel to that, as everyone knows who has attended the Council of the League of Nations. Unfortunately I never have, but I have followed it. I attended, not the Council, but the Assembly; but I followed the transactions of the Council very closely, both through representatives whom I had to appoint myself and through the representatives of foreign States. The sequel is that, when the reform comes, it must not come as a result of any sort of bargaining of one Power off against another Power. That is the second point that I should like to urge on the House.

I do not quite know what the decision of the Foreign Secretary is going to be about September. I do not know if he is going to nibble at it in March, and then nibble at it again in September. I do not know whether he is going to bring in one Power in March and say that he will give that Power a permanent seat, and then give the Power that was expecting a permanent seat, not a permanent seat but a temporary seat created by a permanent seat given to another Power. That is a bad way of facing a position like this, and it will not redound to the authority of the League of Nations. Surely, if the Council of the League is going to be reformed at all, it ought to be reformed after full all-round consideration and upon a unified plan. There is not going to be anything of that. If, next week, a bargain is going to be struck and a certain change is made, in September the consequences of that bargain will have to be worked out. If State A is admitted now, for instance, with an inquiry in September or before September, you will have to inquire whether State B is in the same condition as State A or whether State C is in the same condition as State B.

The present plan may be quite imperfect,—I think it is very imperfect—but the moment you begin a new principle of a recognition of a new category or class of State, then you cannot stop there. Spain's grievance up to now may have been great. Spain's grievances against Great Britain, France and Italy, and so on, may be great, but the moment when the representatives of a new category of States, whether Spain, Belgium or Holland, are introduced into that League, with permanent seats on the Council of the League, the claims of the whole category will have to be considered. If you do not meet them, you will do a grave injustice, which will be most keenly felt by those States. But if you do admit that category of States next week, you cannot in September turn it out of a permanent seat again. You will be committed to a particular permanent change in your Council, and every man who sits on that Council and who has experience of its working will know perfectly well that it is an exceedingly bad method to act in that way. Your problems in September, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be very difficult, supposing you are going to consider the composition of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I join with him most heartily in this, that whoever tries to straighten out the conflicting opinions as to how the Council should be elected will have a very difficult job. Practically every State has its own view. Nevertheless, it has to be done.

There is another point. You have your permanent and temporary seats. Are we sure that we have divided those categories wisely at the present time? That matter ought to be very carefully considered. Take the question of how the temporary seats are allotted. Is the method right? I think most people say it is wrong. Moreover, is the duration of office right? I think again, most people say it is not. Have we devised the means by which valuable personalities may retain seats on the Council or be in some way influential in guiding, guarding and advising the Council of the League? I do not think we have. But all these things have got to be considered. The size of the Council has got to be considered. If you increase it now by one seat, let the House remember, you are not increasing it by one seat at all; you are increasing it by the first of a series of seats. There, again, comes in the consideration of what the size ought to be. If action be taken next week you have actually committed yourselves, you cannot get out of it; and you have got to go blundering along for another 10 years with your Council.

My plea, on the second point, is that those of us who feel most keenly that the Council requires revision as to its composition and its working, are most violently, if I may use the word, opposed in our minds to anything being done next week which is going to tie our hands in the future considerations of how that Council is going to be established. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to, and he does not come here and say, "I will only agree to the admission of a new Power to a permanent seat, if I am convinced that, everything taken into account, it can be fitted in into a unified conception of the reorganisation of this League." He has never said so. He has said that we are in difficulties and in trouble.


indicated dissent.


He did not use those words, but that is the impression. I do not want to use words with which he does not agree: but he said, "I did not raise this; I did not want to raise it. I am rather sorry it has been raised, but it has been raised, and I have now got to deal with it and try to smooth it over." This is the position; they are dealing with the reorganisation of a Council already formed, on the moral authority of which and on the effective working of which, primarily, must depend the effective working of the League of Nations itself. Everybody admits that a revision is necessary. Every State has its own views on the matter. Lo and behold! We are told to-day that the revision should begin on no plan, on no principle, with no full consideration, but merely to get certain diplomatists out of difficulties, and to undo the evil that has arisen out of the slackness and out of the mishandling of the situation in Europe. I cannot agree to that, and I hope that the House of Commons will indicate that it, supporting the Nation, does not agree with that.


I confess to a feeling of profound disappointment and uneasiness after hearing the speech of the Foreign Secretary. I think it is a very serious thing for the House of Commons to part with the Foreign Secretary when he goes to Geneva without something more definite than he has given us. Not only has he given us nothing definite, but he has absolutely refused to give us the one definite answer that matters. I was one of those who welcomed Locarno. I have never used any words except words of laudation, praise and gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the services which he rendered there. Not a single word of detraction or, I think, of qualification, have I uttered either in this House or outside. Therefore, I feel that I have a right as a Member of this House to beg of the right hon. Gentleman not to destroy his own masterpiece.

What will be the result of his speech? This is not a party matter, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is to the eternal honour of this country that such pressure as has been brought to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman has not been party pressure at all. Anybody who reads the article in the "Times" to-day can see that. It has not been a party matter. In fact, it is the only case in my recollection where the public have taken the conduct of Foreign Affairs out of the hands of the Foreign Office. I ask the House of Commons, without distinction of party, what is it that the right hon. Gentleman is pledged to do or not to do if he goes to Geneva? Is he pledged not to vote for Poland? Is he pledged not to vote for Spain, nor for anybody else as an addition to the Council of the League, whether Germany protests or not? Supposing Germany says, "This is a breach of faith. This is not the bargain that we made with you. You have broken it." Is the right hon. Gentleman pledged, in the face of the House of Commons, of Europe and of the world, to vote against this proposition? No, he is not. He is distinctly and emphatically refused to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a free hand. What has a free hand to do with it? where is the free hand? There are four great Powers in that Council. Their united weight is simply overwhelming as against the small Powers. Italy has pledged herself, in violent language, to vote for Poland. There is no free hand there. France has done so in the very courtly language which M. Briand always uses, but it means exactly the same thing. Japan says that she will go with the majority. What is Britain going to do? She will make the majority. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying, "I am going there to ratify the general agreement which we will arrive at." Britain cannot take that part in the Council of the League of Nations. She has to go there to express an opinion. Her faith is involved. Her honour is involved. It is the point of honour that has seized upon the conscience of the people of this country, and she cannot say, "I wash my hands of the whole thing, and if France agrees to it, if Italy agrees to it, if Japan agrees to it, and they can bully Germany into surrendering to it, then we will acquiesce." That is a poor, miserable policy. It is not worthy of this great land that really fought the battle as much as anybody and made it possible to win it. She is entitled to an opinion, and it is her opinion that will decide it.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman again, "Has he a free hand?" I am going to press him. I am not going to say of the right hon. Gentleman that he went to M. Briand and Count Skrzynski and said: "I, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, pledge myself that when the proposal comes forward that Poland shall be added, I will vote for it." That is not what happened. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman has a strong opinion. He, therefore, is not free. He goes there with a strong opinion in favour of adding to the Council. He has done more than that he has expressed it. He is tied, doubly tied, by his opinion and by the public expression of it. Is he not tied beyond that? I think we are entitled to ask that in this House before he goes. The right hon. Gentleman saw M. Mussolini at Rappallo. He discussed with him, undoubtedly, the whole affairs of Europe, everything that is common to Italy, to Great Britain, and the peace of Europe and it was announced by the Italian newspapers that M. Mussolini was extremely delighted with the conversation that took place. Is it possible that they never referred to this question? Is it conceivable? Of course, they did. They were discussing the whole affairs of Europe, and this question must have come up. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it did not. I will not say another word.


