HL Deb 25 November 1925 vol 62 cc869-93
LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the proceedings in the Assembly and the Council at Geneva; and to move for Papers; and in order that there may be no mistake I ask that the Motion for Papers be put. Whether it will be necessary to follow that up afterwards will depend very much upon the reply which I have from the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil of Chelwood). The difficulty which I had when I came to deal with my Question arose from the multiplicity of subjects, but (as I like to do in these cases) I sent through the ordinary channels information as to the special points to which I should direct my attention this afternoon, in order that the noble Viscount might be fortified with any Papers which he might desire to have, although his knowledge of these matters is so great that I think he does not want much fortifying either with Papers or in any other way.

Since the War the League of Nations, as we know, has been very rapidly developing in many directions. I think it is not too much to say that the centre of interest in international affairs, whether political, social or economic, has gradually gravitated towards Geneva. Indeed, as it has been put, Europe has become merged in the world but Geneva, in Europe, has been placed and is maintained as a centre in all international matters. I think that this tendency is the result of two influences, pointing in the same direction. First of all, there is the fact that the League of Nations has been constituted as a central international society, entrusted with far-reaching powers and duties in the common interest of the constituent bodies and for their common good. It does not constitute anything in the nature of the super-State, but it does constitute an international community with very specific duties and very considerable powers. The second point is that contemporaneously with—or, perhaps, rather earlier than—the constitution of the League of Nations, the outlook and orientation in international affairs has so altered that it has become such that, even if the League of Nations had not been instituted, it would have been necessary to invent some such body in order to deal with modern international problems.

Prior to the War the old diplomacy was generally supposed to be in the hands of the eight great Powers, and I think it has been reckoned that there are sixteen other Powers of a lesser character who took some part in these diplomatic matters. But what is the difference now? At the present time in the League of Nations there are between fifty and sixty constituent Members claiming, as they are entitled to claim, an equality in treatment and consideration under the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Equality among these countries in force or military equipment is, of course, impossible, and so comes forward the necessity of introducing a system of impartial and just judgment in international affairs and, in that respect, making the relationship between nations similar to the relationship between citizens in a well-organised community.

This afternoon I propose to refer specially to one or two matters. Two subjects arose both in the debates in the Assembly and in the discussions in the Council. One of those, although it is an old topic, requires further discussion—disarmament; and the other is the question of arbitration. No one has done more in one sense to promote the cause of disarmament than the noble Viscount opposite. At an early stage he realised—and no one has ever doubted the truth of his prevision since—that there must be a very intimate relationship between security and disarmament. What that relationship should be has given rise to a certain difference of opinion, to which I desire to call attention, but he will not differ from me when I say that to ensure a period of permanent peace, in which international disputes may be decided by peaceful means, a measure of general reduction of armaments, so that they shall no longer be maintained at an aggressive level, is absolutely necessary. He has denounced, I think, as often as I have myself, aggressive warfare. In the Protocol we denounce it to the extent of calling it an international crime, but so long as armaments are maintained at a level which admits of aggressive warfare there is no guarantee whatever that front time to time aggressive warfare will not take place.

It is known, of course, that one of the leading obligations on Members of the League is that in the settlement of international disputes the nations undertake, by solemn treaty obligations, not to resort to war. The same obligation is to be found in the Locarno Pact which we discussed here only yesterday. But I doubt whether it is really understood how this matter stands so far as the League of Nations is concerned. In the first place, there is, as your Lordships know, already an obligation in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League to reduce armaments generally to a defensive level. I use the words "a defensive level," although it is actually said that they should be reduced to the level necessary for national use as against international aggression, or so far as they may be wanted to enforce the verdicts and judgments of the League of Nations itself.

