COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

HL Deb 14 July 1924 vol 58 cc478-98

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord President of the Council if he can give to the House any information relating to the last meeting of the League of Nations.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

My Lords, I shall have to reply at some length to the Question of the noble Earl because I think there is need of publicity concerning what takes place at the meetings of the Council of the League of Nations. The noble Earl, I am sure, refers not to the meeting of the League of Nations, but to the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, from which I have recently returned, and your Lordships are aware that last Friday or Saturday a miscellaneous Paper was issued containing my Report of what passed at the meeting. It will be unnecessary, therefore, for me to go into any questions of detail; they are all contained in the Report of the British representative.

The meeting, in some respects, was not so important as the March meeting; that is to say, the questions involved were not of such wide interest. On the other hand, it was a very important meeting as it was an evidence of the growing friendly spirit which, most fortunately, dominates the whole position at Geneva. Let me call your attention to the very important character of the representation. France was represented by the veteran upholder of the principle of the League of Nations, M. Leon Bourgeois, and M. de Jouvenel, who held a prominent place in M. Poincaré's Cabinet. M. Hymans represented Belgium. He has taken a prominent part in the foreign affairs of Belgium for a long time. In addition our President was M. Benes, Foreign Minister of Czecho-Slovakia.

I want to make one or two statements to your Lordships and then to refer to several matters which took place at the last meeting of the Council. The principal members who will represent Great Britain at the coming Assembly in September have now been designated by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Your Lordships will recollect that the Prime Minister himself, I am sure at great sacrifice considering all the work he has to undertake, will be the leading British representative. I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, expressed the hope the other day that the Prime Minister would not only be present at the commencement but would remain at Geneva during the whole month of September. That is a counsel of perfection, but it is too much to ask of any Prime Minister, having regard to the enormous claims that are made upon his time and strength. The present British representative will be the second member of the representation, the Home Secretary will be the third—there are many important matters specially within the cognisance of the Home Secretary—and the fourth representative, who will be the alternative to the Prime Minister and will take the place of the Prime Minister when the latter has to go away, will be Professor Gilbert Murray, the very eminent professor of Oxford University, who is Chairman of the Executive Council of the League of Nations Union and who is known to have taken a very active part in all questions of League principles and League detail. He is a Liberal in politics, but politics do not enter into a question of this kind.

There is another matter about which I have been asked, and should like, to say a word. I have been asked questions on several occasions concerning the views of the Government on the Treaty of Mutual Assistance. These views have now been sent in a considered Report to the Secretariat at Geneva, and no doubt they will be immediately published. I am not sure whether they have actually been published yet, but the document was sent some time last week. I think that the tenor of the document will show what I may call a continuity of view on this subject between the present Government and the late Government. I hesitate to go further, but I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has just entered the House, and I ought to say that when he considers that document he will not be altogether satisfied with its contents. I do not propose to comment upon the document which must speak for itself. It has the assent of all the Dominions—we all have one common view on this subject—and a very similar view at any rate was expressed by the United States Government, as I saw in the Press towards the end of last week. The noble Viscount will understand, therefore, that although I do not propose on the present occasion to go into the arguments in detail he cannot expect to find that the answer is favourable to his point of view.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment? Has the document to which he has referred been published yet? I have not seen it.

LORD PARMOOR

It has been published in the sense that it has been sent to the Secretariat which, as the noble Viscount knows, is the way in which a document of this kind is published. I am in the same position as the noble Viscount in that I have not actually seen it referred to in a published paper, but it has been published by being sent as the answer of the Government to the Secretariat at Geneva. I do not propose to go into this answer in any detail, but, after seeing the document, the noble Viscount may desire to raise a question on some specific occasion. In the meantime, the answer has been published formally and technically.

If I may, I wish to say one other word on a general point before I come to the specific matters which were dealt with at the last Council meeting. Questions have been raised—I do not intend to go into them in any sense to-day—of strengthening the Council or strengthening the League, by the admission of countries which are not Members at the present time. I merely wish to make this statement as a view of my own and not from any official standpoint. I hope that if the League is strengthened by the addition of Members this will not interfere with the representation of the Council as it now exists. In other words, I hope that if the League is strengthened the Council will be proportionately increased in number, and I say that because there are so many members of the Council, known very well to the noble Viscount opposite as well as to myself, all of whom have done, and are doing, splendid work.