I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It did not.


Very well. We have now had an answer about M. Mussolini, and I stated that if the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not referred to, I would accept it. Therefore, I have nothing more to say. Now I come to the discussion with the French Foreign Office. It is very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman passed through Paris and had a conversation with the French Foreign Office if nothing was said at all about Locarno or about the application of Poland and Spain. Still, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that M. Briand did not refer to it, I will accept that.


It did form part of our conversation.


That is right. Very well. That is the advantage of a simple interrogation. M. Mussolini never said a word about it, M. Briand did. Now I come to the next point. Is it conceivable that in a conversation on a subject of this kind that the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate to M. Briand the opinion which he expressed at Birmingham afterwards? That is, not a pledge, but an indication of opinion. It is a very, very fine line to draw between them, because the French newspapers afterwards treated it as a pledge. When the Birmingham speech was delivered and reported in France, what was the comment of the French Press? The comment of the French Press was this, that "the right hon. Gentleman the British Foreign Secretary, as usual, stands by his word." They, at any rate, were under the impression that the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to M. Briand was the same as the opinion he expressed in public to his own countrymen at Birmingham, and they regarded it as an understanding between the two that there would be a favourable acceptance of the proposal to add to the League.


I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, thinks that what appears in the foreign Press about an English statesman is really authoritative with regard to what he says. I think it is important for my credit in this House that I should say, coming as I did from five weeks' holiday, where I received no papers, that my first words to M. Briand were that I could take no decision upon any question until I had come back to this country and consulted the Government. I sought to learn the views of the French Government and the arguments by which they supported those views. I told him that I could give no pledge on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to the action they would take.


The right hon. Gentleman certainly gave no pledge. I said so, but I said that he must have indicated an opinion. M. Briand expressed his views. Is it conceivable that the right hon. Gentleman did not give his views to M. Briand? Of course, he did. He made them public in this country. What I want to point out is this, that his expression of opinion to his own countrymen, in public, at Birmingham—and he also gave it in a speech here, reported from the House of Commons—made it clear as to what his view was as to the addition to the Council of the League of Nations. He must have given the same opinion to M. Briand. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not going with a free hand. He is going there with an opinion which he has formed. He is going there with an opinion which he has expressed. He is going there with an opinion which he has expressed not merely to foreign statesmen, but an opinion which he has indicated in public to his own constituents and to Members of the House of Commons, and we are entitled to ask this, "Is he going to give force and effect to that opinion when he goes to Geneva next week?" He says that he will not give an answer.

The discussion will come, first of all, in a private conference, where, by the way, Poland will be represented and Spain will not. That is, a private conference of the signatories to the Locarno Pact. Then there will be a discussion in the Council of the League. What line will Great Britain take there? Italy will be in favour of adding Poland; Spain will be in favour of an additional member; Brazil will be in favour of an additional member, and Prance will be in favour of an additional member. What will, the right hon. Gentleman say? I think we are entitled to ask that before he goes there. There is no doubt at all that British opinion is against it. I am not going into the question of the reconstitution of the Council of the League; that has nothing to do with the case. It may be desirable to add permanent members to the League. I doubt it, but that is another matter. There is Russia, and the United States of America; I hope they will both join the League of Nations. If they do not you never can make an all-powerful League to enforce peace in the world. That will come, although I think this sort of thing is postponing that day.

It is not a question whether you are going to add temporary or permanent members to the League. The question is what are you going to do next week at this extraordinary meeting which has been summoned for the one purpose of putting through the bargain with Germany. That is the point. The effect of an attempt to add members to the League before you put through your bargain is having a worse effect in Germany. See what the effect is in this country. The effect in this country undoubtedly is to give a sort of sense that we are not quite keeping faith with Germany. What must be the effect in Germany? Germany is not unanimous on this subject. Joining the League is an unpopular thing for any government to force upon its public opinion. There is a very great distrust of the League of Nations because of the Silesian episode, and for other reasons. The Government of Germany have faced a good deal of genuine distrust and a good deal of genuine patriotic sentiment in accepting the Locarno Pact and undertaking to join the League of Nations. In 1922, I pressed the then German Chancellor to make application for Germany to join the League of Nations. I urged him to do it. He said, "I dare not face German public opinion. Sentiment is so strong against the League of Nations." It is still there. The German Government faced it, and we ought to. remember that and not make it difficult for the Government to carry the thing through. It has undoubtedly strengthened nationalist opinion in Germany, strengthened it very considerably. Even the most moderate expression of opinion in the Nationalist Press is taunting the Government as a result of what has happened since Locarno. They are saying, "is not this what we told you? We knew perfectly well they could not be trusted." There is poison in the loving cup; the poison of suspicion.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman should not he, in justice to the House of Commons and in justice to public opinion which has treated him very well without distinction of party as the result of his Locarno efforts, say, "Whatever my private opinion is, I am not going there to save my own face. I am going there to safeguard the public faith of this country, of Great Britain, of this nation. This time I will vote against any addition and I shall simply vote for the inclusion of Germany in the League." Keep faith with Locarno, and, not merely keep faith, but keep the impression of good faith. I think we are entitled to ask that that should be done. He cannot go there and say he has no opinion, and wait until he sees whether there is unanimity of opinion. There is no doubt at all what will be done. Great pressure will be brought to bear on Germany. And what for? To alter the agreement into which she has entered. That is not fair. She is in a very difficult position at the present moment, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. She cannot afford to quarrel with the nations of the world. Industrially, she is is a very bad way. Financially, she is in a worse way. She has 2,000,000 of unemployed, and taking those working part-time, you have 5,000,000 in Germany who are either totally out of work or partially out of work. And wages are low.

