Lords Sitting of 2 April 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool sack.

BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER) BILL. [H.L.]
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the number of councillors of boroughs and Metropolitan Boroughs and matters incidental thereto, and to move that the Bill be now read 1a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Be La Warr.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (FERRIES) BILL.
Read 2a

EX-PUBLIC TRUSTEE IN IRELAND.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to call attention to the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock, late Irish Public Trustee, and to his treatment on retiring; and to move for a public Committee of Inquiry into his case. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to put the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock before you very briefly, and I trust that, if I make a prima, facie case, you will support my Motion. In 1903 Mr. George Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, pressed Mr. McClintock to take the new post of Public Trustee. Mr. McClintock at first declined, as the salary that Mr. Wyndham mentioned was only £1,500 a year. Mr. McClintock was receiving over £2,000 a year from his employment, and he therefore objected, as he would be at a considerable loss because, his age being 47, his pension would be very small. Under pressure from Mr. Wyndham, however, Mr. McClintock subsequently agreed to accept £1,200 a year, as the Treasury were not inclined to sanction £1,500 a year. He remained in that position for twenty years. Then the Free State Government came into being and, as Mr. McClintock was a loyalist and had five sons in the

51
British Army, he was told that his services were not required. He thereupon wrote about his pension. Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, said that he was not pensionable, but on search being made, certain documents turned up and it was found that he was pensionable. He received a pension of £300 a year and a gratuity of £800.
Mr. McClintock's son communicated with Mr. Thomas, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, and received the following reply:—
"I understand from my private secretary that you wish to see me to place before me the case of your father, Mr. Arthur McClintock, who was formerly the Public Trustee in Ireland.
"I have been looking very carefully into the case, and I find that it received the careful and sympathetic attention of my predecessor, the Duke of Devonshire, who took the matter up personally with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am convinced that the case has received all possible consideration, and that no further action can be taken in the matter."
I have here a copy of a letter from Mr. Stanley Baldwin to the Duke of Devonshire. I will not read the whole of it, but I will read one passage that applies. It is dated March 26, 1923, and states:—
"While they are satisfied that Mr. McClintock was given to understand in 1903 that he was pensionable, no evidence has been produced to show that either George Wyndham, or anyone else, gave any promise that he would become entitled to an addition of years."
Since then there has been received a letter from Mr. Murray Hornibrook, who was private secretary to Mr. Wyndham, in which he says:—
"Dear McCLINTOCK,
"The preliminary steps leading up to your appointment as Public Trustee were the subject of correspondence between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. This correspondence was, at the most, semi-official, and, if the letters still exist, they must be among the papers of these respective heads of Departments. I have no copies of them. The original idea was to give you £1,500 per annum. I recollect that Chamberlain demurred to this amount, and suggested a lower figure. Wyndham's reply was to the effect that it was necessary to secure a man of certain standing for a position of such importance, and that, as a person of suitable age and standing would not have many years to serve before he reached pensionable age, it would, in his opinion, be necessary to offer more generous terms, at least in the case of this first appointment. I do not
52
remember exactly how the letter was worded, but it was to the effect that the higher rate of pay which he suggested, or, rather, the difference between the rate he suggested and that which Chamberlain proposed, might be treated in a manner similar to that which the Treasury had recently sanctioned in the case of Sir George Holmes … who was appointed rather late in life, and who was given the usual salary of £1,200, plus £300, or £1,500 in all, the extra £300 being a set-off to the smaller pension his shorter service would entitle him to upon retirement. There were several conferences after this between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, and I understood that, failing the higher rate of pay, you would receive some 'added years' to your service as compensation.
"Yours sincerely,
"MURRAY HORNIBROOK."
Mr. Stanley Baldwin, in his letter dealing with this, says:—
"I cannot think that there could be any justification for now giving him additional benefits, which would certainly not have been given in 1903, and which are contrary to the established practice of the Civil Service. The exceptional gratuity which you suggest that Parliament should be asked to vote would amount to over £1,600, and could only be defended on the plea that his salary of £1,200, with pension on his length of service, is inadequate remuneration for his services."
In 1913 Mr. Wyndham wrote to Mr. McClintock as follows:—
"My dear Mr. McCLINTOCK,
"I am more interested than you might think to hear how you are getting on as Public Trustee. I made you a pioneer, after close consultation with all who could advise me, and notably with Lord Halsbury.
"Everyone felt that a Public Trustee was necessary, and you, under my auspices, became a Public Trustee. I shall never forget that you surrendered £2,000 a year of private emolument to accept £1,200 a year in this public capacity; and I feel that, after ten years of public service, your salary ought to be increased.
"I am equally sure that your 'sphere of influence' ought to be extended. I should rejoice to learn that the Chief Secretary had persuaded the Prime Minister to extend your sphere of influence, and pending that (if it has to be suspended) I am convinced that anyone handling £5,000,000 in a public capacity ought to have a 'rise' in salary.
"If Mr. Birrell or Mr. Lloyd George desire further particulars, I shall be most ready to supply them.
"Yours Sincerely,
"GEORGE WYNDHAM."
I hope that those two letters will be regarded as an answer to Mr. Stanley Baldwin's letter from which I have just quoted extracts. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Committee of Inquiry be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Arthur McClintock, late Irish Public Trustee, and his treatment on retiring.—(Lord Muskerry.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to make a few remarks upon this Motion. Many sad and terrible matters have been discussed in this House in relation to Ireland. This is not a case of that nature. It relates to a public servant who has done his duty thoroughly and well and to the satisfaction of all who placed their trust in him. Mr. McClintock was the first Public Trustee for Ireland. He handled many millions of trustee money with discretion and probity. May I state the facts concerning his appointment? In 1903, as my noble friend has stated, Mr. George Wyndham offered Mr. McClintock the post of Public Trustee for Ireland at a salary of £1,500 per annum. Mr. Wyndham said that he wanted a man of experience and Mr. McClintock was then 47 years of age. This was an entirely new office in Ireland. The Treasury objected to a salary of £1,500 a year and, under pressure from Mr. Wyndham, Mr. McClintock accepted £l,200 a year.
Owing to a change of Government in Ireland, Mr. McClintock retired in 1923, as my noble friend has already explained to your Lordships. In February of that year Mr. Baldwin, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to our Public Trustee saying that he was not entitled to a pension at all. I am repeating what my noble friend has said. Naturally, that took Mr. McClintock somewhat by surprise. As a public servant he had done his duty well to the satisfaction of all my countrymen who had dealings with him. Subsequently, on the Treasury being reminded of a memorandum which Mr. McClintock had had read to him some years previously, a pension was granted for his actual service of twenty years. He served in Ireland for twenty years
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, on hearing from Mr. McClintock that on his appointment Mr. Wyndham had informed him that his age would be considered, applied for what is called ten "added years." "Added years," I believe, is a technical expression that is used by the Treasury. In refusing this
54
application Mr. Baldwin, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the noble Duke saying that no evidence had been produced to show that Mr. Wyndham had made any promise of an addition of years; also that the granting of an exceptional gratuity could only be defended on the plea that the salary with pension on length of service was inadequate. My noble friend Lord Muskerry has read to your Lordships a letter from Mr. George Wyndham's private secretary, Mr. Hornibrook, whom I know personally and whom I knew very well at that time. He was subsequently appointed a Stipendiary Magistrate and did his work very well. I have every reason to believe that what is written in that letter is the fact.
I want to point out that there is a precedent. Sir George Holmes's name is mentioned in that precedent. He was appointed at a late age in life and was given a salary of £1,500 a year. But Mr. McClintock accepted a salary of £1,200 a year and surely he is entitled in those circumstances, as a man of 47, who had given up £2,000;, year from his own private business, and after all the good work he has done—we all respected him over there, and I know the good work that he did—to some consideration and to something in respect of "added years."
With regard to the Committee of Inquiry, I do not suppose that the Government would reopen the case before a Committee, but after the precedent that I have adduced and the letters which your Lordships have heard read, I think that Mr. McClintock's case is one to be considered, remembering that the other man was appointed at £1,500 a year. I do not want to say anything disagreeable about his being an Irishman and not being treated in a proper way. It is not an Irish grievance at all. It is the case of a public servant who has done his duty properly, with probity, dignity and honesty, and I hope that the Government will consider that he is worthy of more consideration than has been meted out to him.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, in replying to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, and the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, I will re-state the facts of this case from the Government point of view. I will do so briefly, but

55
I trust adequately. It is the case, as has been stated, that Mr. Arthur McClintock was appointed Public Trustee for the purpose of the Irish Purchase Acts in 1903, at a salary of £l,200 per annum. Mr. McClintock was at that time aged 47. The appointment was made by the Lord-Lieutenant on the recommendation of Mr. George Wyndham, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was personally acquainted with him, and Mr. McClintock states, and there is no reason to doubt his statement, that Mr. Wyndham not only promised that the post, which was a new one, was to be pensionable, but also held out a hope that in assessing his pension full consideration would be given to the fact that he had entered the public service at a more advanced age than usual.
Nevertheless, although it was a most extraordinary omission on his part, no action was taken by Mr. McClintock to make known to the proper authority—namely, the Treasury—that the post was to be pensionable, nor was any attempt made to implement the suggestion that the rather advanced age at which he entered the service would be taken into consideration. If Mr. McClintock or Mr. Wyndham had at the time endeavoured to arrange for the post to be made pensionable, it is probable, though not certain, that the Treasury would have agreed. If, however, at that time, or at any time subsequent to 1903, they had endeavoured to have the post declared a professional office under the Superannuation Act, 1859, so that years—and this is the point of the noble Earl who spoke last—might have been added for the purpose of reckoning pension it is quite certain—and I must emphasise this point—that the Treasury would have refused. They would have had to refuse. There can be no doubt whatever about this, because for some considerable time prior to Mr. McClintock's appointment the Treasury had, as was well known throughout the Civil Service, and as had been announced in Parliament, discontinued, as the result of a Report of a Royal Commission, the practice of adding years for pension purposes in the case of new offices. It is not possible, therefore, that Mr. Wyndham could have succeeded if he had endeavoured to make such an arrangement.
But in fact, as I have said, no effort was made by any one to take the neces-
56
sary steps even to render the office pensionable; and as he was serving in a non-pensionable capacity, Mr. McClintock was not subject to the rule requiring established civil servants to retire at the age of sixty-five. He served on until 1923, when he was aged sixty-seven, and then apparently for the first time discovered that he really had no right to a pension at all. I say it is an extraordinary circumstance that Mr. McClintock, a man experienced in affairs, had apparently for nearly twenty years never taken the slightest trouble to inquire how he really stood about his pension, and even when he reached the age of sixty-five, which he must have known was the retiring age limit if he was a pensionable civil servant, he still did not inquire about his pension. He remained in his post until he was sixty-seven, and it was only in 1922—that is, the year before he retired—that he raised the matter formally with the authorities.
Mr. McClintock did, at this very late hour, make representations in the matter, and explained fully to the noble Duke who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances of his appointment. My noble friend went into the matter very fully, and he put the whole details before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a result, the Treasury took what after so long a time I believe to be an unprecedented step. Two or three days before Mr. McClintock's retirement, they gazetted the office of Public Trustee, Ireland, as a pensionable office and issued a Civil Service certificate to Mr. McClintock, whereby the whole of his service, including the two years he had served after the age of 65, was made pensionable, and he became entitled to a pension of £340 per annum and a lumpsum payment of £827. This action on the part of the Treasury was, of course, legally within their discretion; but I believe I am right in saying that it was the widest stretch of that discretion which has ever been made.
Nevertheless, it is urged that "added years" ought to have been allowed to Mr. McClintock under the Act of 1859. I have explained why that was impossible; and in the face of that explanation I do not think any reasonable person could press such a claim. The fact is that Mr. McClintock has been awarded, and is in possession of, the highest pension to