It is true that there must be a certain routine of representation. That is an essential factor of the Constitution of the League. On the other hand, I should be extremely sorry if the admission of other countries to the League lessened the opportunities of re-election of those who are now members of the Council or the election of persons in their place. I speak with gratitude of that which has been done by the representatives of Spain and of other countries. So far as the Latin Republics of America are concerned, to a great extent they decide one with another what they would desire the representation to be and I desire to say, being myself a strong advocate of making the League what has been described as "all inclusive," that I do not want this to be done by sacrificing the position of any members of the existing Council. This, of course, can be avoided within the terms of the Pact, by increasing the membership of the Council at least to a proportionate number.

I do not know whether your Lordships have before you the Report of the last session of the Council which I hold in my hand, but there are one or two matters in it to which I should like to call attention. It was published, I think, on Saturday. The first group of matters referred to comes under the head of "Financial and economic reconstruction," and I think I can claim for the League and the Council of the League that, whatever criticism they have been subjected to in some directions, their work in financial and economic reconstruction has been entirely good and entirely satisfactory. To a great extent that is due to the strong character of the Financial Committee of the League. It really represents the banking, financial and economic interests of all the leading countries. In all that it has desired to do it has always attained the confidence and support of the financial interests in the various countries concerned. Perhaps it would be invidious to mention a name, but everyone who knows his work is conscious of the great indebtedness of the League and of the Council to the representative of the British Treasury, who has done admirable work on every occasion in dealing with these matters of financial and economic reconstruction. As your Lordships will understand, matters of financial and economic reconstruction always affect this country in a particular manner. In other words, when financial assistance is required the first consideration is to obtain the support of the British Government.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to draw your attention in a word or two to that which has been done under these heads of financial and economic reconstruction. That which has been done for Austria is fairly well known, and I do not think that I need refer to it again. One or two questions were raised during the discussions of the Council in which the suggestion was very properly emphasised that further drastic economies were required if Austria were to be economically independent in the future. I think it is as well to make it clear that, although an immense amount has been done for Austria, she is still only on her way to financial stability in the wider sense of the term and that care is still necessary.

Now I come to the case of Greece. Here I think I can claim that the British Government and the British people have done good work. Mr. Morgenthau, the American head of the Committee dealing with Greek refugees, came here some time in April and it fell to my lot to be Chairman of the Sub-Committee which deals with this question of Greek refugees-This work, which it of the very greatest importance and involves the happiness or misery of hundreds of thousands of people, could not have been carried on without the assistance of the Bank of England. Mr. Norman, of the Bank of England, came forward and supplied, on proper security, £1,000,000 of English money, which has enabled this great work to be carried on. It is hoped that this amount will suffice until permanent arrangements have been made in the autumn. As adding to what I have said, I might state that the statistics of these Greek refugees show that during the period from January I to April 30, 13,000 Greek refugee families were settled in Macedonia, Thrace and old Greece. I dare say your Lordships will appreciate what that statement means—the settlement of 13,000 families who, apart from such help, would have been really in a hopeless condition. This work could not have been carried out without our assistance and except, through the financial methods familiar to those who deal with the League of Nations, and I claim that it is entirely to their credit that this assistance has been given.

In the case of Albania, your Lordships may recollect that Lord Lamington called attention at an early date to this matter and asked whether, in the exceptional circumstances, assistance might not be given by the British Government. I was happy to be able to give a sympathetic reply. The sum promised by the British Government was found, other sums dependent upon our contribution have also been found, and again, there has been great alleviation of famine conditions. But although these conditions have been alleviated, we have found that all the difficulties have not been overcome and we appeal to other States who have not heretofore given assistance to help in this matter.

