§ 4. Mr. DENVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has read the charges made in evidence before the Committee of the Second Assembly of the League of Nations declaring that bribery had been offered to Government officials both at home and abroad; and if he will ask the League to publish the names of the firm and of the officials?
§ Sir J. SIMONMy hon. Friend is referring to a report made at Geneva 13 years ago and on examining it I can find no reference to evidence having been given. My hon. Friend's question seems to be based on a widespread misapprehension, and I should like to make plain to the House the source of the error. In a green-covered pamphlet entitled "The Secret International Armament Firms at Work," and extensively circulated in this country and abroad, there appears on page 5 the statement that in 1921 a League of Nations Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the problem of the private manufacture of arms, came to six conclusions in condemnation of the system and the second conclusion is the one quoted in my hon. Friend's question. In point of fact the League of Nations Commission came to no such conclusions, but on the contrary produced a report—I have it here—in which they set out a series of general considerations both pro and con on the subject and in view of the difficulty of arriving at recommendations in the face of these contrasting considerations concluded that it was unable
to reach a final conclusion upon the difficult and complicated topic submitted to its consideration. It cannot at the present 945 stage of its deliberations either recommend the abolition of private manufacture or advise upon the particular steps to be taken to control it, should it be decided that on the balance of advantage private manufacture must be allowed to continue".It is greatly to be regretted that in the pamphlet to which I have referred the League of Nations Commission's report should not only be misrepresented in that considerations are set out on the one side as though they were conclusions, but that it should have suppressed all reference to considerations on the other side and the plain statement of the League of Nations Commission that in these circumstances they did not recommend abolition. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting his question and hope that this answer will secure that no further circulation is given to such misstatements.
§ Mr. DENVILLEIs the Foreign Secretary aware that this question was put down with the object of clearing up something which has been a source of annoyance for a considerable time? I consider his answer most satisfactory.