57
which he could in any circumstances become entitled. In those circumstances the Government cannot really agree to the appointment of a Committee. I think your Lordships will agree that the case of a civil servant who has been dealt with as considerately—I think I may say as considerately—as Mr. McClintock does not call for a Committee. Those are the facts of this case as decided by the late Government, and to that decision the present Government adheres. I submit with confidence that in this matter Mr. McClintock, in all the circumstances, has been treated with great consideration.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I rather hesitate to intervene for a very few moments, and I would not do so were I not convinced that there is a strong prima facie case for re-opening this question, and further considering Mr. McClintock's claim. What are the facts admitted by the noble Lord? He began by telling us that Mr. George Wyndham, when he was Chief Secretary and when Mr. McClintock, at his request, took this office of Public Trustee, definitely promised him that he should have a pension. That is not denied. Secondly, he further promised him that full consideration would be given to the fact that Mr. McClintock took his post at an advanced age; in other words, that that should be taken into consideration when the amount of pension was to be considered. I ask your Lordships: Would any public servant having received that solemn promise from Mr. George Wyndham, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, have had any doubt whatever that the Government of the day, whatever Government it was, would give effect to the promise of the Chief Secretary?
The noble Lord makes some comment upon the fact that Mr. McClintock did not go to some office in Dublin or elsewhere, and get some formal official recognition of Mr. George Wyndham's promise. Speaking for myself, and I have no doubt for most of your Lordships, I would say that if you had had a definite promise from the Chief Secretary that such and such would be the case you would be content with it. I should have felt myself acting somewhat meanly if I had said: "I do not value the Chief Secretary's promise. I shall go to some office and get it officially confirmed." Mr. McClintock
58
did what I think most honourable men would have done. He treated Mr. George Wyndham's promise as binding upon that Government, and any future Government. I beg the Government to give effect to the solemn promise made to a State official by a Cabinet Minister to whom the Government of Ireland was entrusted at that time. That promise was made and acted upon—do not let us forget that—by Mr. McClintock, because on the faith of this promise he gave up his post of £2,000 a year and accepted £1,200 a year for the rest of his official life.
It would really be an astonishing thing if the present Government should say to Mr. McClintock: "You had no business to trust Mr. George Wyndham; you ought not to have taken his word; you ought to have got some official confirmation. Although you have acted for twenty years at what is admittedly a far lower salary than you would have been getting had you not taken that, post and not believed Mr. Wyndham—although you have done all that, you will get nothing." May I add this? It may be said, and I think quite truly, that Mr. Baldwin decided this matter on the material before him, I think it was in March, 1923. Mr. Baldwin decided that he should have a pension, but he also decided that no years should be added to his service for the purpose of calculating the pension; he was to get but the bare pension to which his years of service entitled him.
If no new facts had come to light since that decision no one would ask the Government to reopen the case. But what are the new facts in the case? They are these. At that time Mr. Baldwin did not know that Mr. Wyndham had, in effect, promised that these years of service should be added. That is one thing Mr. Baldwin did not know. On the contrary, Mr. Baldwin said:
"no evidence has been produced to show that either George Wyndham or any one else gave any promise that he would become entitled to an addition of years."
The second thing Mr. Baldwin said was that the grant of exceptional gratuity "could only be defended on the plea that his salary of £1,200 with pension on his length of service is inadequate.".On both these points additional evidence has come to light. There is the letter of Mr. Horni-
59
brook, who was private secretary to Mr. Wyndham, and intimately acquainted with all that happened. Mr. Hornibrook says:
"There were several conferences after this between George Wyndham and Chamberlain, and I understood that failing the higher rate of pay, you would receive some 'added years' to your service as compensation."
That is a new fact.
There is also another new fact now before us. In the earlier part of his letter Mr. Hornibrook says that:—
"as a person of suitable age and standing would not have many years to serve before he reached pensionable age, it would, in his opinion, be necessary to offer more generous terms."
Having regard to these vitally important facts which were not before Mr. Baldwin, I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. It is quite obvious from Mr. Baldwin's letter that had he had this further evidence before him he would have reconsidered it, and I therefore ask the Government to do what I think Mr. Baldwin would have done if he were in office now, either to reconsider it or to appoint a Committee to look into the matter.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I was loath to interrupt the noble Lord before, but may I point out that the promise of Mr. Wyndham, so far as it was a promise, related to the office being pensionable? The noble Lord began by stating that as regards the question of the "added years" it was a point which Mr. Wyndham had stated would receive full consideration. I wish to read the facts so far as they can be unearthed from official documents. Mr. McClintock admits, in a letter which he signed in March of last year, that in 1903 there was read to him a minute by the Under-Secretary of Dublin Castle, the effect of which was that the Dublin Castle authorities considered him pensionable, but that it was open to him to apply to the Treasury for a declaration to that effect. He did not apply, and be it noted that in this minute there was not the slightest suggestion of any "added years" being taken into account in reckoning his pension. These matters relate to conversations which took place a great" many years ago. Let us be as precise as we can. The promise Mr. Wyndham made has been kept to the full,
60
because Mr. McClintock is, so far as pension is concerned, getting the fullest pension to which he would under any given circumstances be entitled. In fact, two additional years were added because he remained in the service until he was 67.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, after the statement made by the Under-Secretary I confess that if my noble friends desire to press this case they will find themselves in a position of great difficulty. I was in office myself at the time when the memorandum which has been mentioned was adopted by the Treasury. The question of "added years" for service is one which has been debated over and over again. Personally, I think there is a great deal to be said for inducing men to join the public service who cannot afford to do so unless their earlier years of service elsewhere are taken into account. No doubt, there was great disappointment on the part of public officials at the action of the Treasury, but I never came across a case in which, on the ipsi dixit of a Minister, a gentleman takes up an appointment with the pious hope that this concession will be made and then comes forward twenty years afterwards and complains that there has been a breach of faith. I think, on the showing of the Under-Secretary, that it is difficult to make out a case for attempting to do now what the Treasury determined should cease twenty years ago.
Apart from that, my noble friend, Lord Danesfort, has not given sufficient weight to the fact that this gentleman himself continued in office beyond the period at which officials who retire on pension under Civil Service rules must retire, and to assume that he was remaining under the belief that he was still carrying out a pensionable service is straining the natural interpretation of the relation of public officials with their chiefs. We should all regret that any promise made by Mr. George Wyndham should not have been carried into effect, and still more that a public official of eminence should be the sufferer, but I do suggest that we have scores of the most heartrending cases connected with Ireland to press on the attention and sympathy of the Government and to select a case on which it would be impossible for most of us to give them our support is, I think, a mistake. The whole of the circumstances in

61
this case were carefully considered by the Government which has just gone out of office and of which the noble Duke was a member. They gave their decision, and to ask this Government to overrule it seems to me to be straining the interpretation which we ought to put on the rights of public officials.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, may I say that Mr. McClintock told me that when he accepted £1,200 a year it was because he was given an assurance that ten years would be added to his service? May I also point out that Mr. McClintock did not retire? He was retired, and I presume that under the regulations he could have gone on until he had done thirty years' service when he would have been entitled to the full pension.
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord asks me that question, the answer is that in the Civil Service he would have to retire at 65—nobody is allowed to go on beyond that age—and the pension would be reckoned up to the age of 65.
LORD MUSKERRY: But I think the noble Lord stated that he was not liable to that. By leave of the House, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TERRITORIAL FORCE.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice to draw attention to the continued difficulties in obtaining recruits for certain branches of the Territorial Army; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in venturing to call attention to this Motion, which I do with the greatest possible deference, this being the first time that I have addressed your Lordships' House, I might, perhaps, begin by reminding your Lordships that the Territorial Army was reconstructed between the years 1919 and 1920, and that it has now attained a total strength of 75 per cent. of its establishment, which, in the circumstances, and considering the obstacles with which the reconstruction was faced, is perhaps a rather remarkable achievement.
Not only was there a natural reaction, following the war, against any form of military discipline, strengthened by the remote possibility of any general mobilisation,
62
but employment was very uncertain, the attitude of employers who were engaged in building up their business was, for the most part, unsympathetic, and, in addition, the Regular Army were unable to supply instructors of quite the requisite efficiency or experience. Indeed, it was only after considerable efforts that the present result was produced—efforts on the part of the authorities, on the part of the Associations and chiefly on the part of the commanding and junior officers, to whom fell, and still falls, the ultimate responsibility for raising and training these men.
The point which I should like to emphasise to your Lordships is that these efforts have been attended with very different results in various localities. I am informed, for instance, that in the North of England—in Durham, Northumberland and Lancashire—and throughout Scotland the majority of units are nearly up to their establishment, whereas in London and the South-East there are many units which are still below the average of 75 per cent. Nowhere is this effect more marked than at the annual trainings, where, if you take the average attendance of infantry units to represent, as I am informed it did last year represent, only 60 per cent. of the establishment, it is obvious that many of the weaker units can have attended on a basis of only half, or less than half, their proper numbers. I have the figures concerning one association with which I am connected, and they confirm this estimate.
I am aware that imagination is a faculty upon which frequent and severe demands are placed in the practice of field operations, but I can assure your Lordships from personal experience that, when you have to ask your imperfectly trained men to imagine, not only the whole circumstances of war, the bullets and shells of the enemy and all the cooperating arms, but, in addition, nearly three-quarters of their own numbers, it is impossible to make the instruction very illuminating except to a force of military geniuses. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the inconvenience and expense of applying to units of such strength a schedule of training designed for entirely disproportionate establishments, as well as the demoralisation which grows up in

63
this atmosphere of unreality. Perhaps it would be well, therefore, to examine the prospects and to see if this state of affairs is likely to have any degree of permanence.
The general conditions are, perhaps, better, and the men are becoming more settled as employment improves. On the other hand, there has been a great economy campaign, of which the Territorial Army has borne its fair share. In 1922 very substantial cuts were made in the establishment grants to the associations, and this year's Estimates provide for further cuts, totalling in all over £500,000. Further, a new Force, the Supplementary Reserve, is being instituted, and it will undoubtedly, I believe, encroach on the recruiting of certain technical branches of the Territorial Army. I do not presume to question the wisdom or desirability of any of these decisions from a general point of view, but I may perhaps lay before your Lordships the standpoint of the junior officer who, as I previously remarked, has to carry out the double duties of recruiting and training.
In those units which have already established themselves on the firm foundation of efficiency and esprit de corps, owing to their approaching their proper complement, I do not think that there is much feeling, because such units are able to stand these cuts. But many officers in the other units, who are, for the most part, gentleman of very limited means and leisure, view with apprehension these acts of retrenchment, whereby proportionately increasing demands are being placed upon their own energies and pockets. It is obvious that some one has to pay for recruiting campaigns, but, although it might be thought that the associations should in these circumstances apply some of their accumulated reserves, it will be seen from examination of the figures that these reserves cannot be regarded as very reliable sources of assistance, because the position varies, for instance, between that of an association with a credit balance of nearly £40,000 and that of another association with a debit balance of nearly £3,000.
If I may presume to speak for some of these junior officers, I believe they feel that the present system is not quite sufficiently elastic to cope with the very divergent conditions prevailing in
64
different parts of the country. For instance, there are the special difficulties encountered by very scattered units. Again, it is possible, and even probable, that men are encouraged to join the Territorials by different inducements in different parts of the country. There are many, for example, in the South, who believe that the bounty is of no real use in attracting the kind of man that could, and should, constitute the rank and file of the Territorial Army, whereas I am informed that in Scotland the bounty is a popular institution, and that any suggestion of its removal would be regarded with disfavour. Possibly the bounty may be a matter difficult to apply on anything but a national basis, but a case can appear to be made, from purely local experience, for some measure of financial decentralisation, or else the setting up of some machinery whereby units can receive special recruiting grants if, after special investigation, they can prove themselves in need of it.
I feel confident that the Government, particularly a Government which contains the distinguished founder of the Territorial Army, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, will view with sympathy the genuine desire of every territorial to place his unit on a really worthy standard, free from all suspicion of ridicule. I hope, therefore, that they may cause to be devised some steps to satisfy these very legitimate aspirations. The Territorial Force is essentially an unaggressive force. It is essentially a democratic force, and it should be a cheap force, for the officers, non-commissioned officers and men place themselves under military discipline and give up their leisure, and their holidays for a practically negligible financial reward. They not only constitute a second line of defence for the country, but provide centres where all the best men of the district can congregate and where the highest sense of civic responsibility can be fostered. I claim, therefore, that the Territorial Army is entitled to special consideration, and that a little extra attention at the present moment would be very amply repaid in the future. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite replies on behalf of the Government I should like to say a word from another