Now I come to a very important matter and a really great success—Hungary. What has happened in the case of Hungary could not have happened except through the assistance of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations. I wish to emphasise that but for the influence, authority and security which the League gives the amount of money desired to be found for Hungary could not have been found. When we met on the Council of the League the last time we were told that owing to the large amount of money promised from English sources the loan to Hungary was likely to be an assured success, and the Council gave its authority to the Financial Committee to do all they could to carry through the financial negotiations. We acted upon the advice of the Financial Committee and gave to the Reparation Commission an undertaking that it could carry through to a conclusion the reconstruction plans contained in the Protocol. This undertaking was required as a condition to the Reparation Commission releasing their claims upon Hungarian assets. That was an extremely important factor and the result is that the whole of the Hungarian loan—I think it was oversubscribed—was found, and the gratitude of the Hungarian Government has been expressed more than once. This is a great step in the direction of their financial reconstruction.

The next point on which I should like to say one word is the Saar Valley. The Saar Valley has been the topic of criticism on more than one occasion. It has been often suggested that the trusteeship of the Council of the League of Nations, as guardians of the interests of the inhabitants of the Saar Valley, has not been adequately carried out. I think that criticism has been unduly exaggerated. The position was a very difficult one, and I think it is being gradually straightened out. It stands in this way at the present time: that the local gendarmerie has been increased to an extent which the British Government considered satisfactory. The constitution of the Governing Commission, largely influenced by what was done by my predecessor, Lord Cecil, has been placed upon a satisfactory basis. A delegation of the inhabitants of the Saar Valley came to me at Geneva to express gratitude for what the British Government had done and to state that the existing conditions placed them in an entirely different position to that in which they were before. I think that is important because it is a case of trusteeship which ought to be carried out in as effective a manner as possible, although from the very conditions of governing a country of 700,000 mining inhabitants, it is no easy task. The only outstanding question concerns the Customs Duties which can be charged when the first five years of the occupation come to an end. That question was raised really very late before the last Council, and was sent to a Committee of Jurists. I have no doubt that, whatever the law is said to be, that law the Council will determine shall be enforced.

The next question about which I should like to say a word—and I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore is not here—is with regard to the protection of minorities. Your Lordships are perfectly well aware of the prejudice aroused, even in this country, on what I may call the alien question. Even in this advanced country there are people not above prejudice when dealing with aliens, and you can hardly wonder, therefore, that in a country like Poland the difficulties are much greater. The Polish Government, with whom we have had the most friendly relationships, have, however, always expressed a desire to do the best they can in the difficult circumstances which exist, and ultimately, in order that these matters might be settled, Lord Phillimore undertook the Chairmanship of a Committee appointed to arrange terms of settlement between the Polish Government and those known as German "colonists."

It is a very difficult question. A large number of "colonists" had been expelled, as was thought unjustly. It had, in fact, been found to be unjust by an international Conference, and the question of compensation arose. A series of compensation cases under those conditions might have taken years to settle. I am perfectly certain from my knowledge of such matters that it would have been extremely difficult to carry them through. But what really happened was this. The Polish Government met Lord Phillimore's Committee in a most fair-minded way. They suggested that an over-all sum should be settled on terms which Lord Phillimore satisfied himself were fair, and then this over-all sum, having once been settled, should be distributed among the various claimants. A system of that kind is not perfect, but Lord Phillimore's son, Captain Phillimore, kindly went to Poland, His mission there turned out a great success. He saw the various claimants, and so far as he could ascertained what would be a fair payment to meet their claims, and the figure was ultimately accepted by the Polish Government. I should like to express my gratitude to the Polish Government for the step they took towards the settlement of this difficult question.

There is a further outstanding question between Germany and Poland affecting what are called minorities of nationality—again a very difficult question. I believe that is being settled at the present time by a Committee in Vienna. Many-steps had already been taken at the last Council Meeting, but the matter was not concluded. When the Polish representative was called before the Council, he gave an undertaking that whatever the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal should be they would be enforced by Poland and, meanwhile, the hand of Poland would be stayed in the sense that she would not push forward further evictions while matters were sub judice. I will give the words of the Polish representatives' reply when it was alleged that persons had been unfairly expelled. I am afraid I had rather to cross-examine him and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will appreciate that. The Polish representatives said that in no case had any such persons been expelled from their properties or from Polish territory; that if administrative action had actually been taken it was only in cases where it was clear that the nationality of such an individual in no way depended on the Vienna negotiations. He promised to give further information to the Council of the League so that they might see that everything went fairly in the future, I do not for a moment doubt that, and I hope that the matter may be satisfactorily settled.