What I think has not been sufficiently realised—I want to mention this before coming to a specific question—is the danger of the present conditions, which were never contemplated as continuing for any length of time—namely, the juxtaposition on adjacent frontiers of armed and disarmed countries. It is clear that this was never contemplated in the Treaty of Versailles, and I want to quote two passages (as being the shortest way of enforcing my argument) from Part V of the Versailles Treaty which deals with various naval, military and air clauses. It says that— In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes to reduce her armaments. It is clear that what was contemplated there was not a unilateral disarmament on one side; but some measure of general disarmament which should be initiated by the disarmament of Germany. Although I want to put the question in another form I should like the noble Viscount to have this in mind. He knows as well as I know and as all of us know who have been interested in the League and the Council of the League, that after a time the supervision of armaments in disarmed countries passes from the Allied Powers to the League itself. While I was the representative of Great Britain on the League the question arose as to whether a form of supervision should be instituted applicable not only to Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria, but also to Germany. That was desired by most of the Powers, and Great Britain certainly assented. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us presently whether the Commission, as I will call it, which it was then contemplated would be formed in order to enforce the authority of the Council of the League of Nations, has, in fact, been formed. It was felt that if you were to have general disarmament after the immediate friction had passed, you might have the same form of regulation of the armaments of all countries when the new spirit had arisen and the difference between the victorious and defeated countries was no longer to the front

When it came to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles Germany protested, in the first instance, against the proposals for disarmament. Upon that the Allied and Associated Powers gave her this undertaking: They recognise that the acceptance by Germany of the terms laid down for her own disarmament will facilitate and hasten the accomplishment of a general reduction of armaments;"— I am quoting the actual words— and they intend to open negotiations immediately"—

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Is this from the letter written by M. Clemenceau?

LORD PARMOOR

I think it is. It is signed on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers. I am quoting from the actual words in order that there may be no mistake— and they intend to open negotiations immediately with a view to the eventual adoption of a scheme of such general reduction. I do not care to go back into the past and it is not necessary for me to do so, but, whatever the cause, although that promise was made about opening negotiations immediately with a view to the reduction of armaments, nothing has been done so far as I know in the sense of actual disarmament. One realises perfectly well that it has undoubtedly been a source of possible friction in German politics, that whereas they were said to be in default for not reducing their armaments to the required level, the other parties to an equally solemn engagement had not, apparently, taken any steps at all in that direction; and, so far as I am aware, no steps of a practical kind have been taken in that direction up to the present moment. I do not think there has been any disarmament in that sense. I have in mind, of course, the Washington Conference; but that applied only to naval and not to military matters. I do not want to underrate the importance of that Conference, which was largely brought about by the intervention of the ministers of the Churches in America, to whom President Harding himself ascribed the merit of helping him to bring it about.

If the noble Viscount will look at the White Paper in which the proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Session of the Council of the League have been published, he will see, at the bottom of page 17, a paragraph referring to the reduction of armaments. That paragraph begins with three words, with which the noble Viscount is very well acquainted and as to which I want to say a word in a moment under another head. Those words are: "Arbitration, security and disarmament." It is in that order that these three matters have always been placed by the League and the Council of the League. The desire of the Council is that on remission to them from the League Assembly certain steps shall be taken as soon as possible, in order that in the interval between the September and the December sessions—we are getting near to the December session—something of a practical kind shall be done to forward the interests of disarmament. I want to ask the noble Viscount this question. A special Committee of the Council was appointed to examine what had been said in the Assembly as to the constitution and working of the Co-ordination Committee, which is a Committee to which this subject matter was relegated. They were to examine different matters connected with the Coordination Committee—the composition, name and status of its different members, and its procedure. Can the noble Viscount, when he comes to answer my question, give us any assurance that progress has been made as regards the appointment of the Co-ordination Committee and how, in accordance with those words, the Co-ordination Committee has been appointed.

There is a further step. It is to make the necessary studies for determining the questions which should be submitted to preparatory examination, with a view to a possible Conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments. I think it would be a very admirable outcome of the true spirit which we are told has followed the Locarno Pact if real progress is being made by the appointment of this Committee, and if they are really inquiring into a practical method of progress in order that the matter may be really considered. In addition, under the same heading, we come to another matter with which the noble Viscount is very familiar. It is the private manufacture of arms, munitions, and implements of war. What is suggested here is that you may get at the information which will enable you to submit this question to an international Conference to be convened, if possible, before the next Assembly. Therefore I will ask the noble Viscount under this head, as well as under the previous head, if be will tell us—I am sure he will know—what has been done, not only as regards a general reduction of armaments, but also in reference to the private manufacture of arms, munitions, and implements of war.