65
point, of view, and that is from the point of view of the Territorial Associations. Of course in all these cases there are many points of view. First of all, there is the point of view of the Treasury, which is the bogey man of us all. Then there are the point of view of the War Office, the point of view of the Territorial Associations, and the point of view of the junior officer. I should like to welcome the début of my noble friend, who has given us the view's of the junior officer from first-hand, which is a thing we do not often hear in this House.
I do not propose to follow my noble friend through all the statements which he has made, but I should like to say a word or two as representing the Territorial Associations. My noble friend has indicated that his object is the object of us all—namely, the encouragement of recruiting. In view of the economic campaign to which he has referred, what we are all aiming at is to obtain the maximum of efficiency with the minimum of expense. As he has told us counties differ. Many counties have surplus funds, and some have a deficit. It is obvious that those counties with a deficit are not likely to be able to give the same attractions to recruiting as those counties which are better supplied with funds. From our own private experience we know that during recent years it has been possible to carry on quite comfortably on an increasing overdraft, so long as our bankers did not object, but that is impossible in the case of a public body, because it has to satisfy the auditors. Therefore, those counties not supplied with funds cannot provide the necessary attractions.
But I should like to point out—and I suspect this is the answer which my noble friend will receive—that the present position of recruiting is not unsatisfactory. It is true that we have not reached our establishment, but in many counties there is much more power of selection than we used to have with the old Territorial Force. Now it is more a question of '"May we join you?" than "Will you join us?" That is what we have aimed at from the first, and it is, I think, a very satisfactory position. With regard to Sussex, the position in that County, with all its difficulties, is rather satisfactory. A very interesting statement has been issued which shows that, taking the census
66
of 1921 the male population of Sussex was 320,000, of which the serving members in 1924 were 2,514, which is considerably above the average. Of the Eastern Command, Sussex has the largest percentage of all the large counties. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will say that that is very creditable to Sussex, but is no compensation to the company officers.
I should like to deal with the system of the Council. It is more representative than it has ever been. Its meetings ate very largely attended, and its business, I will undertake to say, is more efficiently carried out than ever before. Our system is this. Every quarter we meet. We have first a meeting of the business and finance committee. The Chairman is no less distinguished a person than Sir William Bromley-Davenport. We have perhaps fifteen, or eighteen, or twenty questions before us, and all those to which the noble Lord referred may come up for consideration. When that committee has completed its work it decides what matters it will advise the Council to deal with and the Council, when it meets, forms its own decision on what the business and finance committee proposes. As a matter of principle we do not take up those questions unless they are questions that affect the movement generally, and what we have to show, as some three-fourths of these proposals involve larger expenditure, is that the increase of efficiency which we hope for will justify the increased expenditure that will be involved. It is essential, if we are to get anything, that we shall be able to satisfy the authorities on that point.
May I give one illustration? It is on a point which I think will affect the county to which I the noble Lord belongs. It is the question of the five per cent. grant for out-of-pocket expenses. In a country district where you have perhaps ten men of one company in one parish, fifteen in another, and twenty in another, obviously the company commander who has to keep in touch with them all is put to a considerable expense. We in Staffordshire have relied very considerably on that five per cent. grant. The object of the grant, which, I think, was introduced in 1919, was to ensure that young officers should not have to put their hands into their pockets, and officers who have been asked to join naturally inquire what it is going to cost them.

67
They have been told that, in view of the grant, that part of their expenses will be nothing. Therefore, when it was reduced unexpectedly to three per cent. we felt a little aggrieved. But what is the answer of the War Office? They have told us that last year they gave us a grant of £20,000, roughly, of which only £8,000 has been spent. I have no doubt, from their point of view, that they consider that they treated us very generously, because, while half that total grant has not been spent, they have not reduced the percentage by half. But it does hit counties like my own very severely.
After all, it is a question of average. It has been dealt with, I suppose, on an average, and there is an old Eastern proverb, which says that it is the average that kills. The origin of that proverb I believe was a certain river in India, on which a notice was placed that the average depth was two and a half feet, and a native family, of father, mother, and three children, trusting to that average depth, attempted to walk across, and got into a hole six foot deep, and were all drowned. In the same way, poor counties which are relying upon this particular grant are killed by the average, I can assure the noble Lord, as far as the Council are concerned, that we shall do all we possibly can to help him, but we have to be quite sure that what we recommend to the War Office is really essential. I do not know whether the noble Lord will find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Labour Government is more squeezable than he is under other Governments. Possibly not. But, at any rate, I am sure we wish him every luck in his career as a Territorial officer, and we hope that many of those difficulties in course of time will be removed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I am certain that, in speaking for the War Office on this particular occasion, I can say that they appreciate very highly the contributions that have been made by noble Lords opposite, and that they welcome advice and recommendations, both from junior officers like the noble Viscount, and from people like the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, who has such ripe experience in regard to Territorial Associations. The noble Viscount perhaps slightly exaggerated the difficulties in regard to
68
training owing to establishments being under their proper strength. I am told that the average strength was 75 per cent. during the year, and that it was very rare for establishments to be down as low as 60 per cent. As an old soldier I can say that we also as Regulars had to exercise just as great powers of imagination in regard to strengths—that 60 to 70 per cent. was quite a normal figure for us, and working with a "flagged" enemy is a more or less normal practice in the working of all armies. Of course, it is much pleasanter to have full strength, and not to have to exercise the imagination so much. No doubt it gives better training, but I do not know that the Territorial Army in this particular matter suffers any more than the regular forces of the Crown, or than the forces in any other country.
Admittedly there are many difficulties with regard to recruitment for the Territorial Force. I understand that one of the greatest difficulties is that commanding officers are becoming more particular, that they now refuse to sacrifice efficiency to mere numbers. I imagine that there will be very little disagreement with that point of view. It is far better to get a few efficient men, especially under conditions of modern warfare, than a larger number of less highly trained soldiers. I am also informed that there is a good deal still left of war-weariness, and a disinclination to accept service. But what seems to count more than anything is the fact that very few men believe that there is likely to be a call upon their patriotism at a near date in the future, and the consequence is that they take less interest in the Force. These are difficulties over which the War Office cannot exercise very much control. They are only too glad to find a way out of difficulty. I can find no substance for the attack on employers. In fact, the evidence is rather to the contrary.
In regard to the financial disbursement on the Territorial Force, both the noble Lords who spoke have referred to that. The facts, as I learn them, are these. It is perfectly true that the Estimates this year are lower than they were for last year, but last year the Estimates were prepared on the basis—which proved to be rather optimistic— that 171,000 would be the strength of the Territorial Force through added recruitment. This was not justified,

69
and the consequence, was that on the Territorial Force last year there was considerable under-spending. This year the Estimate has not been made on the same optimistic basis—if I may so put it. We are a little more pessimistic, and the consequence is that, though more money will be spent in cash, the Estimates for the year will be somewhat lower. The inflow of recruits is low, but the actual situation of the Territorial Force at the present moment shows the existence of rather more than 5,000 more men in the Force on January 1, 1924, than there were on January 1, 1923. There is also a small increase in the number of officers.
The question of the Supplementary Reserve has been referred to. That Reserve will consist only of 8,000 men, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that some such Reserve is highly necessary, in view of the very scientific forms that modern war takes, and the introduction of such weapons as tanks, and so forth. I am inclined to think that the incorporation of the Supplementary Reserve in Territorial units will tend to increase the efficiency of those units, and that that will not operate for long as a deterrent to recruiting, or indeed to the diminution of recruiting. On the whole the War Office see no real necessity for altering the system under which the Territorial Force is being run at the present time;—or, at any rate, for altering it in any drastic manner. It is working exceedingly well, in view of all the difficulties that have to be faced, when one considers that we are working at the creation, more or less, of a new sort of Force at the end of a very long and bloody war.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, may I, as father of the Force and as one who has been associated with it from the very commencement, say a few words on the Motion which has been submitted to your Lordships' House? While I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Dartmouth that the Council of the Territorial Association is a most valuable body which does most valuable work in bringing what I would call the concentrated feeling of the Territorial Force to the notice of the War Office, I am extremely glad, as I am sure your Lordships are, that a young officer of the Force with the practical experience of the difficulties which
70
young officers have in their task, should have brought his case so clearly and so well before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am sure that is the best way of attracting the attention of the country to grievances, if they can be called grievances, and it, is most helpful to those who, like myself, are chairmen of Territorial Associations and wish to do everything we can for the Force.
The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, is quite right when he says that the Estimates, with which I had something to do, were framed not on a pessimistic basis but on a different basis from that of last year. Last year we had been hopeful that we might get up to full strength and had estimated accordingly. It is obvious that we are not going to do that this year, or probably for a year or two to come, and it was much better to endeavour to estimate what your expenditure was likely to be than to estimate the number of men which you hoped you might obtain. Taking it all round—I am speaking more especially for my own part of the world—there is no doubt that recruiting for the Territorial Army is quite satisfactory on the whole, and I should like to say how completely I am in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said—that commanding officers at the present moment are thinking less of numbers and more of quality.
There is no doubt that attendance in camp is the surest test with regard to the efficiency of the Force, and attendance in camp is getting gradually better and better. There were enormous difficulties to be overcome at the end of the war and, as Lord Thomson has said, employers did their duty loyally by the Force. The Defence Force broke up the Territorials more even than the war, and we are only now getting over that. So far as I can see in my own local area there is nothing whatever to be despondent about with regard to the recruiting for the Territorial Force, save in one particular branch of the Service—namely, that which consists of what I will call the technical and highly-skilled artisans. There is no doubt that we have difficulty in the Territorial Force in that respect, but it is infinitesimal as compared with the difficulty there is in getting them for the Regular Army.