A further very important matter was the control of armaments in Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria. This has such an important bearing to my mind on the whole question of disarmament that I want to emphasise the position. At the request of the British Government the following item was placed on the Agenda of the Council: To consider the position of the Council of the league of Nations in regard to Articles 159 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, 143 of the Treaty of Trianon and 104 of the Treaty of Neuilly. Under these Articles this is the provision: Austria (Hungary Bulgaria) undertakes to submit to any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations, acting if need be by a majority vote, may consider necessary. Let me explain what that means.

Up till this time there have been Inter-Allied Commissions of Control to safeguard the position of disarmament in those three countries. It was always contemplated that after a time these Inter-Allied Commissions of Control should come to an end, and that then the League should undertake the duty of seeing that no fresh armaments were made. In other words, these countries agreed under the Covenant to submit the question of disarmament to the investigation of the League after the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control came to an end. That was extremely satisfactory in itself, but the question was how to carry it out. Fortunately, the representatives of France—who, I must say, have always, in my experience at the Council, been extremely friendly—were M. Bourgeois, whom the noble Earl opposite will affectionately remember, and M. de Jouvenel, a great friend of the League of Nations. They both assented to this.

They said quite frankly—and it was afterwards stated publicly—that this is a very important point, particularly to France, because whatever is applied to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria will certainly be applied in the ease of Germany. I do not say it will be applied immediately, because the question is whether Germany has now complied with the conditions of Article 203 of the Treaty of Versailles, and it is not until she has complied with those conditions that the subsequent steps can be taken under Article 213. I indicated, on behalf of the British Government, that there were two difficulties ahead of us. One was a difficulty to be settled by jurists, because it was not very obvious how the Council should be composed under the terms of the Treaty when these matters came to be considered. The second point was that we should have to be advised on technical matters as regards armaments of various kinds. M. de Jouvenel, who, on behalf of the French Delegation, accepted the general proposal, said he thought these matters might be settled in this way: that so far as concerned the jurists' question it should be sent to the Committee of Jurists. We were unanimous, and that has been done. I hope very much that this country will be again represented by my noble friend Lord Phillimore if he can possibly spare the time to go to Geneva.

Then there was the further question of expert opinion on naval, military, and are matters. That was referred to what is known as the permanent Advisory Commission—a Commission which was appointed under the terms of the Covenant in order to advise the Council on all military questions. But it was made clear—and I want to emphasise this point—by every member of the Council, I think, that these two bodies, the Committee of Jurists and the permanent Advisory Commission, were only in the position of giving advice, and that the ultimate determination and responsibility must rest with the Council itself, and with the Council only. I consider it very important to make that point quite clear. I am glad to see that the noble Earl appreciates that, because he has had such great experience in these matters. Having made it clear that the ultimate responsibility rested with the Council itself, we were unanimous as to the provision to be made.

Let us see how important that is. Supposing you have the disarmament of Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary, and afterwards, we will say, of Germany, submitted to investigation by the League of Nations. There you have immediately a test of disarmament under the control of the League of Nations itself—a test of disarmament which is capable of much wider application, if it is thought desirable that such application should be made. I do not propose to go any further at present than to make the suggestion, which has always appealed to my mind, that disarmament is the way to bring about security, and that it is rather the wrong way of looking at matters to say that security must come first, and disarmament afterwards. I think we realised all these difficulties when this matter was discussed during the war in this House.

The proper interpretation of the Covenant, it seems to me, is that, given disarmament under proper conditions—and no doubt the intention is that there should be disarmament of all countries in the long run—that would bring the security which we all want; whereas, if you do not have a measure of disarmament, in whatever terms you may have it set forth, it seems to me difficult to ensure that if national passions are aroused the armaments will not be used possibly to bring about another war—a catastrophe which, in the opinion of most people, would mean the end of European civilisation.