Germany undoubtedly depends for keeping alive upon the credit she will receive, and she cannot afford to quarrel with the Powers. Is it fair to take advantage of that situation and ask her to extend the agreement signed months ago which she regarded as a complete one. Let her into the Council of the League, then you can discuss the questions of Spain, Brazil, and Poland. She will be there on equal terms. If you do not do that Locarno, in my judgment, will be in vain. I have always said that Locarno was a magnificent beginning; but it is only a beginning. Whether it will fructify depends on good will and confidence amongst the Powers. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the spirit of Locarno. The wine of Locarno is already badly corked, and it is entirely due to a very unfortunate series of incidents. If the right hon. Gentleman goes there expressing the undoubted opinion of his countrymen on this subject, then this episode will do good. It will show that British opinion means to have a square deal with Germany, and it will also show that Great Britain is going to pursue her traditional policy of fair play in Europe.

Marquess of HARTINGTON

The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary expressed a hope that nothing will be said or done in this Debate which would embarass him in a difficult task or complicate a position which is already complicated enough, and I hope nothing I shall say will have that effect. But I do feel that the opinion should be expressed from this side of the House, as it has been from the benches opposite, that there is a number of Members, a very considerable number, who, without wishing in any way to tie the hands of the right hon. Gentleman or extract from him any pledge which might make subsequent negotiations impossible, yet feel very strongly indeed the hope that it may still be possible, even now, for the British representatives when they reach Geneva to take the line that they consider that this meeting was convened for one purpose and one purpose only, and that they must confine themselves to that purpose. I do not propose to discuss at any length the question whether additions to the permanent membership of the Council are desirable or not. That is a question which we might debate for a long time, but it is not the main issue this afternoon. But I may, perhaps, be permitted to say as one, and, I think, the only one in this House now, who was present and assisted, although in a menial capacity, at the original framing of the Covenant, that everything that has happened since confirms the view taken then, that once you depart from the principle that the permanent membership of the Council shall be reserved for the great Powers, who, after all, have the responsibility, and foot the bill, you may become involved in absolutely endless difficulties. One can foresee endless claims, and all of them good claims.

We are not concerned with that question this afternoon We are concerned with the question whether any additions to the Council, which may or may not be desirable, should be made now or in September next, when in the normal course of affairs they could have been made—and not until then—and which are only possible now because of this special meeting convened for one purpose, the admission of Germany. On that question there is something in this country nearly approaching unanimity. We are not concerned with the rival merits of this country or that. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that the impression should get abroad that we in this country are opposed to the claims of one particular country or another, or one group of countries, or any country in the world. We are not quarrelling with the claims of any one country, but we feel strongly that this is a question of principle. It is a question of keeping faith and not a question of expediency. We are concerned with the vital question of whether the admission of one country, which has been agreed upon, which every country concerned has promised and pledged itself to support, shall be made the occasion for bargaining and compromise. That is a question of principle which vitally affects the whole future of the League, and that is the question with which we are concerned this afternoon. It seems to me that our representatives would be on perfectly sound and unassailable ground if they took the line at Geneva that they cannot at this next meeting go outside the purpose for which that meeting is convened, but that at the proper time, and in the normal course, they are willing to consider, and sympathetically consider, any claims which may be made; but that this meeting was convened for one purpose and they cannot go outside that. That is a sound position to take up and one which we should take up. It is one which could not be resisted, because every country concerned has pledged itself solemnly to support the admission of Germany next week.

There is one other consideration which I will put before the House. This House, after all, has the ultimate responsibility for any decision which the British representatives may reach. It has in the past always had an opportunity of refusing to ratify a decision. The right hon. Gentleman went to Locarno with a free hand. He achieved a very brilliant and conspicuous success, as everyone concedes. There was no school of political thought which hesitated about ratifying the decision which he reached there, but this House, while it gave him a free hand, did not surrender its power of veto. If it had been so minded it could have refused to ratify the decisions which were reached at Locarno. That is not so in this case. In this case the election of a member or members to permanent seats or semi-permanent seats on the Council of the League of Nations is a question over which this House has no further control. When the right hon. Gentleman has left for Geneva on Saturday the House will have nothing further to say on the decision he may reach. It may or may not like the decision arrived at, but it will have no control over it whatever, it will have to put up with it. For that reason I submit that while we do not want to tie the right hon. Gentleman's hands, while we do not want to commit him to pledges which may be inexpedient, we ought and I think we have every right to express clearly and unequivocally the opinion of this House of Commons. I believe there is no doubt whatever that the opinion of this House is that, whatever may be decided later on about the composition of the Council, the British representative ought to make it absolutely clear that he is not prepared to go outside the purpose for which this forthcoming meeting was convened. That purpose was the election of Germany and the election of Germany alone.


I rise with considerable anxiety to take part in this very important Debate. I realise fully, as a junior Member of this House, the very grave danger of letting slip some unfortunate word which may not bring oil to the troubled waters, but may injure irrevocably the situation not only in this country, but all over the world. I have no intention of uttering any word which might possibly have that result. I want to direct the attention of the House to the vital issue which underlies our discussion. I suggest that we have here a very grave constitutional issue coming to the front, an issue which affects the whole constitutional safeguards of this country. We all recognise in this House the very considerable difference between foreign affairs and home affairs. The difference which comes most easily to the notice is this: In home affairs we can discuss and re-discuss, we can go into details, we can bring up all sorts of issues relevant and, with the connivance of the Chair, irrelevant, and no harm is done. We can use words which may be misrepresented, and still no final difficulty results. When we come to foreign questions, on the other hand, we recognise the need for reticence, for guarded speech, lest some inappropriate word used in this House may do detriment not only to this country but to the interests of the whole world.

That is why Foreign Secretaries have claimed, and have been given, a much wider latitude in their affairs than those who deal with home affairs. But that is not the only difference between home affairs and foreign affairs. There is another difference. If we make a mistake in home affairs, if we carry some Clause in a Bill which works badly, we find that out as time goes on, and we have ample opportunity of altering our mistake. But if we do something detrimental in foreign affairs the path of return is not so easy; it may be quite impossible for us to retrace our steps. We may have committed ourselves to a policy which will have repercussions for years and decades, and in the end may produce the most disastrous consequences to this country. That is particularly true when the issue under discussion is one of the magnitude of that which we are discussing to-day. Who knows but that a false move to-day, may have, not next year, not perhaps within 10 years, but within 20 or 30 years' time, the most serious consequences to Europe and this country? Questions of war and peace may be involved in our decision on a matter of this kind to-day. Therefore, while it is true that we give a Foreign Secretary, and rightly give him, a free hand up to a certain point, I think the corollary of that freedom is that the Foreign Secretary should interpret the general spirit of this country, and should interpret it faithfully and carefully, in his dealings with foreign questions.