71
That will probably right itself in time. It is righting itself; but I feel that there is a shortage which is somewhat alarming.
When I was at the War Office, I brought two points to the attention of the Department chiefly concerned, and I should like to emphasise them again as I think they require consideration by those in authority at the War Office. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember that in his original scheme he gave great latitude to the Associations as to how they dealt with the money at their disposal; that is to say, if in one department you could make a big saving you were allowed to use it in another direction. In my own county, and I am sure it is the case in many other counties, we got money from various branches of our work which we used for recruiting purposes. It had a double advantage. There was elasticity. It also gave the men of big business capacity who joined our Association scope for showing their powers. That has been taken away from them rather, and now there are watertight compartments. The result is that there is no incentive to economy in some of the departments, and no incentive to these business men, who give up a great deal of their time to these Associations, to put their backs into it and try to make economies in one direction so as to have more money to spend in another. I venture to hope that this point will be borne in mind.
Another point, and one on which I speak probably more from the point of view of an Association in an urban district, is the scale of accommodation. The schedule laid down at the present moment for headquarters is too small. The men must be allowed to feel that there are in their drill halls what I may call social amenities; so that after their drill is done they can make, so to speak, a club of their drill hall, where they do their work first and enjoy themselves afterwards. In these days you must be able to give them billiard tables, proper canteens, proper mess-rooms for the sergeants, and proper dressing rooms for the officers. The scale that is laid down at the present moment for headquarters is too small to allow of that. Until that scale is enlarged—I started the consideration of it before I left the War Office and I hope it is being continued now—you will not get those social amenities which
72
I think you ought to give to the men who sacrifice so much of their leisure to preparing for any national emergency. I would conclude by thanking the noble Viscount for bringing this matter forward. I think he will realise that all those of us who, like myself, are engaged in endeavouring to strengthen and improve the Territorial Force in every way, recognise that the best way of doing this is by bringing, as he has done, all their requirements before the public eye.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, in view of what has been said I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Motion which I have made. I may, perhaps, be allowed to make this one comment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, quoted the attendance at camp as being TO per cent., whereas I am informed by the War Office that in the case of the infantry it was only 60 per cent. for the whole Army. From my own personal experience I know it is rather ridiculous to try to train men at strengths under 50 per cent. of what they are assumed to be.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I have made a mistake. I misunderstood the noble Viscount's figure. I meant 60 to 70 per cent. of strength; whereas, he meant of establishment, I think.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes.
LORD THOMSON: That is the mistake that I made and which I now correct.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To draw attention to the provisions of Standing Order No. XXI. which give precedence to Bills on both Tuesdays and Thursdays, and to the difficulty which those provisions cause in arranging the business of the House for the general convenience of Peers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Notice upon the Paper with a double purpose—in the first instance, to emphasise the uncertainty which prevails in this House with regard to the time when important debates will be taken; and in the second place, with regard to the threatened congestion of business if

73
we continue, to sit for only three days a week. Bearing in mind the admonition of my noble friend Lord Curzon I will make a point of being as short as possible.
First, with regard to the question of uncertainty as to when debates take place. We sit, as everybody knows, on three days in the week—Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. On Tuesdays and Thursdays Bills have priority. In practice, I cannot help thinking that this works with very unsatisfactory results, as has been shown quite recently. Noble Lords will recollect that only about ten days ago an important debate was announced to take place on the question of Singapore. Owing to a number of Bilk having been put down in front of it, the Singapore Motion did not come on until about half-past six in the evening, and the debate was adjourned. Precisely the same thing occurred later. I do not think the Singapore debate on the second occasion was taken before about six o'clock, or half-past six, in the evening. The result was a very unsatisfactory Division, because, as always happens, nearly everybody had gone away, and the numbers of the Division did not really give any indication of the importance of the decision.
There was a still more unsatisfactory instance of this yesterday. Yesterday the pièce de réistance was to have been a discussion on the League of Nations, and arrangements were made—elaborate arrangements, I believe—long beforehand under which the most important members of this House were going to deliver speeches, but then the Lord Chancellor, in whom I had not recognised a practical joker, intervened with a ponderous and dismal Scottish Bill, upon which he spoke himself for three-quarters of an hour, no doubt with great enjoyment, and was followed by other noble Lords who imitated his example. The result was that we never had the debate on the League of Nations at all. It was adjourned until to-day. I regret that it is apparent, partly owing to noble Lords, including myself, having Motions on the Paper, that there is a strong prospect that the discussion will not take place today until an inconveniently late hour.
I remember an occasion last year—I forget what the precise question was—when there was to have been a very important debate here, so much so that
74
almost for the first time, in my life I was asked by friends to secure them tickets for admission to the Gallery. The House was thronged, the galleries were thronged, and all that those people who came here heard, and all that noble Lards who were present heard, was a long discussion on polygamy, or monogamy, or some subject of that kind, and the important debate was never reached at all. To my mind this is a source of considerable inconvenience. It must, be a considerable inconvenience to the noble Lords of whom I have spoken, those who, perhaps, without disrespect, I might term the heavyweights of this House, and who must necessarily suffer from suppressed speech. But the inconvenience reflects upon the other members of the House, because you never know what really is going to happen. You have no certainty that any particular debate will take place on a particular day, owing to the fact; that any Peer is at liberty to put down a Motion respecting a Bill, however unimportant its character may be, only twenty-four hours beforehand.
I know in advance what will be said to me when I suggest that in order to remedy this inconvenience priority for Bills should be given only on one day in the week, and that on the other two days Motions should be taken according to the date on which they are put upon the Paper. I know that I shall be told by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore that Bills are very much more important than Motions. I am quite prepared to dispute that view, and I dispute it in a perfectly impartial frame of mind, because I have frequently introduced Bills into this House—admirable Bills, I might say—which have never become law for the reason that they have perished in another place. The Bills that we discuss in this House are of two kinds. There are the Bills which are brought forward by the Government, and which pass, and there are the Bills introduced by private members like myself, which do not pass. It seems to me that it is more important, on the whole, to discuss a serious Motion than it is to spend a lot of time in discussing a private member's Bill which has no chance of becoming law. I hold very strongly the view that by far the most valuable advantage which this House enjoys is the power of interpolating Ministers, and forcing from them explanations as to then policy I attach

75
far more importance to that than I do to obtaining time for the discussion of Bills which are never likely to pass into law. For that reason I suggest that it might be a more practical course to adopt the suggestion which I have just made.
I pass from that to say a few words upon the subject of the possible congestion of business in this House. In this connection, although I am no friend of the present Government, I am bound to admit that they are evidently going to make more use of this House for the purpose of furthering legislation than their predecessors made. When I first became a member of this House we used to sit on four days, and the result was there was no congestion of business; in fact, I remember we used at times to meet at half-past, four and adjourn at twenty-five minutes to five. All that is over now. Members are more industrious, and there is considerably more work to do. My noble friend Lord Curzon—I believe I am correct in making this statement—during the war reduced the four days to three. Let me say at once that I sympathise with the noble Lords who occupy official positions in wishing to sit on as few days as possible. I sympathise with that view because, for four years, I was a very minor Minister myself, and I candidly confess that there was nothing I disliked so intensely as to have to come down here and answer questions, more especially when I was not in agreement with the answers that I had to give. Therefore, I entirely sympathise with the official view.
But the fact is that for the purpose of effective debate there are really only about nine or ten hours of the week, and I entirely disagree with the view of my noble friend Lord Curzon that half past six is just as good an hour as half past four. To my mind there is no comparison. You might as well say that the drumstick of a chicken was just as nutritious and good to eat as the breast and wing. There is no comparison between the two things. A noble Lord hardly ever gets up in this House after six o'clock without apologising for what he calls the lateness of the hour. If he rises at seven o'clock he has no occasion to apologise at all, because there will be nobody here in all probability, except the noble Viscount upon the Woolsack, the
76
Minister who has to reply to him, and the Clerks at the Table. They will constitute his audience, and therefore there will be no one to whom to apologise. In addition to that, as everybody goes away at half past six or seven o'clock, a Division is more or less out of the question, and a perfectly superfluous and useless luxury, because under one of the Standing Orders of the House, unless thirty members take part in a Division, that Division does not count.
As a sample of the work which we do, I would like to call attention to the Order Paper for Tuesday, March 25. On that day there were down for discussion the Second Reading of the Dogs Protection Bill, the Legitimacy Bill, the Advertisements Regulation Bill, for which I was responsible, the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Bill, the Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Bill, the Second Readings of the Housing Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill, a Question by Lord Gorell on the subject of child adoption, a very long Question by Lord Danesfort about the Wood-Renton Commission, and, finally, a Question by Lord Desborough on the subject of a fixed date for Easter. That is an Agenda which really might have occupied weeks. Of course, it was impossible to deal adequately with the whole of these subjects. I should like to have the candid opinion of Lord Banbury of Southam who was one of the greatest masters in dilatory Parliamentary practices that this generation has known. When my noble friend sees the amount of business which is gone through here, the way in which we literally gallop through measures of first- and second-class importance, it must give him an even lower opinion of Parliamentary institutions that he has held up to now.
I think I have said enough to prove my point, and all I desire to do, in conclusion, is to suggest two alternatives. One is that, instead of allotting, two days for Bills, we should allot one day only—that is if we adhere to three days' sitting per week—and the alternative is that we should sit on Mondays as we used to do. In spite of the rapidity with which we do our work, I do not think we present a very industrious spectacle. We sit for nine or ten hours in the course of a week. The House of Commons sits for a minimum of 38 hours, not counting overtime

77
in the shape of all-night sittings and suspensions of the eleven o'clock rule. These are the alternatives which I put before the House. I put down my Notice for the purpose of ascertaining the general opinion of the House upon the question. I have no intention of moving the appointment of a Committee or anything of the kind, because it is not of sufficient importance for that.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PAEMOOE): My Lords, this is a matter for the House to deal with, not for the Government. I appreciate to a considerable extent the criticisms which the noble Lord has addressed to us as to the conditions at the present moment. It may be claimed on behalf of the present Government that within the limitation of subjects suitable for introduction and discussion in this House, we have utilised the time of this House to the maximum possible advantage both to noble Lords themselves and the way public business should be brought before this House. The noble Lord has suggested two alternatives. It is not for me to make any suggestion, it is for the House alone; but I admit that of the two I prefer that we should revert to Monday sittings. I am sure members of the Government who are present would not in any way resent what the noble Lord termed a toilsome and irksome duty if by performing such a duty the business of this House could be carried on in a more satisfactory manner. I can assure your Lordships, on behalf of the Government, that we will do all in our power to carry out whatever are the desires of the House in the matter and see that business is conducted in a more efficient and effective manner.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the matter is left in rather an indecisive position. The noble Lord has made a series of alternative proposals which really raise issues of considerable magnitude. If they are adopted not only would they affect the sittings of the House during the present Session of Parliament but, as I understand, he proposes a permanent alteration in our Parliamentary procedure as it affects this House. He proposes that we shall accept as a rule of our procedure that we shall always sit four days in the week in order to enable my noble friend and
78
persons of his kidney to multiply the already somewhat excessive number of Motions which they put down upon the Paper, it clearly is not my business at this moment to enter into a discussion with my noble friend as to the manner in which we have hitherto proceeded. All I say is that his account of our proceedings was a caricature in which I found no resemblance to the facts.
For instance, I wonder if my noble friend has made any study of our Divisions. He laid it down that serious business in this House could not be taken, and was not in practice taken, after five or six o'clock; that nobody was in the House at that time and that our proceedings were reduced from that time onwards almost to an absurdity. That is not the least the case. If the Division Lists of this House and the time at which they were taken were shown it would be found that day after day, and week after week, your Lordships' House sits not until six or half-past six, but up to seven and eight o'clock, and when he appeals to previous experience I am just as qualified to give an opinion about that as he is himself. It is not the case that the House generally adjourns at the earlier hour. I should' say, on the contrary, that the majority of Divisions take place at a later hour. I entirely deprecate our laying down the rule that after a two hours' sitting this House should disappear, because it has no more business to do, or because people will not stay to listen to speeches. As I said yesterday, if they will not stay to listen to speeches after half-past six, why should they come here to listen to my noble friend on Mondays? People will stay and Lords will stay if they are interested; in the subject. Take, for instance, the subject which we are going to discuss this afternoon—the League of Nations—I wish it could have been taken yesterday—noble Lords will stay if they are interested, whether it be five o'clock or six o'clock they will stay.
I think my noble friend is entirely wrong in the disparaging remarks he uttered with regard to legislation. Your Lordships' House is a Second Chamber, a revising chamber, but a revising chamber of the Legislature, and one of your main functions is to initiate and pass Bills yourselves or consider, discuss and reject Bills which come up from