The other points are matters of detail. There is the question of slavery. We had a very strong Committee appointed to consider it and everyone will recognise the value of our representative, Sir Frederick Lugard. One other matter which I might mention gave rise to some misunderstanding. The man who has taken the pioneer and prominent part in dealing with the Russian refugees is Dr. Nansen. Civilisation and humanity at large are enormously indebted to him for the work he has done. He wrote a Report saying that his duties would terminate next Christmas, and indicating what should be done and what his ideas were for the future. He suggested that this question of Russian refugees had left the political area, as he called it, and had come into the labour area, had become rather a question of employment than of political differences. In his very valuable Report ho made a suggestion that the work should be transferred from what is called the Secretariat to the International Labour Office. Any one who knows what Dr. Nansen has done will, of course, give great weight to his opinions.

But a matter of this kind should not be carried out without the International Labour Office assenting to the transfer of these duties to them. The refugee problem is not a pleasant task. I think that Dr. Nansen has acted in the most unselfish spirit in the wonderful work he has done. So we adopted his Report, leaving it of course to the International Labour Office to say whether they could undertake the duties or not. This was not a matter of organisation, and our only consideration was how these refugees could best be protected and dealt with. At the present time that matter has not been settled. Negotiations, I believe, are going on between the Secretariat and the International Labour Office. Whether they will be successful or not I do not know, but I am sure that those of us who are dealing with this question are not so much concerned with the mechanism of things except in order to obtain successful treatment. We desire wholeheartedly that everything that can be done shall be done in regard to these wretched and miserable refugees whose condition is one of the worst products of the war.

We have also a Committee on Intellectual Co-operation. Originally, the German member of it was a man of world wide reputation in science—namely, Dr. Einstein. He decided at one time to resign from the Committee, not being satisfied with the work of the League. He has now rejoined, with I think the consent of all parties, and not only with their consent but their welcome. Therefore, I hope that this Committee on Intellectual Co-operation, which was originally suggested and put into order by M. Bourgeois, may carry out its great duties of creating in intellectual life a measure of common understanding between different nations.

I have attempted, though no doubt imperfectly, to give an account of what the Council did. I feel very strongly that, whatever may be said about the Council, it is being rapidly strengthened owing to the excellent work it is doing. It is, of course, open to criticism; everybody is open to criticism. But it is gradually strengthening its work, in particular on the philanthropic and economic sides, and I sincerely hope that the opinion of your Lordships may be further strengthened in the direction to which you gave approval even during the war, when this House, the first of all Senates and of all Parliamentary bodies, gave its assent to the principle of the League of Nations as a principle which ought to be adopted in order to ensure us as far as possible against disastrous wars in the future.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble and learned Lord into the details of his interesting review of the work of the last Council. The work has been of great value, no doubt. Some people may think that it was concerned with rather minor matters and that it was a chronicle of "small beer." But even if that opinion be held, the beer was of excellent quality. As a matter of fact, I think that is not altogether an accurate criticism. Some of the work which was done by the Council was of the first importance. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the work of the reconstruction of Hungary was a work of very great importance, of very great political difficulty and, perhaps, even greater financial complication. That it was accomplished successfully was due, no doubt, to the labours of the Council, but quite as much, if I may be allowed to say so, to the labours of the Secretariat, particularly of that distinguished and remarkable international servant, Sir Arthur Salter.

Now I notice that the noble and learned Lord said something about the Saar Valley and rejoiced that the foreign troops were to be diminished and replaced by gendarmerie. I agree. But the process has gone a very little way as yet. There will still be a very large body of foreign troops in the Saar Valley and I am convinced that until you get the foreign troops out of the Saar and leave order in the hands of a gerularmerie you will not really have got a satisfactory state of things in that district.