That is the issue which arises now. I have discussed this question with regard to the extension of the Council of the League with a great number of people. I have heard views put forward authoritatively inside this House on behalf not only of the party to which I belong, not only on behalf of the Liberal party, but on behalf of all parties in the House, and I have never, with the exception of the Foreign Secretary himself, heard a single dissentient voice. I have read the papers of this country, the Liberal papers and Conservative papers as well as Labour papers, and I have never seen a single statement by any editor contrary to the view which I believe is almost universal in this country. That view is that it is most undesirable and inappropriate that at this particular time any country other than Germany should be brought into the Council of the League, whether that country be Poland on the one hand or Spain or Brazil or any other country on the other hand. If the Foreign Secretary comes to us and says, "I want a free hand to go along the line which the country desires; I want a free hand to take my own method of pursuing that line," I think everyone would agree that that was a sound and reasonable proposal and in line with the constitution of this country. If, however, the Foreign Secretary says, "I want to have a perfectly free hand to go and disregard entirely the almost unanimous opinion of the people of my country, the almost unanimous feeling expressed by the House of Commons," then I suggest that we are establishing a very dangerous principle in our constitutional usage—a principle which seems to me to be fraught with the most serious consequences.

These consequences may be of the utmost moment so far as the particular issue is concerned. But they go a great deal further. If the expressed wish of the House of Commons, as far as the House is enabled to express it at all, is in one direction, if that expression is in accord with the almost universal feeling in the country, and if a Foreign Secretary claims the right to go contrary to that opinion, and if he not only claims the right but in the event should prove that he has gone contrary to that opinion, then I think that is a most dangerous thing. Some of those who sit on these Labour Benches are called revolutionary, and hon. Members who sit opposite hold that they maintain the Constitution against the revolutionary elements here. But what can be more dangerous to the Constitution than to suggest that a Foreign Secretary should go in the teeth of the expressed public opinion of this country and of this House? If that be so, if the Constitution be flouted in that way as it would be flouted, I see quite clearly the dangers of the Constitution being subject to revolution because an action by the Foreign Secretary, which may involve this country in utmost peril in future, taken against the wish of this House and of the country as a whole, cannot be allowed to be in keeping with the permanent Constitution of this country; the Constitution must be altered and altered revolutionarily, if that doctrine really be the Constitutional Law of this land. Therefore. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that it is of profound importance that they should make it quite clear that, in their view, the Constitution of this country does not permit of such an action, whatever their view may be with regard to the merits of the individual case before the House.


It is perhaps advisable that someone who takes a very different view from the views expressed in recent speeches should represent another aspect of the picture. It has been amazing to me the way the pro-German propaganda seems to have succeeded in capturing the British public and a large number of Members of this House.




I will repeat it. It is a remarkable thing that in this House and in this country it is almost looked on as lèse-majesté, or a terrible thing, for anyone to put forward any case which might appear at the present moment as not pleasing to the German Government or the German people. The claims of our Allies are things to be treated only with scorn. I am speaking of some cartoons that have appeared in the Press. Yet only a few years ago we were contending against Germany for our very existence. There is another side to the picture which has been painted, another aspect of the whole case to be presented. There are some of us who have been by no means happy with the entanglement of this country in European intrigues and European complications. From the beginning we have foreseen, from the time of the negotiation of the Pacts, of which Locarno was the continuation, that we should find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day, of being dragged into complication, intrigues and antagonisms which are not of particular concern to the people of this country and still less the concern of the British Empire.

The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke of America joining the League. It struck me that America, looking on from across the Atlantic, would find in the discussions going on the very best reasons for not having joined the League. What is the unfortunate position that we are placed in now? We are placed in the position of quarrelling with our former Allies—France and Italy—in order to support our former enemies. And the instruction which many members of the House wish to give to the Foreign Secretary is that when he gets to Geneva he is to say to those who fought shoulder to shoulder with us during a long War for our very lives, "I am instructed to tell you that, whatever your views and wishes are, the British House of Commons and the British people are not prepared to listen to you, are not prepared to pay any regard to your views, and I insist on your voting in a certain way." I think the Foreign Secretary is absolutely and perfectly right in declining, on the broadest ground of national policy and in the interests of this country and of the Empire, to have his hands bound in that way.

6.0 P.M.

Public documents do not seem to express private conversations. I hold the Treaty of Locarno in my hand. No one is pledged in that document that Germany should have a seat on the Council or a permanent seat. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derby (Marquess of Hartington) said that every one of the signatories had agreed to this bargain. If that be so, how is it that M. Briand and Signor Mussolini and those who signed the Treaty of Locarno do not take the same view? They do not take the view that they are debarred from considering the addition of other permanent members to the Council, if Germany comes in. They are signatories to the Treaty of Locarno, as was the Prime Minister of Poland himself, who is now making this claim. The Amendment which the Labour party have placed on the Paper seems to assume that such a condition is part of the Treaty of Locarno itself. There is not one phrase in one single Clause of it, to the effect that Germany should be a permanent member of the Council. That may have been part of an arrangement made behind the scenes. I know nothing of it. It may have been part of such an arrangement, but the point which I want to make clear is that it is not part of any document, nor has any signature been given to it. There is not in existence any legally binding document which confines the Council at this meeting merely to the election of one Power. Therefore, it is absurd to talk about breaches of pledges when pledges have never been given in any formal or binding manner. If such pledges were given, they must have been given privately. They may have been given in conversation, but we have no official record of them.

In that case, do hon. Members realise how serious is the accusation against M. Briand and Signor Mussolini and M. Benes, if it is said that at this meeting the Council may consider nothing else except the admission of Germany, not merely to the League itself but to a permanent seat on the Council—a thing which was reserved from the beginning to whom? To the Allies who fought in the War and who signed the Treaty of Versailles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hold the documents in my hand, and I challenge anyone of my hon. Friends opposite to contradict me. I have here the first Constitution of the League in support of my words, and I say that it is a serious matter. Does it occur to us who it was who fought side by side with us during the War, and who fought against us in the War? I want to point out how serious it is that a right hon. Gentleman who has a great position should get up in this House and say that a particular step on the part of England in this matter would be a breach of a pledge. If it is a breach of a pledge on our part, it is equally a breach of a pledge on the part of the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of Italy. That pledge was either given by all or by none.

It seems to me that the view taken by some hon. Members is extraordinary. They talk rather lightly about the League of Nations as if we were the only people in it, when in fact we are only one State out of 50 and have only one vote, and it is suggested that we ought to tell the League what to do and direct their operations and instruct our delegate to instruct them how they are to proceed and thus tie his hands behind his back. But we are not in that position at all. Great Britain is only one Power in the League and only one member of a Council of 11, and the result of such action might be a result which we would all deplore. It might lead to a refusal to allow Germany to join the League at all if there was a refusal of requests for admission to the Council from Poland or Spain or other Powers. What would happen, supposing those Powers succeeded in blocking Germany's admission to the Council or even Germany's admission to the League? Is that the result which we would wish to achieve? Is that really the position which we wish to see created?