79
another place. I could not by any means accept the proposition that our main function is a sort of academic discussion about any Resolution which any one chooses to put down. That is not what we are here for. If you analyse the kind of Bills that come before us, remember that not only do we deal with Government Bills but that an opportunity is afforded to any noble Lord to introduce legislation, as my noble friend has frequently done. If the Bills which he introduces do not pass into law when they go to another place, or perhaps are not taken up there at all, that is no argument against this House as a legislative chamber. Many invaluable measures have been introduced here by private members, discussed here, failing perhaps on the first or second or third introduction, but ultimately public opinion is aroused and you get a large body of sentiment behind your views which enables you to proceed.
But I do not desire to dispute the case with the noble Lord now. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, said justly that this is a matter for the decision of the House, but clearly it is not a matter for the decision of the thirty or forty members who happen at the present moment to be upon these Benches. It would be an entirely wrong procedure if we were to institute a great change in Parliamentary procedure with this limited number of noble Lords present. I remember that, when I was leading the House from the Bench opposite, a similar question came up, and a proposal was made, I think by myself, and was accepted, that the matter ought to be seriously examined by a body representing the House. I think my noble friend was not altogether justified in deprecating the appointment of a Committee.
LORD NEWTON: I do not mind it.
THE MAUQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Very well. I should have thought that a Committee was emphatically the body that ought to examine this matter, and I would suggest to the Government that, perhaps after consultation between the two Front Benches, they might be disposed to appoint a Committee. On all these occasions we have previously had the advantage of having my noble friend Lord Donoughmore in the chair. Nobody is more conversant with the
80
business and the traditions of this House than the noble Earl. I think it ought to be quite possible to appoint a small Committee of six or seven members—I will not specify the number now, and I need not indicate the composition—and instruct them to examine into the proposal of the noble Lord and to submit their recommendations to the House. That seems to me to be the best way of dealing with the matter. I will not proceed further, because I am as anxious as anybody that the Motion which appears later upon the Paper should be discussed without further delay.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDAXE): My Lords, I rise only to say that the Government are quite agreeable to this suggestion of a Committee, and that they accede to the proposition that the noble Marquess has made. I find myself almost entirely in agreement with his observations. It would be impossible to get through Government business if Bills took precedence on only one day a week. We have had a great many Government Bills this year, and we may have a great many more in the part of the Session that lies ahead. In the later part of the Session we may be compelled to sit on Mondays—I think we shall—to deal with the amount of Government business that is likely to come on. For myself, if I were giving evidence before this Committee, I should submit that the prospect of getting through the work which devolves upon this House without having two days a week upon which Bills should take precedence would not be very favourable. I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Marquess concerning the Standing Orders which experience has shown to be desirable.
Even in my time I remember this House sitting almost regularly until a quarter to eight. Now the great difficulty is to get noble Lords to sit after seven. I think we shall have to reform our ways in that respect, and get into the habit of sitting regularly until eight; and, with the existing volume of business, I for my part see no reason why a quarter to eight at least should not be the normal time for adjourning. The Committee, however, will investigate this subject, and, if ray noble friend Lord Donoughmore takes a leading part in its proceedings, I have

81
no doubt that we shall be supplied with complete material from which to judge the position
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, may I say in one sentence that my services are, of course, at your Lordships' disposal in this as in all other matters. There is, I think, one special reason why a Committee should sit to examine this subject. We really have still to elucidate the facts. The Standing Order to which my noble friend objects dates from 1852. It was passed sub silentio in your Lordships' House, without any discussion, on the proposition of my noble predecessor, Lord Redesdale, and I have been quite unable to ascertain how that came about. I think it will be interesting to elucidate that fact. I should not like to conclude without making one other observation. One of the complaints of my noble friend opposite was, I think, that the House rarely sits after half-past six. Fortunately I had the figures in my pocket, and I have been able to look them up. The facts are that we have sat for twenty-five days this Session, and on eighteen of those days we have adjourned after half-past six.

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE AND AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the resumption of the debate on the Motion, made by Lord Thomson on Tuesday, March 25, that the House be put into Committee.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL. OF DONOCGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution of county joint associations and auxiliary air force associations.
1. The power of His Majesty under Section six of the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), to apply by Order in Council to the auxiliary air force or to the officers and men of that force any of the enactments relating to the territorial army or the officers and men of that army, shall be extended so as to include power to apply Part I of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, to the auxiliary air force find to the officers and men of that force and also to the territorial army and to the
82
officers and men of that army with such modifications as may be necessary—

(1)—

(a) to provide for the establishment and constitution of county joint associations under the said Part I, which shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of associations under the said Part in relation both to the territorial army and to the auxiliary air force, and to provide for the application of the provisions of that Part with respect to the Army Council, to army services and to the territorial army, to the Army Council and Air Council or either of them, to army and air force services or either of them and to the territorial army and the auxiliary air force, or either of them, respectively;

(b) to define the relations and responsibilities of any such county joint association to the Army Council and the Air Council respectively; and

(2) to provide for the establishment and constitution, in any area not administered by a county joint association constituted under the preceding paragraph, of auxiliary air force associations; and

(3) to provide for the termination of county joint associations either generally or in special cases, and on such termination for the establishment of associations constituted under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, or of auxiliary air force associations; and

(4) to provide for the transfer and adjustment of any powers, duties, assets and liabilities on the establishment or termination of county joint associations.

LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "county joint associations" and to insert "a county joint association." The noble Lord said: This and the two following Amendments upon the Paper are merely intended to remove a certain ambiguity in regard to the expression "joint county association." I think that the alterations will make it clear that a County Joint Association does not mean an association between two county associations, but merely implies an extension of the functions of a County Association to cover both the Air Force and the Territorial Force.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line IS, leave out ("county joint associations") and insert ("a county joint association").—(Lord Thomson.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I do not rise to oppose this Amendment, but

83
merely to thank the noble Lord for his letter, which entirely removes any doubts I had as to the difference between a county joint association and a joint county association, and fully explains the difficulty.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("exercise") insert ("as respects the county")
line 20, leave out ("associations") and insert ("an association").
—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in any area not administered by a county joint association," and to insert "for any areas which in the opinion of the Air Council cannot suitably be administered through county joint associations." The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to give an idea of what constitutes an area. Some of the areas which will be affected by this Bill are in two counties, and therefore cannot come under the ruling of one County Joint Association. The Bill merely confers powers to set up another association, called an Air Force Association, in such circumstances.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("in any area not administered by a county joint association") and insert ("for any areas which in the opinion of the Air Council cannot suitably be adminstered through county joint associations").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LOUD OLIVIER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the following Lords be appointed to serve on the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and that the Committee have power to agree with the Commons upon the appointment of a Chairman—

E. De La Warr,

E. Russell,

84

E. Midleton,

L. Harris,

L. Lamington,

L. Montagu of Beaulieu,

L. MacDonnell,

L. Pentland,

L. Hardinge of Penshurst,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston.

—(Lord Olivier.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint eleven Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions of which Notice has been given.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Eastwood and Mearns, in the County of Renfrew, and parts of the parishes of Carmunnock and East Kilbride, in the County of Lanark, which was presented on the 21st day of February, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Eastleigh and Bishopstoke, in the County of Southampton, which was presented on the 12th day of February, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they can give the House any information in regard to the proceedings of the Council of the League of Nations at the recent meeting in Geneva; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords,

85
as I stated yesterday, I have no intention of making a speech in asking this Question. I ask it because I am one of those who take great interest, and have a profound belief, in the future of the League of Nations, and I thought it would be to the advantage of this House if we had an opportunity of hearing from the Lord President of the Council what discussions took place and what conclusions were come to by the Council of the League of Nations which has lately been sitting. At the same time I desire to reserve my right to speak if, after he has spoken, it should appear to me desirable that I should say something, In order to preserve that tight, I have put down a Motion for Papers, although I need hardly assure my noble friend that anything I may say will not be in the nature of hostility to what he has done at the meeting of the League of Nations, for, or the contrary, I think we are to foe congratulated upon the effective and efficient way in which His Majesty's Government, carrying on the policy of their predecessors, have been represented upon the League of Nations.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, everyone who is cognisant of the work done by the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations knows the interest that, the noble Earl has taken, and the admirable work he did as Chairman of a very important Committee, in respect of League work. I think I should add also, before I make the remarks which I have to make, that a Command Paper has been issued, which is a report by Lord Parmoor, the British Representative, of the Twenty-eighth Session of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva. That Paper was issued a few days ago. It has been circulated, and I think everyone interested in the matter should know that this Paper has been circulated. It really gives in detail an account of the work done at the last meeting at Geneva.
If I may say one or two words in preface to what must be a mere statement of facts, I think the real question which matters in reference to what the noble Earl has said is whether, at the recent meeting of the Council at Geneva, the influence and authority of the League have been efficiently maintained. I think that is the one matter which one cares about, and that other matters are
86
incidental. I need not say much on that general question for this reason: no one will dispute the unique authority of the Secretary-General to speak on the subject of this meeting, and he lately gave a public address to the Parliamentary Committee, I think, in the House of Commons —at any rate, a Parliamentary Committee—and subsequently an account of his address was published. It contains these words—
"The Meeting of the Council at the recent meeting was much the most successful that the League has ever had."
Now, I am most careful to make this statement—the success of the recent meeting of the Council was not due to that Council alone, but was due, of course, to a long period of preparatory work, in which no one has taken a more prominent or more adequate position than the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Cecil, and I am most anxious to dissociate myself from the idea that one meeting of this kind can in any way be considered by itself.
You have to consider long periods of preparatory work before the Council meeting was actually held; but I think that this statement which I have read, without going into matters in any greater detail, is sufficient answer to that undercurrent of criticism against the Council and the Assembly of the League which is always ready to revel in suggestions of failure rather than of success. That under-current of criticism has made its voice heard, although I think not in a very effective manner as regards the late meeting of the Council. The immediate cause of the success of the meeting of the Council, apart from, what I have called the preparatory work, was the friendly atmosphere which, in my opinion, surrounded all members of the Council who were present. Not only was there this friendly atmosphere, which it was extremely satisfactory for a lover of the League like myself to find, but there was a common desire to co-operate in carrying to a successful conclusion the work which we had to do. To any one who went over there for the first time it was a matter of intense satisfaction to see that the ideas of national exclusiveness were set on one side, and that all were prepared to work together for a common object, in order to carry on the work of the Council successfully.

87
That I thought was the keynote, and the extremely valuable keynote, of the whole matter, while the Council were in Session at Geneva. That atmosphere shows, to my mind, the real source of the influence and authority of the League at the present time.
No one could have been to Geneva without realising that the League has come to stay. There can be no possible question of its supersession. There can be no possible question that after living for a time it may perhaps pass into the region of oblivion. It has become a permanent thing to further peaceful settlement in the world. It has become a permanent thing to bring into operation a system for deciding international disputes and international friction, taking the place of the mere arbitrament of war. I do not want for the moment, nor is it necessary, to dwell at any special length upon that aspect of the case, but surely it is satisfactory to find that the League and the Council in their work are performing the great international duty of endeavouring to settle matters by agreement or arbitration, or legal method, as apart from war.
In that matter I should like to say this: I think it did strike the members of the Council when it was put before them—and, of course, my only position was that of British representative—it did strike them not only that His Majesty's present Government through its Prime Minister had stated officially that the League of Nations would be the pivot of their foreign policy, but also that all other Parties, as represented by their leaders at the late Elections, had really put upon the forefront of their standards the emblem of the League of Nations. I think that that is appreciated, and appreciated at its full value. This was not a matter of one Government, or of a change of Government, but a matter on which the people of this country apparently had made up their minds to carry out a peaceful policy in our foreign relationships.
While I am dealing with that, as the noble Marquess is sitting opposite me at the present moment, I may make one other point. I have always gratefully recollected that, even during the war period, when the League of Nations idea was not so popular as it is at present, he, as Leader of this House, allowed a Resolution to be adopted which, even at that
88
date, committed the Government to a "careful inquiry"—I think those were the words—as to how a successful League of Nations might be instituted. From the time that he accepted that Resolution the idea and principles of a League of Nations have gone steadily forward in this country. The Resolution was supported by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, the late Earl Loreburn and the late Viscount Bryce, and in a very special manner by Lord Parker of Warrington, to whom the noble Marquess referred more than once as, from a jurist's point of view, stating the position in an admirable manner. I do not want to go into any details, but I desire to insist upon this—that from that date up to the present time there has been a constant increase of the authority and influence of the League, and of the support given to it in Great Britain.
In answer more immediately to the Question which the noble Earl has asked, I should like to dwell on one or two matters which are dealt with in further detail in the Paper to which I have referred. The first head is "Financial and Economic Reconstruction." One of the great works of the League has been in connection with Austrian finance. We had the advantage at the meeting of the Council of hearing Dr. Zimmerman, who is the international supervisor in connection with Austrian finance. He not only told us of the success of what the League had done, but he entered a caveat that the Austrian Government ought to be more economical, and ought to reduce expenditure, because, though at the present time the receipts were satisfactory, yet it was necessary that there should be further reduction made in the expenditure. On the whole, Dr. Zimmerman gave an admirable account of the success of Austrian finance—a success due to the action of the League of Nations, strongly supported, as it was, by Great Britain, and always with the approval of Lord Cecil of Chelwood as the British representative.
The next matter relates to the conditions of Greek refugees. The conditions of those refugees are very terrible, and there is an appeal both for public loans and private charities. But what struck me more than that was that the work is being carried out by a very well-known American, of great standing in his own