With reference to the question of the refugees, the noble and learned Lord told your Lordships that Dr. Nansen had suggested that the further dealing with this very difficult question might be handed over to the International Labour Office, and, indeed, the suggestion of Dr. Nansen seems a very reasonable one. It is for the most part no longer a political question. It is mainly a question of economics and how to find employment and, indeed, dwelling places for these refugees. It is a matter which I should have thought came more within the competence of the International Labour Office than that of Dr. Nansen and his Committee, and I understand that the Council were of that opinion and recommended it, though I understand also that some representatives of the Governments that voted for this proposal on the Council voted against it when it got to the International Labour Office. I do not know whether that is so.

If it is so, it indicates what I have always felt myself to be a great weakness in that part of the League organisation. I think it is, in principle, wrong to have the International Labour Office entirely independent of the League. It ought to be, no doubt, an autonomous body under the League, but it ought to be under the League. The present position is really indefensible. The money for the International Labour Office is found by the League, but the, League has no control, directly or indirectly, over its expenditure That is a position which I am sure no one could defend, and I hope some day or other, though I admit the difficulty of the problem, that a solution will be found.

In some respects I think this Report is very encouraging. There is one passage in it which I would venture to commend, if I may do so without impertinence, to my noble friend Lord Banbury. He has not always been—shall I say?—a wholehearted believer in the League of Nations, and, therefore, I am more than anxious to save such a brand from the burning. If he will look at this Report he will see that a very interesting statement is made. It is in reference to the assistance to Greece. It seems that in the course of that very magnificent work which is being done there it became necessary for the Greek Government to try to borrow another £1,000,000 from the Bank of England, and they made their application. This is what the Report states: At this meeting it was reported by Mr. Morgenthau and M. Diomedes that they had succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Bank of England for a further short-term loan of £1.000,000 for the continuance of the work of their Commission. The only condition attached to this agreement was, that the Council of the League should definitely decide to carry the work on to a conclusion. In other words, the authorities of the Bank of England made the condition that the League should go on being responsible for this work, and then they would find the money. They evidently have a very high opinion, as, indeed, I know they have, of the integrity and efficiency of the League of Nations, and they backed their opinion to the tune of £1,000,000. I think that is a testimony which my noble friend will think is of some value.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

What is the security?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I will not go into that at this moment. That was a matter for the Bank of England, and after investigating it the only condition they made was that the League should continue the work to a conclusion. The same thing applies to Hungary. There is a very remarkable circumstance in connection with this matter. There was considerable hesitation—I do not think there is any harm in saying it now—amongst the financial houses of New York in taking any part of this loan to Hungary, but ultimately one of them did so. The hesitation arose from this circumstance: that quite recently two foreign loans had been issued in New-York, one by Czecho-Slovakia and another by Holland, and in both cases there was some difficulty in finding the money. There was some fear, therefore, that still greater difficulty would be found in the case of Hungary, but, as a matter of fact, this League loan for Hungary was launched. I forget the exact sum, but if I remember rightly something like £2,000,000 of it was assigned to America. That amount was subscribed in New York by the public with great rapidity, and without any reluctance whatever. I attach some importance to that fact. You have the testimony of two great financial communities as to the efficiency of the League work that is being done at the present time.

The most important facts in the League policy of the Government necessarily find no mention in this Report. The first of them is the undertaking of the Prime Minister to attend the Assembly at Geneva. I am extremely glad to hear that he is going to do so, and that he will be accompanied by the Primo Ministers of France and Italy. That is a very important testimony to the growing public importance of the League. Whether or not it will turn out to be of great advantage, entirely and obviously depends on what the Prime-Ministers do when they get there. I can only say that I hope they are not going there merely for the purposes of a demonstration, merely for the purpose of making speeches. There were a good many speeches made at the Assembly of the League of Nations in the first two years, which were listened to with sympathy and sometimes with applause, but in the last two years the sentiment of the Assembly, if I did not mistake it, was that it was necessary to get to business, and that the time for fine sentiments and eloquent speeches had passed.