The next question is germane, in one sense, to the question that I have already asked, but in a wider sense it is a distinct question. It is this: Will he tell us how, in his view, the matter of compulsory arbitration stands at Geneva either in the Council or in the Assembly? We know that the Locarno Pact is based on compulsory arbitration. We know, too, that as regards what are called the respective rights of the parties—the juridical questions—they agree to submit them cither to an arbitral tribunal or to the Court at The Hague for decision. It takes away, on those questions, the right of the parties concerned to be judges in their own interests. Under the Locarno Pact, for instance, every matter of the respective rights between France and Germany which are within the limits of the arrangement will go to what is called a judicial decision—although that includes an arbitral decision—in order that the matter may be definitely settled by an impartial third party, which, of course, is the real way of avoiding friction and trouble.

When the Foreign Minister was at Geneva on an earlier occasion, in March—I do not think I am putting it too high, I am very anxious not to do so—he stated that the view of Great Britain was to oppose all forms of compulsory arbitration. It is a matter for comment that what we think is not right for ourselves we guarantee in the Locarno Pact to be undertaken by others. Still that was the view which he insisted upon. Secondly, as regards juridical questions, in answer to a memorandum sent; to him lately in this country, he wrote that he could not consent to the compulsory reference of juridical questions to the Court of The Hague. I think he, was not quite accurate in saying that the alternative was arbitral decision—it is not so—the alternative is no decision, and leaving open an ultimate appeal to war, which I think is a great misfortune. Lastly, when Switzerland offered an all-inclusive compulsory arbitration to settle disputes between Switzerland and Great Britain, he intimated that Great Britain would not be prepared to consider a proposal of that kind.

Let me see what the position of the Council of the League is upon this point. I do not know that I am unduly prejudiced. I dare say I am prejudiced in favour of the provisions of the Geneva Protocol, which, of course, intended to include all matters for decision—not for consultation, but for decision—under some form of arbitral tribunal. The Papers have not yet been issued, but I have read carefully the official journal that I had sent to me, which gives a sufficient report of what goes on in the Assembly to enable one to understand the spirit which animates it. It is not quite as complete as the OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliament, but it goes a long way in allowing any reader to understand what the real facts are. I think the noble Viscount will not differ from this, that there are a very large number of speeches—do not let me talk about minority and majority—in favour of compulsory arbitration, as a basis of security, to be followed by dis- armament. The noble Viscount, I know, in his speech, expressed the contrary opinion. He expressed the view that arbitration might follow disarmament. With all submission to his wisdom in these matters I think that is a difficult, if not an impossible, position.

But what I want to say for the moment is something different. It is that at every stage, and on every occasion, when this matter was discussed at the Assembly, speech after speech was made in favour of the principle in the Protocol of compulsory arbitration as a first step in the bringing about of such security as would enable the question of a reduction of armaments to be approached. No one supposes that we can suddenly settle such a question as the reduction of armaments. All you can do is to prepare the way for a Conference. I recollect M. Herriot—I had the misfortune of having to speak after him at Geneva; he is a great speaker—laying down the principle that so far as France was concerned they were not going to a tower of Babel discussion on the question of disarmament, but they must have, first, security through the accepted method of compulsory arbitration.

I have taken three quotations which appear to me fairly to represent what the view of the Assembly was upon this last September. The noble Viscount will tell us whether, in his opinion, they in any way go too far. The first quotation is from M. Rolin, who was a Belgian representative. I quote him—I will quote M. Jouvenal afterwards—because, as regards the Locarno Pact and the general position of Belgium, his opinion is of great importance, and we know it is supported by the Foreign Minister himself, M. Vandervelde. M. Rolin said that— the principal fact emerging from the speeches in which reservations or criticisms had been made concerning the Protocol was that last year the problem had been correctly stated."— That is to say that the principles of the Protocol are accurate— It had been decided that there could be no disarmament without security, and no security without arbitration"— That is the point—"no security without arbitration." He is dealing, of course, with compulsory arbitration. He goes on— and that in all cases a war of aggression as a means for the settlement of disputes must be excluded. I do not want to go back into what has always been rather a difficult matter, the definition of aggression, but one definition which holds water is that if you have a system of compulsory arbitration, then any one who goes to war instead of going to arbitration for an impartial decision shall be regarded as an aggressor. M. Jouvenal said: The Protocol was not dead. It was so much alive that it conferred life on the special Treaties which sooner or later, whether they succeeded or failed, would come back to the Protocol. The very spirit of the Protocol was to be applied to the most threatened part of the Continent of Europe. If the League had not succeeded in putting the Protocol into force, it would at least create a general scheme to which henceforth all diplomacy would be subject. As I read the discussions at Geneva, there was a very general acceptance of the principles which underlie the whole of the Protocol—those of compulsory arbitration—and there was practically given to the Assembly at Geneva, I will not call it an undertaking, for that would be the wrong word, but a notice that in the Pact of Locarno these principles would not be disregarded. As a matter of fact, they are the very basis of the Locarno Pact.