89
country, Mr. Morgenthau, and anyone who has been to the various districts of Europe—I have had the advantage of doing that since the war—will know what an enormous amount of work the Americans have done in endeavouring to bring assistance to the distressed parts of Europe. While I am mentioning Mr. Morgenthau's name—I shall mention subsequently the name of another American—may I say that I have great hopes that from the success of the Americans who have done work of this kind, before long the United States themselves may be induced to take a closer interest in the League, or even to become members of the Assembly themselves. Of course, nothing would he more likely to contribute towards the settlement of a great many of our European difficulties than such a step by the United States, and I am not without hope that they may do so.
The only other matter to which I want to call attention under this head is Albania. I do not know whether Lord Lamington is present, but the noble Lord asked me some time ago whether the Government would be prepared to assist Albania, and I answered that, if certain conditions were fulfilled, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out the hope that we might subscribe to the extent of £5,000. The Albanian Government brought this matter before the Council of the League, and, in order to show the exceptional conditions in that country. I should like to read one passage from information which was sent, from sources which are reliable, to the Foreign Office. This is what a well-informed correspondent wrote to the Foreign Office—of course I would not give his name. He spoke of
"the dignity, courage, and resignation with which the poor mountaineers have met their hard lot. They have died by scores of want, misery, and cold and have suffered without complaint. They had not raised their voices, neither had they risked for alms."
I brought that matter to the notice of the Council, and the Council unanimously were of the opinion that assistance should be given to Albania under these exceptional conditions.
The total amount required was about £20,000, and of that amount about £5,000 had already been found, leaving a sum of £15,000, in order that relief might he given. A proposal was made, and adopted on my recommendation, that the
90
League itself should make a subscription, and that it should appeal to other Members of the League to assist on the basis that, if other assistance was given, Great Britain would be prepared to find this sum of £5,000. I should like to add without mentioning names—because it is not public yet—that, from a telegram I have received to-day, I believe that this appeal to other Members of the League has been successful. Not only has it been successful from the point of view of getting this money, but also in respect of private charity. One American, as a private donation to deal with this matter, has already sent the sum of 10,000 dollars. Here, therefore, is an illustration of what the Council can do on a matter of this kind. It could not have been done, really, without the intervention of the Council.
I should like to say that when we were dealing with this matter the question was as to the best way in which the relief could be brought to these poor starving people. The Council finally directed the Secretary-General to request the Joint Committee of the International Red Cross Committee and of the League of Red Cross Societies to be goof enough to nominate a representative, to be responsible for the administration, on the League's behalf, of the funds made available by the decision of the Council. I do not think any better body could have been found. It is a body well-known to the noble Viscount who preceded me as the British representative on the League, and through the agency of that body this terrible famine may, I hope, be dealt with in the way I have indicated.
The next head to which my report refers is "Political Disputes." There are two matters in that connection to which I should like to call attention. There has been a long outstanding dispute between Czecho-Slovakia and Poland as regards the frontier in the Jaworzina district. It has not been a large matter; the whole population concerned only numbers about one thousand individuals. It has been a source of friction and trouble, however, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I believe the matter has now been finally settled. While I am dealing with that I might, perhaps, add that the other member of the Council who was new to the work was M. Benes. M. Benes, on behalf of Czecho-Slovakia, gave untiring

91
attention to matters of this kind in order that a satisfactory solution might be found.
The next question is that of Memel. I do not know whether your Lordships realise what a difficult matter Memel has been. It is difficult owing to the relations between Lithuania and Poland, and I might state quite shortly what the points were and how they have been dealt with. In the first place, you had to make a harbour board of a neutral character; a harbour board which would act neutrally between the different authorities concerned. The harbour board was constituted and a member of the League was placed upon it. Then you had to prepare the constitution of an autonomous government in Memel. Memel is passing over to the Lithuanians, but, meanwhile, an autonomous constitution for the protection of the inhabitants had to be prepared.
Thirdly, you had to deal with what, perhaps, was the most complex question of all—the traffic on the Niemen. Ninety per cent. of the traffic through Memel came from the hinterland and particularly from the Polish districts. That was a matter which was very difficult to adjust. What happened was this. I should like to dwell for a moment on this point. The Council appointed Mr. Norman Davis to be Chairman of the Committee which was to deal with this question. Mr. Norman Davis was at one time Under-Secretary of State in the United States Government during the Presidency of Mr. Wilson. He managed this work with extraordinary energy and ability, and he managed it in a way in which no one had contrived to manage it before by bringing it to a successful conclusion. Mr. Norman Davis is an extreme advocate of the League of Nations principle. Not only has he done this great work, but he told us he thought the fact that an American had done it would have great weight on opinion in the United States of America on the question of joining the League or not. He said they would be proud in America that an American had succeeded in this work at Memel. Only formal steps have now to be carried through in settlement of the whole question. It ended in the Poles, I will not say being satisfied—that would not be the right
92
way to put it—but in the Poles acquiescing in a Treaty being made between Lithuania and the four Allied Powers for bringing an end to a question which had been for a long time a source of international friction and trouble.
Now let me come to the next point, Corfu. When, some time ago, the Corfu incident took place, a question arose as to the jurisdiction of the League of Nations to interfere under conditions of that kind. I need hardly say that that raised very acute international questions, and it was resolved, I forget whether it was on the Motion of the noble Lord or not, though I think it was, that the very difficult legal and juridical matters which arose should be referred to a Jurists' Committee. A Jurists' Committee was constituted on which the English representative was one very well known to your Lordships' House and an ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Buckmaster. The answers of the jurists came back for acceptance by the Council. They were unanimously accepted en bloc by the Council, but with certain reservations made particularly by Mr. Branting on behalf of Sweden. Still, they were unanimously accepted.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: He only made a reservation as to one of them
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. Mr. Branting only made a reservation as to one of them, and the reservation he made came to this, if I may say so—I speak with the greatest respect to Mr. Branting—that the jurists had been unable to solve a question which he desired to be solved because they said, and I think said quite rightly, that in answering the question regard must be had to the particular circumstances of each case and you could not make a mere abstract answer.
But I think the most important matter which happened in regard to this was a statement made by Signer Salandra, the Italian representative. Your Lordships are aware that in the case of Corfu a difficulty had arisen between the Italian Government and the League, and this is what Signor Salandra said. It is so remarkable that I think I ought to read it:—
"I adhere to the proposal that the Council should approve as a whole the conclusions of the Special Commission of Jurists. As far as I am concerned, I do not

93
wish to make any declaration or reservation."—
That is to say, he adopted them entirely—
"The Royal Government of Italy and the delegate who has the honour personally to represent the Royal Government hope that this attitude may be regarded as a proof of their loyal adhesion to the essential principles of the Covenant, and of their desire that the League of Nations shall develop still further its beneficent activities with the object of maintaining the best possible relations between civilised peoples, and of assuring the peace of the world."
I think that is a very notable public expression of opinion coming from Italy and from Signor Salandra in reference to a matter in which the Italian nation was interested at the time—namely, what is known as the Corfu incident. I should like to add this, if I may, about the work of the League and of the Council. No one put his heart more into the matter and no one gave more intense co-operation, certainly in these matters, than the Italian representative.
Next, we come to what are called the administrative Commissions, and I want to say several words in reference to one of them because it raised the Saar question, which is a matter of great importance. First of all, however, let me deal with the question of Danzig. Difficulties had arisen as regards finding positions or places in the port of Danzig where the Polish Government could have their munitions or war material. It was a difficult matter. They wanted them to be rather in the centre. Danzig naturally desired that they should be removed to a more distant spot. The representative of Great Britain upon the Commission which dealt with this question was Admiral Aubrey Smith. We are very much indebted to him, and the whole Council of the League and this country are indebted to him, I am sure, for the admirable work he did in the settlement of this question. I think it has been settled now. The arrangement come to was that what he thought was right should be carried out, although for a period of six months the existing conditions, which in themselves are not satisfactory, are allowed to continue. After this period of six months, the suggestions made by Admiral Aubrey Smith will be carried out, and I think they will provide a satisfactory solution of the matter.
I am sorry that I have been so long, but the business of the Council was very important. I want now to speak
94
especially of what arose in reference to the Saar. I have always felt, and I still feel, that there has been a good deal to criticise in what has been done by the Council or Assembly of the League in regard to the Saar question. I do not mean to speak critically, but the matter has been an extremely difficult one and has not operated entirely in a satisfactory manner. No one has worked harder than the noble Viscount (I think in the right direction), but, at the same time, I do not think we have yet, arrived at quite the best solution.
There are three points, and one has to consider the mutter under each of these three heads. The first, point, and perhaps the smallest one in some senses, yet still an important one, is as regards the attitude of the Rhineland Commission in not allowing certain inhabitants of the Saar to leave the Saar district, because in order to leave it at all they would have to go across the Rhineland occupied district. There can be no doubt whatever that under the provisions of the. Treaty of Versailles, which I have here, as regards the Saar, persons living there are prima facie entitled to go over the occupied territory, and in and out as they desire. But it was alleged, as regards particular individuals, that they could not be allowed across the occupied territory for fear that they should raise disturbance and trouble in the occupied territory itself.
That was a matter which was considered by a large number of jurists—I recollect that Sir Frederick Pollock was of their number—who gave their opinion upon it. Fortunately, the matter has now been settled, and settled in the best possible manner. The restriction has been withdrawn, so that these Germans, who were practically interned, can now go in and out of the occupied district. But provision is made that while they are passing through the occupied district they shall not leave the station premises. It seems a simple and common-sense solution, but it has taken some years to arrive at it. When this matter was being approached by the Council at our last meeting at Geneva we were told that this settlement had been arrived at, and that it was satisfactory to all parties; therefore one of the difficulties with which we had to deal had been removed by a sensible arrangement.