I trust that the Prime Minister is going to the Assembly in order to set forward the remedies for the great causes that are troubling Europe, and particularly in order to deal with the very great and difficult question of the reduction and limitation of armaments. The noble Lord made a reference to the policy of the Government in regard to armaments, and suggested that it would be probably more convenient to deal with that at a future time when we have before us the document that has been sent to Geneva. I respectfully agree with him, and I do not propose to say anything beyond this: that I trust when we do see the document it will not be of a purely negative character, and that if the Government cannot accept the suggestions that have been made in the League itself they will at any rate have some alternative policy to put forward. I cannot help feeling—and I say it with regret—a little disquieted over the policy of the Government in this connection.

The noble Lord said that he thought it was of great importance that the League had undertaken to deal with the disarmament of Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary. I did not quite understand why he thought it of great importance. As I understand it, the proposal is that when the existing international authorities have certified that those countries have been disarmed to the extent that they are bound to be disarmed by the Treaties, then the League will take over the duty of seeing that those armaments are not increased in an unauthorised manner in the future. I am, I admit, very nervous about the whole of that part of the duties of the League. It is a very difficult task for them to undertake, and though I would not for a moment say that it is wrong, I am not so happy about the noble Lord's account of the methods that are to be employed for creating the necessary machinery. It is apparently sent for the advice of the permanent Military Commission. I would be very sorry to say anything against that body. It has done very excellent work, but so far its work has been mainly of a critical character, and I cannot at this moment call to mind a single piece of constructive work that it has done since it came into existence. How the noble Lord proposes to extend this procedure, which must necessarily be of a very special kind, so as to cover the general question of international disarmament, as he appeared to indicate, I am altogether at a loss to know.

That is not the only thing which disquiets me about the policy of the Government in this respect. There is an incident which took place in the Council which is not recorded in the document that is before your Lordships. Last year the Assembly passed a resolution suggesting that all Governments should agree not to increase their armaments beyond what they are at the present time. That may be an impracticable suggestion. I express no opinion about it. But I find that this is what happened in the Council. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, is reported to have said: No country was more desirous of disarmament than Great Britain, and he did not wish to oppose the resolution submitted by the President. He desired, however, to make it quite clear that Great Britain would not be able to take any step in the direction which was indicated in the resolution. The resolution did not suggest any obligation on the part of any country, but suggested that the countries might be asked to take certain action. Great Britain would be unable under the terms of this resolution to make any answer which was likely to be of value, and, while he did not oppose the resolution, he thought it was only right to make these reservations. That may have been perfectly right. I do not criticise it in substance, but it does not seem a very large step towards international limitation of armaments.

Another matter which the noble and learned Lord did not mention is the relative failure—I say "relative" because I understand it was not an absolute failure —of the Rome Conference, the object of which was to apply the principles of the Washington Treaty to the Powers which were not represented at Washington. I do not think the Government have any definite policy with regard to that either. The only step, so far as I know, that the Government have taken, after all their professions, is one which I understand your Lordships are likely to discuss later this afternoon—the gesture of Singapore. That is not a gesture which ever appealed to me; nor is it, I think, likely to advance materially, or, indeed, at all, the question of the international limitation of armaments in Europe.

I should like, at some future time, to have further information from the noble and learned Lord with regard to the question, to which he has alluded very cryptically and mysteriously—the admission of Germany to the League of Nations. I have never had the least doubt that it was desirable Germany should be admitted to the League. I thought so even before the League came into existence, and since, and I have never had any hesitation in explaining or defending that view, whenever it requires defending.

LORD PARMOOR

May I interrupt the noble Viscount in order to prevent a misapprehension? The Prime Minister, in another place, stated that the policy of the present Government was all in favour of the admission of Germany. I did not touch that question to-day.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord is in favour of the admission of Germany That is not the question. I read in The Times this morning an account of an interview which apparently the noble and learned Lord has given. I do not know whether I am entitled to quote from it in your Lordships' House, but he seems to have said, in a phrase which is quoted by the German Chancellor, that Germany would receive both a permanent seat and vote in the Council of the League. If the noble and learned Lord did not say it then, of course, it is not worth going on with that observation.

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to make this point quite clear. What I have said more than once is that I am in favour of Germany having a permanent seat and vote in the Council of the League. That does not depend on one Government.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Then this statement is probably an exaggeration.