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said the wine of Locarno was badly corked. I thought it was an unfortunate phrase to use. I do not think it is for us to begin to use expressions of that kind. The Treaty of Locarno has never been very popular in France or Italy or in various Continental countries. We, taking perhaps a more extra-European view, and therefore anxious for a settlement of tumults and rumours of war on the Continent, made enormous efforts which everybody recognised at the time to induce a friendly atmosphere. It is surely unwise for us to say that those efforts, which were largely the efforts of our Foreign Secretary, have already begun to fail. I know the clever lawyers who are awaiting the opportunity created by such statements and the clever, caustic Gallic writers of the French Press who would be anxious to take advantage of such statements. Surely there never was an occasion when in the general interest it was more necessary for us to walk warily and act moderately than in this case. Surely it never was more necessary that we ought not to put the Foreign Secretary in the position of a delegate, on the pretext of some imaginary private conversation. Surely we ought not at this stage to lay it down that our representative on the Council is to insist that the Council must not do something which it is perfectly entitled to do under its constitution, but must do something else.

Many of those who write and speak on this subject seem to have given little attention to a detailed study of the constitution of the League, the nature and position of its Council or what has happened in the past. I have heard astonishing references made to the pro- posal that Spain should be a permanent member of the Council. Spain was one of the original non-elective members of the Council. She has been a non-permanent member of the Council ever since the League has been in existence. Let us put ourselves for a moment in the position of the leaders of a great nation on the Continent, and ask ourselves how we would feel if some outsider, who had never even been a member of the League, suddenly came in and took precedence of us and was placed in a position of honour and distinction above us on a body of which we had been members since its inception. Not merely is the outsider in this case to take precedence, but she is to be placed in such a position that, by her own vote, she can prevent others from obtaining membership. We can, therefore, understand that Poland feels doubtful, if Germany is one of the permanent members of the Council, as to her prospects of ever becoming a permanent member of the Council. If we were in the position of that country, would we feel happy and satisfied? If Britain were in that position, there is not a member of this House who would not make speeches very different from those which we have heard just now.


You would not be here at all.


Well I am here, and I say that this House and this people would never tolerate being put into, the position which I have described. When you have these difficulties, these national aspirations and the national pride of great countries to deal with, surely the Foreign Secretary naturally and rightly must feel his way and see what is the best way of achieving the fundamental object in view, namely, that the Treaty of Locarno should be ratified, that Germany should become a member of the League, and that Germany should have a seat on the Council. That is the fundamental policy, but to say to the Foreign Secretary that we shall agree to nothing else, even if it means that the Treaty is to become waste paper, is surely one of the most unreasonable propositions ever put before this House and one of the most impracticable and unstatesmanlike suggestions ever made. We may some day wonder whether we are right in continuing to give so much time, sadly wanted for our own affairs, in trying to reconcile the irreconcilable jealousies of the States of Europe. I sometimes wonder whether we would not be more usefully occupied in considering the development of the great Empire to which we all belong [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is no laughing matter to those who care about the future destinies of this country. It is no laughing matter whether or not on these questions and disputes we are not alienating, not foreign Powers who only come to us when they want something, but those who came to our aid spontaneously, who stood by us and helped us, and who would have stood by us to the very end. This is a really difficult and anxious problem, and the less we interfere the less difficulties we create. The less responsibility we take—I say it deliberately—in European affairs, the better. We should free our hands and turn our way across that highway of the seas which is our true road and not into the turmoil of European affairs, fluctuating and continually changing, in which we stand to be shot at by everybody, blamed by everybody, and loved by no-one.


I gather from the speech to which we have just listened with so much interest that the British people are not unanimous on this question. The right hon. Gentleman rather rubbed it in. He says that if there is a false appearance of unanimity on this question it is solely due to the wonderful success of the pro-German Press in this, country. At any rate, we now understand that the son of Dr. Ludwig Mond does not take the same point of view as this House of Commons and we also understand that the right hon. Gentleman who, I believe, does represent Carmarthen or at any rate has not yet ceased to act as representative of Carmarthen is making an admirable recruit for the front bench opposite! I only regret that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were not privileged to hear the new voice and to appreciate what it really meant and how valuable will be the new recruit. The Foreign Secretary is here now, and I think we might therefore press him on one or two points in the hope that before the Debate closes he or the Prime Minister may enlighten us. I gathered—and it seemed to be the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, most of which we had heard before—that the German Ambassador has invited the Foreign Secretary and the representatives of certain other Powers to a pre-Geneva Conference. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—I do not know if he had any special means of information—that the various Powers asked to this pre-Geneva Conference were those who would be on the Council. Is that so? Because it is very important that we should know as soon as possible what Powers are to be consulted in this preliminary Conference, whether they will include Spain and not Poland, or whether the Conference will be confined to the permanent members of the Council, otherwise the great Powers of Europe.

Obviously, it is of vital importance to the success of the negotiations at this preliminary conference that there should be present as few Powers as possible and also that the Foreign Secretary should have what he asks for and what I fear he is not getting, namely, a free hand. Let us assure him that we on these benches would be quite pleased that any man representing Great Britain at this Conference should have a free hand, within limits, and within such information as he is able to get from meetings and such Debates as this, and such a Press as we have seen during the last three weeks. If it were Lord Cecil of Chelwood who was to represent the Government, he would have a free hand. If it were Lord Grey, he would have a free hand. But our complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is not going with a free hand, but with his hands already tied by his previous statements in this country, and at Paris to M. Briand. That is our difficulty. We feel that the hands of this country are being tied, that the right hon. Gentleman, by his plea for freedom, is going there with his pledges made, with his previous conversations and speeches on record, and with his mind, apparently, made up.

What we want before this Debate closes is to get a clear indication from the Prime Minister himself as to what his views are on these various points which have been discussed, unfortunately, by the right hon. Gentleman with M. Briand, and, I believe, with the Polish Prime Minister as well. What we want to know is, not whether there have been any definite pledges, but whether the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, either about Poland, or, more particularly, about Spain, has the approval of the Prime Minister, and whether, when he goes back, he goes back unregenerate, unreformed by the expression of public opinion, unreformed by the expression of the opinion of his colleagues in the Cabinet. It is for that reason we say that the vitally important speech in this Debate is yet to be delivered. It is to come from the Prime Minister. Is he going to hand over this country to the tied hands of the Foreign Secretary, going to a free conference, as to which there have been no pledges whatever made to the public, and as to which the public knows nothing except what they have heard to-day? Is he to hand over the whole future destinies of this country to a Foreign Secretary who has, in a perfectly upright and straightforward way, given his honest views to M. Briand, given his honest views in the speech at Birmingham, and who is notorious—almost, I should say, famous—in sticking to his views against all obstacles? Are we going to have our affairs at this critical moment handed over to a gentleman of known obstinacy in retaining his opinions?