95
The next question was that of the local gendarmerie in the Saar. Upon this point I may perhaps read to your Lordships what the Treaty says. It says this:
"Only a local gendarmerie for the maintenance of order may be established."
That is in the Saar district, and the Treaty goes on to say:
"It will be the duty of the Governing Commission to provide in all cases for the protection of persons and property in the Saar Basin."
On the one hand there has only to be a local gendarmerie, and on the other there is the duty of the Governing Commission to protect persons and property in the Saar Basin. The difficulty always has been to have a local gendarmerie, and in the absence of a local gendarmerie the claim has been made—I do not want to suggest anything wrong about it—that, inasmuch as it was the duty of the Commission to provide in all cases for the protection of persons and property in the Saar Basin, they should for that purpose employ French troops.
What is the position at the present time? A proposal was made that the local gendarmerie should be increased by 500 members, which was an adequate increase for one year. It was then brought to the notice of the Council by Mr. Stephens, who is a Canadian and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the funds would not allow of an increase to this extent in the present year. The reason stated was that there had been considerable interference with the railway traffic on the one side, and on the other side there had been a strike for one hundred days in the mining districts of the Saar. As the British representative I raised what protest I could against postponing the increase of the members of the local gendarmerie, and ultimately, on the proposition of the British representative, it was resolved that if the funds allowed in this current year a greater addition should be made to the local gendarmerie than had been allowed for in the original financial proposals for the Saar territory. I wish that we could have done more, but that was the most that could be done. However, a promise was made that the local gendarmerie should be made adequate and efficient as quickly as possible. When that is done any necessity for French troops will disappear.
96
There is another matter upon which there has been considerable discussion, and it is this. The Governing Commission of the Saar is appointed entirely by the Council of the League. It consists of five members, one of whom is to be representative of the Saar inhabitants. For some reason or other it has been difficult to get an adequate representative of the Saar inhabitants, and so long ago as the end of last year the noble Viscount took what I think was a right course, in a certain sense the only course. He said that so far as Great Britain was concerned we were desirous that the person representing the Saar inhabitants should be a real representative of the district which he was expected to represent. Having come to that conclusion, he suggested three possible names of representatives who would come within that category. One of them was Herr Kossmann, and after many inquiries by the Foreign Office—and the noble Viscount himself, I think, made such inquiries as he could—it was, in fact, agreed that Herr Kossmann on this occasion should be selected as the representative of the Saar inhabitants.
Considerable criticism has been levelled against the British representative because, as I understand, he did not insist on some other person being chosen. I had an opportunity of meeting the Saar inhabitants through their representatives. Of their thirty representatives on the Advisory Council twenty-three were at the interview that I had. I think they realised—for they expressed gratitude afterwards—that not only had this matter been settled for this occasion, but had been settled wisely so far as their interests were concerned. As so much criticism has been levelled against Herr Kossmann, I would ask your Lordships who possess a copy to look at the second annexe of the Report, where you will find a list of the recommendations of Herr Kossmann, which no doubt made the noble Viscount, and quite rightly, bring him forward as a suitable representative of the Saar inhabitants.
This matter has been so much criticised and discussed that I think it is only fair to Herr Kossmann that I should read one or two passages to show what an adequate person he is to act as the

97
Saar representative. This is what is stated:—
"Herr Kossmann was in early youth a miner in the Saar Valley. Having joined the Miners' Trade Union he soon attracted the attention of the leaders of the Workmen's Croups, who sent him to Berlin to take a course in Political Economy at the Trade Union School there. In 1906 he became Secretary to the Saar Catholic Workmen's Association; in 1909 he was elected as a member of the Municipal Council of Neunkirchen; in 1912 he was elected to the German Reichstag, of which he remained a member till 1918. After the revolution of 1918 he was elected to the German Constituent Assembly at Weimar. In the meantime he had been appointed Chairman of the German Catholic Miners' Group. During the military occupation of the Saar, after the Armistice, Herr Kossmann organised a Commission for the fixing of food prices, and an Economic Council, and was himself placed at the head of both organisations. When the Governing Commission of the, Saar Valley established the Advisory Council of the Saar Population they unanimously chose Herr Kossmann, in view of his trade union. Catholic and political affiliations and experience, as the most representative person they could find to preside over the deliberations."
It seems ridiculous to criticise any one with such qualifications as these as though he were a mere outsider and one who did not represent the wishes of the Saar district. I was going to say that his recommendations were almost too good.
As a matter of fact, the noble Viscount and the Foreign Office in this country took the greatest possible care to select the man they thought most suitable to represent the Saar district. After considerable negotiations they came to an agreement with M. Hanotaux on bealf of the French, and Herr Kossmann was unanimously adopted, as he ought to have been having regard to the care taken in his selection and the arrangement come to between the noble Viscount, my predecessor, and the French representative. Surely the suggestion that has been made that the wishes of the inhabitants of the Saar district have been disregarded by the selection of Herr Kossmann are dispelled by the information I have been able to give to your Lordships. It was actually stated in some papers that Herr Kossmann was a man to whom no responsibility could be entrusted; that he was a man without authority and without knowledge of the Saar people. The contrary is the fact.
There was one other representative to be elected, and it was suggested that he should be either a Spaniard or a Norwegian.
98
So far as the Spaniard was concerned his recommendations were extremely good. I say that because I voted in the minority. I did not vote for the Spaniard, I preferred the Norwegian. But no one can possibly say that the Spaniard was not properly qualified to be placed on the Saar Governing Commission. I am very anxious that this matter should be clearly understood because I think it would be a distinct dereliction of duty for any member of the Council not to take the greatest possible care to see that the Governing Commission of the Saar Valley is properly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
The only other mtter to which I need refer is under the head of "Protection of minorities." I doubt whether any more difficult question if thrown upon the Council of the League than the adequate protection of minorities in particular countries. There are districts in Central Europe where natural affection towards minorities is somewhat cold at the present time. There are great difficulties particularly between Poland and Germany. I should tell your Lordships what the conditions were because a very large step has beer taken towards a settlement of these difficulties. It is to the credit of Poland that we have been able to carry the settlement as far as we have. In the first place, there was a difficulty with regard to German colonists, as they were called, who had property in the new Poland and who had been expelled without adequate compensation. The question whether they ought to have been expelled or not was brought before the International Tribunal at The Hague, and they held that the Poles had no right to treat German colonists in this way.
Fortunately, this matter was referred to a Committee of which one of the members was a member of your Lordships' House, a great international jurist, Lord Phillimore. When we were at the Council at Geneva we had before us the Report of this Committee of which Lord Phillimore was a member, and the matter has now been referred back to them. I have, no doubt that, having been so referred, it will be brought to a proper and satisfactory settlement. Meanwhile, in answer to questions which I raised, the Poles have undertaken not to expel any more German colonists and to pro-

99
vide compensation for those who have been expelled. The difficulty in cases of this kind is to set up adequate machinery, but Lord Phillimore made a suggestion which was received with universal satisfaction—namely, that you might have the aggregate amount to be paid settled and leave it to the Committee to divide that aggregate amount. If you were to have these compensation cases dealt with separately it would be years and years before a matter of this kind would be settled.
The difficult question of nationality, particularly between Germany and Poland, has been causing trouble for a long time, but this is now on the way towards adequate settlement. It is pro vided that the two countries shall endeavour to settle this matter between themselves, but if it is not settled within a specified time, then an arbitrator has been appointed with power of settlement; the arbitrator being the head of the Court appointed by Poland and Germany in Northern Silesia. He is a man who has the confidence of both parties. I hope that this question of nationality will ultimately be settled as between Germany and Poland, and then one cause of friction and trouble will be removed. I need not trouble your Lordships about other matters, important as they are, "Slavery," "Social questions," and "Opium traffic." I have already trespassed on your time so long as I ought, but let me say one word in conclusion as to the future.
One naturally looks to the future as regards the League of Nations, and looking to the future in the light of experience one cannot help feeling that the one absolutely important matter is that it should become all-inclusive. You cannot really have a League of Nations in the deeper and truer sense when such a country as Germany is not in it. It really is impossible to deal adequately with these questions, the deeper questions, until Germany is a Member. Your Lordships will have noticed that in almost every question to which I have referred the German Republic has been interested and affected. I hope everything has been done to promote justice and equity. Rut you want something more. You want the cooperation and assistance of the countries and peoples concerned. You want not
100
only to ensure that they are properly treated, but you want to have the knowledge which you can only derive from the countries and peoples themselves. That is why I look forward with hope as regards the future of the League of Nations. Enthusiastic as I have been in the past in upholding the principle of the League. I must say, as the result of my journey to Geneva, that I am more hopeful now of its ultimate success than I have ever been.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think your Lordships are indebted, not only to my noble friend Lord Buxton for raising this matter, but to the Lord President for the very full and interesting account which he has given of the proceedings of the Council of the League at Geneva. Personally, I am delighted to hear of an experience which, I believe, is that of all who go to Geneva. They come back very much stronger believers in the League than they were before they went. I remember one of the noble Lord's colleagues, Lord Chelmsford, making a very striking speech at the Assembly in 1922, in which he explained that he had come to Geneva very doubtful as to the desirability of the League, that he had been convinced by the proceedings of the Assembly that it was doing a very good work, and that he was confident of its success and its future usefulness.
I think all of your Lordships who read the Report which Lord Parmoor has drawn up and circulated will be struck, first of all, with the extraordinary number and variety of the subjects with which the League deals. If it were not (with all deference to my noble friend, Lord Newton) that the hour is rather late, I should like to read to your Lordships merely the titles of this extraordinary variety of subjects—the administrative matters, such as those to which the noble Lord has referred, the reconstruction matters, such as those concerned with Hungary, Austria, and so on, and a great many other headings dealing with humanitarian matters, economic matters and matters of every kind. That is, in one sense, a very desirable thing, for I am all for magnifying the League's office. Rut it raises two questions which I think are worthy of your Lordships' attention.
In the first place, I will venture to put a question to the Government. Here is

101
this great variety of work being done, work of immense importance in almost every department of human activity. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he is yet satisfied that the departmental organisation here is adequate for the purpose. I do not express an opinion, because I am obviously not in a position to judge, but when I have had the extreme pleasure of visiting the noble Lord at the Foreign Office on official business, as I have done once or twice, I certainly have not been struck with the magnificence of the arrangements that are there made for dealing with League matters. The noble Lord will be aware of the kind of thing to which I am referring. I do not wish to press him unduly, but I hope he will not be weary in welldoing, and will do his utmost to see that the Government, which I am very glad to know have put the League in the forefront of their foreign policy, will ensure that tire departmental arrangements are adequate, and more than adequate, and are such as will impress the casual observer that the Government really mean business when they say that they regard the work of the League as the most important element in their foreign policy.
Then there is another point. The League of Nations does all these various things, and its work increases from year to year. It is an organism, and a live organism, and, like all live organisms, it grows. I think that is inevitable. I do not want to see it grow too fast in the number of subjects that it takes on, though I am very anxious that it should grow as fast as possible in the importance of the topics with which it deals. Nevertheless, it does grow. I observe in this Report that it has taken up two new subjects. One is an international arrangement for the legal assistance of the poor—an excellent thing, and I have nothing to say against it. I see that the funds for it are to be provided by some outside source. Further, the League is taking over some organisation for child welfare. That also is most admirable, and I have no doubt that it is a matter in which an international organisation can do the greatest possible service. But that will mean certain additional expenditure.
I have never shared the view that the League of Nations is extravagant. On
102
the contrary, I believe that the amount of money that is spent on the League represents work done with the utmost economy. When you consider that the whole of this organisation works for all the nations of the world with something less than £1,000,000, including the cost of the Labour Office, and when you compare that sum with the ordinary expenditure of a public Department, I think any one who has any candour of mind will agree that the work is done with extraordinary economy. I do not regret that. Economy combined with efficiency is an admirable thing. But I do not want you to sweat the League, and if you are going to put more and more work upon it, as I think is inevitable, then you will have to face the difficulty of an increase of staff and a consequent increase of expenditure. The figures are small at present, but that is one of the points about which I feel anxious. I am not quite satisfied that you really have a machine which is adequate to deal effectively with all the multifarious activities which the League now undertakes.
That doubt, is particularly urgent in the ease of some of the League's administrative work. I have never attended or read of a Council of the League since it was started without finding that a large part of its time was consumed in administrative problems connected with Danzig and the Saar. I am not sure whether under the Memel arrangement, which I heartily welcome, additional administrative work will not devolve upon the League. Certain administrative duties were also put upon the League, I think with the greatest possible wisdom, by the Treaty of Lausanne, though they mainly consist in appointing individuals, which is not a very serious matter. But I am not quite satisfied that the organisation of the League is really adequate to deal with these administrative problems. It is a difficult point. They have a most admirable official, a Norwegian gentleman, whom I have no doubt my noble friend came across—M. Colban—whom it is impossible to overpraise for the admirable work which he does. But, at the same time, to deal with day to day administrative problems needs a very considerable organisation, and I am not sure whether that problem has really been solved.

