§ 9. Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Hungary has applied to have the subject matter of its disputes with Rumania heard under the Treaty of Trianon by the appropriate mixed arbitral tribunal and, if so, when the application was made; whether he is aware that such tribunal declared its competency to hear and adjudicate upon such disputes and that the Rumanian Government then withdrew its arbitrator; that the Hungarian Government then applied to the Council of the League of Nations under the Treaty to appoint persons in his place and, if so, when; whether such application has been acceded to; and why the procedure for settlement of disputes under the Treaty has not been followed?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs regards the first part of the question the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No application was every made by the Hungarian Government for the claims of Hungarian nationals in regard to their property in Transylvania to be heard by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal set up by the Treaty of Trianon. The claims were brought before the Tribunal by the nationals themselves and the Rumanian Government contested the competence of the Tribunal to hear these specific cases. As regards the remaining parts of the question, the position is that the Tribunal declared itself competent on the 10th of January of the present year and Rumania brought the matter before the Council of the League on the 7th of March under Article 11 of the Covenant as a circumstance tending to affect the good understanding on which peace with Hungary depended. Hungary appealed to the Council later during the March session and asked that the Council should proceed to fill the vacancy caused by the withdrawal of the Rumanian judge from the Tribunal. The Hungarian appeal is still under the consideration of the Council. A final decision has not yet been taken.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs the Foreign Secretary using his good offices with the Royal Rumanian Government to prevent a defiance of the League of Nations by one of its State members?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe Council did me the honour—the very arduous and invidious honour—of naming me as rapporteur on this question and associated with me to help me in my action two other members of the Council. That Committee of three have used their utmost endeavours with both parties to bring them to a friendly settlement of this unhappy dispute.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWill the right hon. Gentleman, so long as he is connected with this dispute, consider the interests of the peasants who have got the land as well as the landlords who have lost it?
§ Mr. ROBERT HUDSONArising out of that reply, may I ask whether the campaign conducted on behalf of interested parties outside this House is not doing grave injury to the good name of Great Britain in South-Eastern Europe?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIf I listened to that campaign, I think I should be disgracing my country. My duty as the representative of my country on the Council of the League, when entrusted with the task of rapporteur on such questions, is to preserve impartiality and do my best to reconcile the contending parties.