I have one quotation to make from Dr. Benes who, as we all know, has taken such a great interest in the matter. Dr. Benes says: The positive results of the present Assembly were a new and solemn acceptance and consolidation of the three great principles, arbitration, security and disarmament, round which the political activities of the League of Nations would for the next few years inevitably circle. What I want to ask is this. Has there been any change in the views expressed on the subject of compulsory arbitration, particularly as regards juridical matters, since the negotiations which were brought to a successful end at Locarno? Are we prepared to undertake obligations, which we guarantee that other countries shall observe, in order that all disputes between them may be open to settlement by peaceful means?

I should like now to turn more especially to the work of the Council. The matter which has chiefly occupied the Council on the political side—I will not go into the various administrative and social matters—is the frontier between Turkey and Iraq. I want to be very precise in what I say on this point, because it happens that this question originated while I was the Delegate of Great Britain. When I say "originated" I mean originated so far as the League of Nations is concerned. It originated in another sense, of course, at Lausanne, and, quite apart from the League of Nations or the Council of the League being consulted in any way, the duty of arbitrating on this question was sent from Lausanne to Geneva. When we were discussing this matter, not this year but a year ago, I certainly represented on behalf of Great Britain that we regarded the reference to Geneva as a reference for arbitration and decision. I made that as clear as I could, and I based my argument on the terms of the Treaty at Lausanne and what had passed in relation to it.

This year the question arose as to whether the matter had been referred for decision or for conciliation and inquiry, that is to say, whether it had been referred under Article 13 of the Covenant of the League of Nations or under Article 15. As the noble Viscount knows, there is a great distinction between the two cases. Am I right that the International Court, to whom the matter in my opinion was most properly referred, decided that the reference was for decision and not for arbitration terms? That is a very important matter; in fact, it goes to the whole root of the jurisdiction of the Council one way or the other. And secondly, while I was the representative of Great Britain at Geneva, the question was raised as to whether, in giving their decision, the Council must be unanimous, not counting for this purpose the parties actually concerned. I do not know whether the Report is right, but it says that on this point the International Court gave a decision that the Council must be unanimous in coming to their determination.

Let me suppose that these points are properly determined, then I come to this question. We were prepared to submit this matter to arbitration for decision. Then I say that our only duty, if we care for arbitration at all, is to obey that decision and comply with it when it is given. The time has really passed for discussion as regards views and policies which we might have undertaken if we had had a free hand. We agreed to refer the matter for decision, and as an honourable country I have no doubt we shall abide by the agreement in that direction. There has been, perhaps, a misapprehension on one point. In order to obtain the information on which to base their decision, M. Branting, whose loss we all deplore, and who was then at Brussels, determined, also at the request of Great Britain, to appoint a Commission and that Commission was appointed in the ordinary way by the President of the Council. As to whether the Council will accept the Report of that Commission, and what determination they will give upon it, we know nothing at the present moment. It very lightly determined what its jurisdiction was, but undoubtedly there has been a great deal of discussion as to the terms of recommendation to the Commission appointed by the Council. It appears to me, although there has been this discussion, that the attitude of this country must be, as it always has been, that, having submitted a matter to arbitration for decision, we should abide by the result.

Many people will recollect the discussions in the Alabama case. They ended, of course, in our full acceptance of a determination which was by no means desired by the mass of the people in this country, and I think that the resolve of Great Britain so to act has been the basis ever since of the great friendliness between this country and the United States of America. The noble Viscount will tell me if he agrees with the view that I have ventured to suggest. I should not venture for a moment to discuss the rights and wrongs of this matter, more particularly as in the old days I was concerned, on behalf of Great Britain, in attempting to settle the question.