103
I see, for instance, that at this particular Council no fewer than nine different questions came up to be dealt with from Danzig—it is true that several of them were postponed—and at every Council the same sort of thing has happened. You have a very difficult administrative problem to deal with at Danzig, with its Poles and Germans, and Very complicated problems have also arisen in the Saar, concerning which I cordially welcome the noble Lord's observations. I was very glad to hear his warm and, I think, quite just defence of the appointment of Herr Kossmann, but perhaps he will forgive me if I remind him that his attitude is in refreshing contrast to that which was, at any rate at first, adopted by the Prime Minister in the other House, where he spoke of the noble Lord as unfortunately having had to struggle with undisclosed arrangements made by his predecessor in connection with the Saar.
LORD PAPMOOR: That was subsequently explained in the other House.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It was explained to the extent that the suggestion that there was anything undisclosed was inaccurate. I do not want to make a grievance about it, but as a matter of fact there was no matter undisclosed. Everything I did at Paris in December was officially recorded at the Foreign Office, and was at the disposal of my successor from the outset.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Nor do I gather that the noble Lord felt that it was a very difficult struggle which he had to make against the unfortunate arrangement which I was supposed to have made. I am sure it was the best appointment that could have been made at that moment. I am aware that there are gentlemen in the Saar who have criticised it, and others, but it is right to say—because I do not think it is always realised—that there is a section of opinion in the Saar which is not anxious that the Governing Commission should succeed. At the end of fifteen years the Saar inhabitants will have to make a decision. They will have to decide either for annexation to France, or for retrocession to Germany, or for a continuance of the present régime.
104
No one believes—I speak quite frankly—that they will decide for annexation to I France. That alternative may be completely set aside. They may decide for the maintenance of the existing régime, and it is very natural that those who are anxious for complete retrocession to Germany should be anxious also that the Saar régime should not be too great a success, so that their fellow-citizens may not be, as they think, misled into voting for a continuance of it. It is therefore not possible to say to some of the most energetic of the inhabitants of the Saar, "Whom do you want?" because they may decide for some one whose main object is to bring the thing into disorder. I certainly think that the inhabitants of the Saar should be consulted. It is very important that they should be. I do not think that we have reached the final solution of how you should appoint the Saar Member, but I am satisfied that this solution is not to be sought by taking the first person whom the loudest mouthed inhabitants press upon the Council.
I am not so happy about the gendarmerie. There is no doubt that the real criticism of the administration of the Saar is not what the Saar Commission has done, so far as the Government is concerned. I believe it has been a good Government and certainly a very economical Government. There has been no disturbance since it was installed, and on the whole I have never come across any evidence of anything like grave injustice. I believe it is a good Government on the whole, but undoubtedly its defect is that it has too much the appearance of being a French Government. I do not want to say a word against the French, but undoubtedly that is the thing which makes it unpopular with a large portion of the inhabitants, and anything which emphasises that, or makes it appear to be true, is unfortunate. That is why personally, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me, I am satisfied that the sooner the French garrison is withdrawn, or if it cannot be immediately withdrawn, diminished, the better.
I have never quite understood why it is necessary to keep so many troops there at all. The Saar is not a large place. It is not more than thirty or forty miles wide, and it has very admirable railway accommodation. I cannot see why it is

105
necessary to have troops there, or why they should not be just on the borders of the Saar, and not in the Saar itself. I venture to urge that upon the noble and learned Lord as a possible solution which he may consider for the future. As to the increase in the gendarmerie no doubt it is an expensive matter, and there are other difficulties with which the noble and learned Lord is probably familiar; for example, as to whether a native gendarmerie would be in all respects the best force to protect French property in the Saar.
One subject which the noble and learned Lord did not mention is the Decree against peaceful picketing. The noble Lord will remember that last summer, when the strike took place, there were two Decrees passed in a rather irregular manner. One has since been withdrawn. It created a lot of Press offences. The other was a Decree making peaceful picketing illegal. In July, or it may have been September, when these things were considered, there was a kind of—I will not say undertaking, but understanding, recorded rather tentatively in a Resolution of the Council, that all exceptional methods were to be withdrawn as soon as possible. They have withdrawn the larger ordinance, but they have never withdrawn the ordinance about peaceful picketing. There are great difficulties about the matter because sentiment on the Continent is not quite the same as it is in this country on the subject, and no doubt the Council would not be very warmly in favour of withdrawing that Decree. I hope, however, it is a matter which the noble and learned Lord will not lose sight of, and that he will press for its withdrawal as soon as practicable.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in his general review. There is one topic about which I may perhaps say a word, though he did not mention it, and that is Hungary. As the House is aware, that is exactly the same proceeding in its nature as what was done in the case of Austria. It is a similar attempt to save this State from financial and economic ruin. I hope it is going through. I believe that the noble and learned Lord was able to secure the final signature of the Protocol embodying the arrangement come to earlier in the year, and I am glad to see that these signatures have been affixed to the
106
Protocol. I think it is a remarkable instance of the atmosphere of the League to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I do not believe it would be easy to find greater racial differences than those which exist between the countries surrounding Hungary and Hungary itself, and yet all have come forward to help Hungary, and, in particular, not to use her misfortunes to aggrandise themselves or their interests. I think it is a very satisfactory result. I know that very good judges indeed thought that, whatever happened in Austria, it was very improbable that the League would ever succeed in obtaining a similar result for Hungary. Therefore, it is a matter upon which I think this House may congratulate itself, that the League has been able to carry through the second of these great, steps, which are, I think, the only two great reconstructive steps which have been made since the war.
I do not want to say anything about Memel or Jaworzina. If one may be pardoned for a somewhat impudent phrase, they may be described as two cases in which the League has wiped the eye, of the Ambassadors' Conference. They are two eases in which the Ambassadors' Conference failed to secure a settlement, and which the League has settled. I was glad to hear the reference which was made to Mr. Norman Davis, who has done admirable work in connection with Memel. He is a very distinguished American citizen, who really has been past all praise in the tact and judgment and energy with which he has pursued that task to a success.
I should like to say one word about one of the topics to which the noble Lord referred—namely, the answer of the Jurists' Commission on the Corfu incident. That is the final conclusion of that incident. We have dealt with it altogether. I never have been one of those who thought that the Corfu incident was otherwise than very satisfactory from a League point of view. I remember vehement criticisms being made upon it at the time. I remember particularly that Mr. Lloyd George wrote, for publication in America, a most violent attack on the whole thing. It was conceived with that indifference to fact, and that vehemence of statement and recklessness of consequences which are

107
characteristic of that gentleman's methods of controversy when he is dealing cither with a political opponent or with a Minister of a friendly country, and he concluded it with these words:—
"It has damaged the British name, it has destroyed the authority of the League of Nations."
A more recklessly inaccurate statement has never been made. As a matter of fact, I believe that the incident has done a great deal to increase the authority of the League of Nations. And these final events show the extent to which that is true.
They show, in the first place, that the League did not feel itself too weak to tackle, an international controversy, even if one of the great Powers was engaged in it. That fact alone was of importance. It showed that, once the League took up a question, warlike developments ceased. They ceased instantly. There were no further warlike developments from the moment the matter was placed by the Greeks into the hands of the League. I think that the way the League dealt with it showed that the one desire that prevails at Geneva is to achieve a peaceful settlement of a matter, and that no question of corporate amour propre would interfere with it. The moment the two parties informed the Council of the League that they had agreed to go before another tribunal, the Council of the League Very properly said: "If you have agreed to take another tribunal, that is your affair: all we want is a peaceful settlement. By all means go to the tribunal." But they very rightly drew up, and recommended to the other tribunal, what they believed would be a just settlement of the dispute. And I venture to think that the real mistake that was made in the whole transaction was that the terms of that settlement were not adhered to in one important particular by the Conference of Ambassadors.
There were two difficulties which resulted from that article to which I have referred. A great deal was made of the fact that a great Power had challenged the competence of the League. I think too much was made of it even at the time, but the result is most satisfactory, as it happens. We have now had a reply from the jurists to whom were submitted three questions, raising, in effect, this
108
proposition: Is there any conceivable ground on which the competence of the League may be rejected, except the one mentioned in Article 15 itself, namely, that the matter affects the international jurisdiction of a country? The jurists—and there was an Italian jurist there also—have unanimously answered that there is no limit, except that, to the competence of the League in dealing with international disputes. That has now been laid down. It was accepted in the warmest language by everybody present at the Council, and it may now be safely asserted that it would be quite impossible for any Power to raise any question as to the competence of the League in an international dispute, whatever it might be, in the future.
Then there is the question of reprisals, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That is a much more difficult question, and a much more doubtful question in international law. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Buckmaster is not here, because I should have very much liked to hear his views on the subject. But, in substance at any rate, you have got this decision—that where any reprisal is carried out by one Power against another, it is for the League to decide, if the dispute comes before it, whether that is a legitimate reprisal, or whether it is one which is, in substance, a resort to war. That decision really does give to the League a very large measure of authority, which perhaps it was doubtful whether it had before. I regard these replies of the jurists, and their acceptance by the League, as an immense step forward in the history of the League.
Taken with the very valuable and successful decisions of the International Court of Justice, they are an assertion, and more than an assertion—an exercise—of the judicial, law-making power of the League which will, I believe, be of great importance to the international law of the world. When I was in America I heard a great deal of the necessity of the codification of international law. I believe that is, in existing circumstances, a chimera which cannot be attained, but I do believe that the steady growth of international law, by judicial or quasi- judicial decision, is a most valuable gain, and will gradually build up a body of international law much more elastic and

109
flexible than that which now exists, and will have the great advantages of growth which we know in our own judicial system. I think the decisions of the jurists have been a great step forward in that direction.
The noble and learned Lord concluded by affirming his belief in the League, and by asserting that the League, was a living and a growing organism. I am sure that he is right, and there are three straws—perhaps more than straws—which seem to me very instructive. There are the very remarkable words used by the Italian representative, which I will not read again, as the noble and learned Lord has already read them, but I particularly refer to the phrase as to their desire that the League of Nations "shall develop still further its beneficent activities," which, as he very truly said—for I can entirely confirm him in that respect—the representatives of Italy have been instructed evidently to act upon, as their instructions in dealing with any matter which comes before the League. I say that that is a very important indication of the position which the League now holds.
There were some phrases used by Mr. Norman Davis, in his final observations on the Memel question, which seem to me equally important. He says that he has been very much gratified because this work has given good evidence of what the League of Nations has accomplished, which could not be otherwise accomplished, and he said:—
"It was naturally impossible to find a settlement that suited everyone, but I feel that my trip from America to Europe has been worth while, because it has proved to me that the League of Nations is doing what it was intended to do."
I think that is a very valuable testimony from that very distinguished American who came from the other side of the Atlantic to see what the League is doing, and to assist in its work.
Perhaps I may, without indiscretion, add just one other instance. In the new
110
French Ministry I observe with great pleasure the inclusion of several well-known advocates of the League of Nations. M. Loucheur is a very strong believer in the League, as I know from personal conversations with him. M. de Jouvenel is probably the keenest supporter of the League among the public men of Franco at this moment since M. Léon Bourgeois has almost retired from public life; and, finally, there is Colonel Fabry, who was sitting the other day with me on the Sub-Committee on Armaments in Paris, and who has rendered immensely valuable service in assisting the work of that Committee and particularly in that of the draft. Treaty of Mutual Assistance. I think the fact that when a powerful Minister desires to strengthen his Ministry he should naturally turn, in France, to those who have distinguished themselves by their advocacy of the League of Nations is an indication—and, indeed, there are many other indications—of the great growth in the authority and prestige of the League in that country.
As to this country, the noble and learned Lord knows as well as I do that the position of the League is immensely strong. It is, I think, growing in strength every day. We have now evidence that it is growing in strength in two of the great countries of Europe, and that it has at any rate received an emphatic endorsement in an important part of its duties from a distinguished American citizen. These facts seem to me to afford good augury for the future. In congratulating the noble and learned Lord on the work which he was able to do in Geneva, I join with him in expressing confidence in the League and the firm belief that it is through the League, and through the League only, that we can hope for the eventual pacification of the world.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.