There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman set a magnificent example to every member of this House, and, I think, improved the traditions of this country. In the year 1917 he was Secretary of State for India, A report was published on the Mesopotamian muddle, which reflected, indeed, not in one particle upon the right hon. Gentleman, but upon other people concerned with the Government of India before he took charge. So punctilious was he on a point of honour, that he resigned his post. No one in the House of Commons expected it, but he did so because he held that there was a censure passed upon him. I ask him now, is not this an occasion as vital for the future position of the country? I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that when he goes to Geneva, if he goes to Geneva, he will, whatever the result of this Debate may be, continue to put forward at Geneva the views he has already put forward in private conversation and public speeches. It is not fair of him to do so. He knows in doing that he is not carrying out the views of the House of Commons or of the public at large. I doubt if he is carrying out the views of his own colleagues. If he does that, I think he will stultify the other great action of his life which reflected so credit ably upon British statesmanship.

The real difficulty is that in the interpretation of the Locarno spirit England stands on one side, and the Continental nations on the other. We did take up that burden of Locarno, knowing what a serious responsibility it was, but because we believed it would lead to peace, and the abolition of exactly that spirit which is now being shown by all the nations. I opposed it. I thought the burden was too heavy. The nation as a whole took up the burden, although it involved risks of war, because it believed it would make for peace. In all the correspondence in the Press, in the French Press, the Italian Press, the Spanish Press, even in the German Press, we have seen how this Locarno spirit can be twisted into exactly what we wanted to avoid. How is it possible for us to maintain our point of view, which we know is the right point of view, that Locarno was intended to bring people together, and not to build up a fresh series of alliances? Is it possible to maintain that English point of view, unless we have at the Conference a man who is imbued with the British point of view, that fair-play comes first, and that, whether countries have been in previous times allies or enemies they are to be measured at that Conference by their contribution to real peace, instead of to a reconstruction of the old balance of power within the Council of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

I do not think it will be necessary to delay the House for very long, But I think the Debate has reached a point when it is advisable that I should intervene. The first observation which I would make is this, that, although a great deal has been said about the impropriety of a statesman being allowed to speak for his country with what is colloquially termed "a free hand," those words are urged with much greater force by the right hon. Gentlemen when they sit on Opposition than they urged them when they were in office. It is not two years ago when I remember the Leader of the Liberal party, the Earl of Oxford, making an observation about the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party, who at that time was Prime Minister. On the 9th July of the year before last, he said: The one thing that emerges perfectly clearly is that the Prime Minister is going to Paris. Why he is going to Paris, or what he is going to say when he gets to Paris, and, still more, what he is going to say when he comes back, all lies on the knees of the gods. So, to a certain extent, that kind of criticism is common talk. All the same, I would like to state here categorically, first of all, that, contrary to some belief and much desire, there is no difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the other members of His Majesty's Government. Contrary to what has, perhaps, sometimes happened before, we have complete trust in one another, and, when the Foreign Secretary and Lord Cecil go to Geneva, the first thing, the paramount thing, to which they will devote their attention is to see that Germany becomes a member of the League, with a seat on the Council. That is the primary business. That is what they hope to achieve. It is quite true that there is a solid public opinion in this country. It is quite true that a solid public opinion, not necessarily agreeing with ours, exists in other countries, and it is quite true although some Members of this House are apt to forget, that we are, after all, great as our influence may be, only one Power at Geneva among many. We cannot, therefore, always get our own way, and it is impossible to avoid a consideration—and sometimes a delicate consideration—of the desires and ambitions of other countries.

It has been said—and how simple it would be if it were possible!—that we ought to have seen to it that no question was coming up in March but the question of the admission of Germany. I wish that were so. The Foreign Secretary has told the House that he used his every endeavour that it should be so. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to infer that it was within the power of the Foreign Secretary to attain that which he desired in this matter. I submit that it is not within his power. This question of the enlargement of the Council by the admission of new members is no new question that has suddenly appeared upon the horizon since Locarno. It is an old question. Poland, Spain and Brazil have been urging what they consider their claims, and discussion has proceeded on and off, long before Locarno to the present day, and, of course, before this Government came into office. It would have had no effect if we had said we would not consider certain subjects, if other people chose to raise them. We cannot be the arbiters of the agenda at Geneva, and, I submit to the House, that we could not have helped matters at all had we said, two or three months ago, that we, for our part, would not consider any other subject than the admission of Germany, and that if any other country had brought forward this claim, we should then and there have black-balled it at Geneva. Had we said that, we could not have prevented the subject being brought forward, and I ask the House to consider whether a definite statement of that nature would help or prejudice what we all desire to see, and that is, the free and unconditional entrance of Germany to the Council of the League of Nations?

It is quite obvious to anyone who has been present during this Debate that there are—quite unfairly, in my view—suspicions about commitments and so forth. I think this partly arises from the fact that, perhaps, those who criticise and indulge in that form of criticism have much keener and cleverer minds than we on these benches have, and are always suspicious of more simple people when they embark upon anything. I will tell the House perfectly plainly what is our position in regard to Spain. We believe in continuity of foreign policy. We believe it is a good thing that a change of Government should not necessarily mean a change in our foreign policy. I have renewed that support of Spain which was given to her under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George). There is no condition attaching to that as to time or occasion. We have given no pledge apart from that to any country of any kind, and we are under no obligation to any country.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who spoke last, made some observation about the speech of my right hon. Friend at Birmingham. Not myself being suspicious, I took that speech for what it was intended to mean. My right hon. Friend felt that he ought to place before the country the reasons why the discussions which will almost certainly come up at Geneva are going to come up. He placed these reasons before the people, and explained to them what the case was. That is very different from committing the Government or himself to the view that all he said by way of explanation was right. I think it was his duty to do what he did in view of the fact that so much discussion has been aroused in this country on the subject. The agitation that has sprung up on this matter has made the task of my right hon. Friend much more difficult. When he was at Locarno, there was no question of there being separate camps in Europe. All met on terms of equality, with no thought of one side getting the better of the other. The result of the agitation, and the exchanges taking place between the journals of the civilised countries of the world has certainly had the effect of causing—temporarily I hope—a kind of schism between those who would feel they would like to range themselves on the side of France, and those who felt they would range themselves on the side of Germany. It has begun to create two camps—a fatal thing. The most difficult task of my right hon. Friend when he goes to Geneva is to try, before these things have gone too far, to obliterate them, and to bring back that spirit which he did so much to create and foster in Europe.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon spoke about our bullying Germany. He is a master of phraseology. But until he used that word, I confess that it had never occurred to me that there was the remotest possibility of anything of the kind occurring. Nothing of the kind will happen, so far as we have any power to prevent it. My right hon. Friend is working for a solution which will be acceptable to all the nations. His work, as I have said before, has been made twice as difficult by the kind of agitation that has been raised, because there has crept once again into the common parlance of Germany and the world, those phrases which have done so much harm in the past, "If such a thing happens, it will be a victory for Germany," or, "a victory for France— fatal words! But I myself have every confidence that my right hon. Friend, in spite of these difficulties, these aggravated difficulties, will be able to achieve the primary object of his visit to Geneva, and that is to get Germany into the League and into the Council.