There are three other matters concerning which I desire to ask a question of the noble Viscount. On page 22 of the White Paper (Cmd. 2528) is a reference to what is called the "Greek Refugees Settlement Commission," referring specially to Grecian emigrants. I happened to be the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which dealt with that point when I was a member of the Council, and I recollect very well the great work done by Mr. Morgenthau, formerly American Ambassador in Constantinople, and the fact that this country, through the Governor of the Bank of England, provided the very large sum of £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 that was necessary. A little time ago some question arose between the officials of the body which was distributing relief and the Greek Government. That, of course, was very unfortunate, but, if I understand aright, those difficulties have been removed and are not likely to recur. I think that this is a very important point.

Another question is that of minorities. I doubt if any more difficult topic comes before the Council of the League of Nations. Minorities are a constant source of friction which may lead to ill will between nations. What I want to ask the noble Viscount is this. He will have, seen, no doubt, in the papers that the so-called optants whom it was threatened to expel, either German optants from Poland or Polish optants from Germany, are no longer liable to expulsion. The whole matter has been settled in a friendly spirit. That is a very important result, if the report was accurate, of the Pact of Locarno. When we had to deal with this matter a year ago we had the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, and everything, I think, was done that could be done by arrangement and settlement. But something more is needed in this question of minorities. However excellent the arrangements and settlements may be, you cannot get a satisfactory solution unless you get it in a friendly spirit. The matter is not capable of solution in any other spirit. It is not only a question of what the central Governments say that they will do, but it is necessary to consider neighbours and local administrations in order that these foreign minorities may have fair treatment in every respect.

I am glad to say that I am now coming to my last topic, but it is a very important one. I wish to congratulate the noble Viscount on the work that he did on the Slavery Convention. I think that, perhaps, it was the best piece of work that was done on behalf of Great Britain at Geneva this year. On many points, unfortunately, we had to take a rather obstructive and difficult attitude, but I communicated with the officials concerned and they have kindly sent to me the Convention which, I understand, is the formal Convention that has the approval of the noble Viscount. I find that in this formal Convention the principle of what is called "forced labour" is not dealt with from what appears to me to be a satisfactory point of view, the point of view that I think has been urged on behalf of Great Britain in the meetings of the, Council or the Assembly. It recognises the use of forced labour for private purposes. I agree with what was said by Lord Cromer, and has been said by other great statesmen, that there is no difference whatever between what we call slavery and forced labour for private purposes. I admit that in one case or the other you may have palliations and you may make regulations, but, when you come to the actual service itself, compulsion is the common element, and compulsion is the same in forced labour as it is in slavery. I am not now, of course, discussing the terms on which the labour is given. You may have better terms of payment, and so on, in one case than in the other. That depends upon circumstances. But in reality, when you come down to bedrock, I agree, as I say, with Lord Cromer and others that you can draw no distinction, and I very much regret that the British view should in any way give any countenance whatever to any form of forced labour for the purpose of private gain.

It is only fair to remind the noble Viscount that it is fenced round, but, as I have said, fencing round is only a palliation and does not go to the root of the evil. It is laid down that in territories in which compulsory or forced labour for other than public purposes still survives, the High Contracting Parties shall endeavour progressively and as soon as possible to put an end to the practice. Why should it not be put an end to in the same way as slavery? Why not deal with it on the same basis? I think that this exploiting of labour by the white man—and I think it is nearly always coloured labour—is really a disaster, a thing which ought to be put an and to on the same basis as slavery itself. I know as well as the noble Viscount knows how the difficulty arises and the country from which it comes. I quite realise that and I certainly do not intend to mention any names. It would be invidious to mention the names of particular countries. I go further. I want the thing itself to be destroyed and ren- dered as far as possible illegal, and I hope that in subsequently dealing with this case the noble Viscount will make every effort in that direction.