LORD PARMOOR

I think it must be.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It is a quotation from a Berlin Socialist paper to which the noble and learned Lord apparently gave an interview. At any rate, I am glad to hear that he realises that it does not depend on England alone, and that any statement of that kind—I am glad to think he did not make it—is very injudicious and indiscreet and likely to bring to disaster the very policy which he desires to pursue. I have some doubt (and I trust the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying so) whether it can be truly said that the Government are quite acting up to their profession and desire to make the League of Nations—I forget the exact phrase—something in the nature of the keystone of their foreign policy. Except for the promise of the Prime Minister to go to Geneva, which I admit is a considerable advance, I am not sure that any progress has been made by the present Government. And no progress means reaction. Any Government that might have been in power would have necessarily advanced the League as a growing thing, but I look in vain for any clear evidence of advance by the present Government in this respect.

Indeed, in some respects I am afraid the recent direction of foreign policy has shown a tendency to go back to some of the worst precedents. I have very little belief in those loudly and widely advertised secret meetings. If you are going to have a secret meeting of statesmen let it be really secret and take place in circumstances in which it will not be the focus and target for every public criticism; otherwise, you are certain to have this result: that those who are not anxious that your policy should succeed, whoever they may be, whether for good or bad motives, will make the most of every rumour that gets abroad. They will say that all sorts of things did or did not occur there, and you will spend your time, as we have seen much time recently has been spent, in the correction and contradiction of rumours of that kind. I cannot help contrasting this with the great advantage of proceeding by the League machinery. There you can have the representatives of this country and any other country meeting in a normal way. No one but an idiot believes that you can have negotiations without private conversations. Of course, there must be private conversations, but they can be really private. No question arises unless they result in something, and when they do result in something you have at your hand machinery by which the matter can be internationally announced, internationally explained and internationally discussed. It is a far better system than a reversal to the old system of private, though much advertised, meetings. When I was a child a very wise person once said to me: "A secret that is known to exist is already half divulged," and that is true. If you elaborately advertise a secret meeting you cannot complain if every kind of false impression gets about as to what is done at such a meeting.

I hope I take an unduly pessimistic view as to the achievements and purposes of the Government with reference to the League. At any rate, the Government cannot charge the Opposition with having been carping or unduly critical. We have recognised the great difficulties that anyone who deals with foreign affairs labours under at the present, but I think the time is now come when we have a right to ask the Government for practical proof of their intentions. Mere sentiments, however elevated, however admirable, are not of much value. Take the question of disarmament. It is no use saying you are in favour of disarmament and the limitation of armaments, that you regard it as an essential condition by which the peace of the world can be preserved, unless you bring before Parliament and the country a definite plan for achieving your end. To say that you believe in these things and not produce a plan is worse than saying nothing about it at all. I must conclude by expressing my agreement with Sir Peter Teazle when he said: … never lot me hear you utter anything like a sentiment: I have had enough of them to serve me the rest of my life.

VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON

My Lords, I only rise to ask a question of the Lord President of the Council. I understand a document has been prepared with regard to the limitation of armaments. Could he give us any indication when that document is likely to be available?

LORD PARMOOR

I think it ought to be available at any time. I understand that it was sent to the Secretariat at the end of last week, which amounts to publication. I have not seen that it has been published in any English source.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Is there any reason why it should not now be presented to Parliament?

LORD PARMOOR

Not the slightest. It could be laid upon the Table if there is any desire to have it, because it has been published in the only way in which documents of that kind are published; that is to say, it has been sent to the Secretariat. If the noble Viscount asks for it I will see that it is laid upon the Table.

VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON

I should be very glad, and I think it would be in the public interest too, if the noble Lord would have it presented to Parliament as soon as possible, because it seems to me that this question is very closely bound up with the whole question of security in Europe, and it may be very desirable before your Lordships rise, and especially after the coming Conference between the Prime Ministers, that we should, with this document before us, have a debate on the question of the future of security in Europe.

LORD PARMOOR

I will ask that this shall be done. I am not aware of any objection to that course. I did not know that this specific question was going to be asked, but, so far as I know, there is no objection, and the document shall be laid upon the Table.