Going back to what I was saying a little earlier in my remarks, we should all have rejoiced had that been the only business to be done. I have explained to the House how in my view it was impossible for us to prevent what has occurred. It is not our fault; but will anyone say that, supposing at Geneva all the nations, including Germany, agreed on some point, we have at once to say: "No, we are only here to consider the election of Germany, and we refuse to do anything else"? It is in such cases as that that I consider it impossible to fetter my right hon. Friend with instructions as to what he is to say in any one of the score of difficult positions with which he must be faced. He knows the feeling of this country. He knows the feeling of the Government. He knows the feeling of the House of Commons. He knows What is his primary task. But I must say that I do feel this: that when I look back at the immense service which he rendered to this country in the work he did so recently, where he used his own discretion—in constant communication with his own Government—I am a little puzzled that there are so many Members of this House who should turn round and say that he cannot be trusted as Foreign Secretary to go to Geneva unless he can tell us categorically and exactly what he is going to say, whether "Yes" or "No" to any one of the propositions put forward.

His Majesty's Government are sending him and Lord Cecil in the fullest confidence that they will deserve the confidence of the country no less than that of the Government. I am convinced that when they return the Members of this House who, perhaps, are inclined to be too suspicious and critical of their good faith and ability, will be the first to acknowledge once more that they have held high the honour of the country, and have built one more stone in the Temple of the Peace of Europe.


We have just heard a full statement from the Prime Minister, and the fact that the party opposite are a united as well as a simple party. I can only conclude that he added the latter statement because we have just heard the simplest of the new recruits. I suppose in a few weeks' time, when the Australian cricket team arrives, we shall be putting people in to the first wicket with a view to what they call "playing themselves in." The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) who does not represent Carmarthen, who places the national interest before any party consideration, and who feels that an election in this period of the history of the Government would be against the national interest, has started this afternoon "to play himself in." But there are a large number of people who previously heard his views on the league of Nations and would like to have the opportunity to be a bowler as soon as possible.

There is one fact, and a very significant fact, and it is this: the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva, not as representing this country alone; he is going to sit as the representative of the British Empire. Significantly, we know that there has been an exchange of telegrams and communications, and we know that the Prime Minister of Australia less than a few weeks ago said that so far as Australian policy was concerned he was not going to trust it to British statesmen. Not a word has been said this afternoon of the Dominion point of view on this all-important question. After all, that is from the Empire party! If we were sitting on that side, and had forgotten to mention one word about Empire, I can imagine the kind of speeches that we would have heard in regard to ourselves. The fact remains that, although the Dominions are concerned, whatever their views may be, whatever expression has been given by them, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is to be given a free hand.

But the Prime Minister said that, so far as the Foreign Secretary was concerned, he was not going to bind him as to what he was going to say when he got to Geneva. With the greatest respect, that is not the complaint. No one on this side of the House, neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), has ever asked, and no one asks, what the Foreign Secretary is going to say when he gets to Geneva. We are much more concerned with what he is going to do. It is all-important, because it is no good to talk glibly in this House about, "We are one Power." Since when? In the Counsels of the League of Nations, in contributions to the world's affairs, is it to be assumed that Great Britain is a mere cypher? I put it to the Foreign Secretary that our complaint is that he, by his action, by his refusal to state definitely a British point of view, has encouraged all this intrigue and suspicion. When he returned from Locarno, when this House welcomed him, when this House said, in substance, "We appreciate what you have done," and when this House asked "What is the position of Germany?" so far as this House is concerned, and so far as the country is concerned, there was only one interpretation of what he said, and it was a simple one—that at the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations Germany was to be admitted as an absolute right, and that no question of any other nation's membership was involved. That was what we understood, that was what the country understood, that was what Germany was led to believe.

The Prime Minister asks: "What causes all this suspicion?" The action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He goes to Birmingham—I am summarising, and if I am wrong he will correct me, but I have refreshed my memory—and addresses his constituents and makes the forthcoming Conference the one and only subject of his speech. He opens by saying, first, that Germany will be welcomed, that Germany will be admitted—that is beyond doubt; but then he goes on to say: "But the second question to be discussed at Geneva is the new composition of the Council." That was the first indication, that was the first thing that created in the minds of everybody a suspicion that his hands were already tied. If any proof of that be needed, it is to be found in his refusal to answer the very pregnant question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. When he put a specific question this afternoon as to his attitude the right hon. Gentleman positively refused to say. So far as our party are concerned we regret the necessity of a division. We regret it because we believe that it is a good thing to keep foreign politics and especially the question of the League of Nations outside the party arena; but the answer, and the general attitude of the Government today, are such as to render it imperative that we, at least, must be free from any responsibility, and we are going to show it in the Division Lobby.

I do not think we need waste time on the question of the composition of the Council. I think it is merely playing with the question to talk about Poland, Brazil or Spain—they are occupying our attention at this moment. All we are concerned with, all we ask for, and all we will register our protest in the Lobby upon, is this simple and direct issue—that at the forthcoming meeting the entry of Germany should be the one and only matter for consideration. We do that because we believe the nation's honour is involved, because we believe that any departure from that issue will be looked upon as a breach of faith, because we believe the good name of this country is involved, because we believe the right hon. Gentleman has not got a free hand, because he is already tied, because he has already committed himself, and committed himself in a way that is not consistent with the views of the great mass of our fellow countrymen. That is the reason why we will go to a Division, and in doing it I wish to indicate quite clearly our regret at the course, but, certainly, we believe we are registering our protest in the best interests of the country.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 224.

Division No. 64.] AYES [3.50 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Dawson, Sir Philip Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Dixey, A. C. Loder, J. de V.
Albery, Irving James Eden, Captain Anthony Lougher, L.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Edmondson, Major A. J. Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Lumley, L. B.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Elliot, Captain Walter E. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Elveden, Viscount Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) MacIntyre, Ian
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Astor, Viscountess Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) MacRobert, Alexander M.
Atholl, Duchess of Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Falle, Sir Bertram G. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Balniel, Lord Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Malone, Major P. B.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Fielden, E. B. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Forrest, W. Margesson, Captain D.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Foster, Sir Harry S. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Bennett, A. J. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Merriman, F. B.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Gates, Percy Meyer, Sir Frank
Berry, Sir George Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mline, J. S. Wardlaw-
Bethel, A. Grace, John Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)
Betterton, Henry B. Grant, J. A. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Greene, W. P. Crawford Moore, Sir Newton J.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Gretton, Colonel John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Blundell, F. N. Grotrian, H. Brent Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Boothby, R. J. G. Gunston, Captain D. W. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Nelson, Sir Frank
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Brass, Captain W. Hammersley, S. S. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Briggs, J. Harold Hanbury, C. o'Neill, Major Rt. Hon, Hugh
Brittain, Sir Harry Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harland, A. Pennefather, Sir John
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Penny, Frederick George
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hartington, Marquess of Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Perring, William George
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Buckingham, Sir H. Haslam, Henry C. Power, Sir John Cecil
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Hawke, John Anthony Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Bullock, Captain M. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Preston, William
Burman, J. B. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Price, Major C. W. M.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Henn, Sir Sydney H. Radford, E. A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Ramsden, E.
Campbell, E. T. Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Reid, Capt A. S. C. (Warrington)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hills, Major John Waller Remnant, Sir James
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth. S.) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston) Holland, Sir Arthur Ropner, Major L.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.) Holt, Captain H. P. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Homan, C. W. J. Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth)
Chapman, Sir S. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Salmon, Major I.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hopkins, J. W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Christie, J. A. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hume, Sir G. H. Sandon, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cope, Major William Hurd, Percy A. Savery, S. S.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Hurst, Gerald B. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Jephcott, A. R. Skelton, A. N.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dalkeith, Earl of King, Captain Henry Douglas Smithers, Waldron
Davies, Dr. Vernon Knox, Sir Alfred Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lamb, J. Q. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sprot, Sir Alexander
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Warrender, Sir Victor Wolmer, Viscount
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Watts, Dr. T. Wood, Sir H. K.(Woolwich, West)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wise. Sir Fredric
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) Withers, John James
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Harris, Percy A. Sexton, James
Ammon, Charles George Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Batey, Joseph Hore-Belisha, Leslie Sitch, Charles H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Briant, Frank Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)
Broad, F. A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kelly, W. T. Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas Kennedy, T. Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Clowes, S. Kenyon, Barnet Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Lansbury, George Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Connolly, M. Livingstone, A. M. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cope, Major William Lowth, T. Thurtle, E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon) Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Mackinder, W Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) MacNeill-Weir, L. Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Day, Colonel Harry Montague, Frederick Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dennison, R. Morris, R. H. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Naylor, T. E. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Oliver, George Harold Welsh, J. C.
Fenby, T. D Palin, John Henry Whiteley, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G M. Paling, W. Wiggins, William Martin
Gibbins, Joseph Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M. Ponsonby, Arthur Windsor, Walter
Gosling, Harry Potts, John S. Wright, W.
Greenall, T. Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Riley, Ben TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.
Groves, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Grundy, T. W. Rose, Frank H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Resolution agreed to.

Division No. 65.] AYES. [6.54 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Harney, E. A. Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
Ammon, Charles George Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Sitch, Charles H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snell, Harry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Char'es W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Broad, F. A. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Bromley, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kelly, W. T. Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C. Kenyon, Barnet Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Lawson, John James Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Connolly, M. Lindley, F. W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cove, W. G. Livingstone, A. M. Thurtle, E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Viant, S. P.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Mackinder, W. Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacNeill-Weir, L. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dennison, R. Montague, Frederick Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dunnico, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Naylor, T. E. Welsh, J. C.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Palin, John Henry Whiteley, W.
Fenby, T. D. Paling, W. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gibbins, Joseph Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M. Purcell, A. A. Windsor, Walter
Gosling, Harry Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wright, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Riley, Ben Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenall, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Scrymgeour, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Scurr, John
Groves, T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Grundy, T. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Edmondson, Major A. J.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Albery, Irving James Campbell, E. T. Elveden, Viscount
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.) Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Astor, Viscountess Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chapman, Sir S. Fermoy, Lord
Balniel, Lord Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Fielden, E. B.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Chilcott, Sir Warden Ford, Sir P. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Christie, J. A. Foster, Sir Harry S.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Clarry, Reginald George Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Bethel, A. Cobb, Sir Cyril Gates, Percy
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Cohen, Major J. Brunel Goff, Sir Park
Blundell, F. N. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Gower, Sir Robert
Boothby, R. J. G. Cooper, A. Duff Grace, John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cope, Major William Grant, J. A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Brass, Captain W. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Gretton, Colonel John
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Grotrian, H. Brent
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Gunston, Captain D. W
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Curzon, Captain Viscount Hanbury, C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Dalkeith, Earl of Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brown, Brig.-Gen-H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Harland, A.
Buckingham, Sir H. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Harrison, G. J. C.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Davies, Dr. Vernon Hartington, Marquess of
Bullock, Captain M. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Dawson, Sir Philip Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Burman, J. B. Eden, Captain Anthony Haslam, Henry C.
Hawke, John Anthony MacRobert, Alexander M. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Shepperson, E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Malone, Major P. B. Skelton, A. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Margesson, Captain D. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hills, Major John Waller Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Smithers, Waldron
Hilton, Cecil Merriman, F. B. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Meyer, Sir Frank Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Holland, Sir Arthur Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Holt, Captain H. P. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Storry-Deans, R.
Homan, C. W. J. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Nelson, Sir Frank Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hume, Sir G. H. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hurd, Percy A. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Oakley, T. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Jacob, A. E. Pennefather, Sir John Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Perkins, Colonel E. K. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Jephcott, A. R. Perring, Sir William George Warner, Brigadier-General w. w.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Watts, Dr. T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Phillpson, Mabel wells, S. R.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Power, Sir John Cecil White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Kindersley, Major G. M. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
King, Captain Henry Douglas Preston, William Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Lamb, J. Q. Raine, W. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Ropner, Major L. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Loder, J. de V. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Wise, Sir Fredric
Looker, Herbert William Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Withers, John James
Lord, Walter Greaves- Salmon, Major I. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Lougher, L. Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sandeman, A. Stewart Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)
Lumley, L. R. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Sanderson, Sir Frank Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
MacIntyre, Ian Sandon, Lord Wragg, Herbert
McLean, Major A. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Macmillan, Captain H. Savery, S. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Hennessy.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Macquisten, F. A. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)