I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for some time, but, as I said at the outset, the body of business in the Assembly and in the Council is constantly growing, and it really is essential, if possible, that what is done at Geneva should be known in this country. There is a danger both ways. There may be danger of going too far in one direction, or too far in the other direction, and I hope everything will be done which can be done. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that everything should be done that can be done to give information on which a sound judgment can be formed. The Convention, which I will hand to the noble Viscount, was kindly sent to me from official sources. The matters which I have mentioned are those which I desire to ask about. There are a large number of other matters, but it is impossible to comprise them in one question. I desire to move the Resolution for Papers which stands in my name, although I quite admit that it may be unnecessary to press it after hearing what the noble Viscount has to say.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD)

My Lords, I certainly have no complaint to make, on behalf of the Government, that the noble Lord should have desired to raise this question. I agree with him that the more the actual work of the League is understood in this country, and the more it is realised what an immense amount of work is being done at Geneva, the better it is for humanity and for the League itself. I am not going to follow him in the interesting disquisition with which he began his observations, as to the general character of the League. The League is now a great fact. It was striking to me, returning to Geneva after an absence of two years, to find the very great advance which the League had actually made in reputation and smoothness of working. The fact is—it is brought out in a very interesting disquisition on the subject, published by the League of Nations Union and prepared by Mr. Wilson Harris—that half-a-dozen Prime Ministers and sixteen European Foreign Ministers attended the recent meeting of the League. That shows the great importance which is now attached in all parts of the world to the work and deliberations of the League.

The noble Lord finished his observations by a reference to the question of slavery. I have been informed that the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, intends to raise this question at a rather later stage in the Session, and I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will not think me guilty of disrespect if I say that I feel that Earl Buxton has a very special hereditary right to raise this question, and that I shall only say a very few words in answer to the noble Lord opposite. I think he has not given quite a fair account of the provisions of the Convention which is now under the consideration of the Government, with regard to forced labour. If he had read the whole of the phrase I think he would have seen that in substance forced labour for private purposes is dealt with in exactly the same way as slavery is dealt with in the Convention. The provision with regard to slavery is that the High Contracting Parties undertake to bring about progressively, as soon as possible, the disappearance of slavery in every form. The provision with regard to forced labour is that in principle compulsory or forced labour may only be exacted for public purposes. In territories in which compulsory or forced labour still survives the High Contracting Parties shall endeavour progressively and as soon as possible to put an end to the practice. The words are the same practically in each case, and the desire of the High Contracting Parties is to bring about the disappearance of forced labour for private purposes as soon as possible.

It is quite true that as an additional precaution certain alleviations are agreed to, so that the worst abuses of forced labour are put an end to immediately, but I do not think it is fair to say that there is anything which can be called a recognition of forced labour for private purposes. Its legitimacy is not recognised in principle, and it can only be exacted for public purposes. And you have, of course, to consider in all these matters not only what we should desire to see enacted if we were the only country in the world, but what is practically possible when you are dealing with a large number of States, and have to take steps which, while they may not satisfy one's own aspirations and sentiments, will be most practically useful in order to carry out the objects we have in view. I am satisfied that a prodigious advance has been made in regard to forced labour and an advance which, if it is fully observed by those who have at any rate given provisional assent to it, will mean an immense saving in human misery, which it is almost impossible to exaggerate. I think the noble Lord and others in making criticisms of this Article should remember that it is the first time that this question has been dealt with at all, and that in making this first step it is a very much larger step than we had any right to hope for or expect. However, I will deal with the subject more fully when I deal with it specifically on the Question to be put by Earl Buxton later.

With regard to the other matters raised by the noble Lord, there was the question of minorities, and he wanted to know whether it was true that the expulsion of the optants had been abandoned. I think it is only right to say that when Count Skrzynski returned to Poland, almost the first thing he seems to have done with regard to Locarno was to put an end to that expulsion, and his gesture was replied to by the German Government, who made a similar provision with regard to the Polish optants in their country. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it was a most valuable result of what has been called the spirit of Locarno, and I think it does augur well for the effective fulfilment of the undertakings and agreements which were arrived at between Poland and Germany on that occasion. I agree with him also as to the broad difficulties which beset this question of minorities. They are enormous, and I think it is right to say that you must recognise not only the difficulties of the minorities but the difficulties of the majorities—of the governing forces in the State.

It is quite true that there have been, and I am afraid still are, cases of oppression of minorities, but it is also true that many States have the greatest difficulty in dealing with these questions because the minorities, partly from historical reasons, partly, it may be, as a consequence of misgovernment, very often constitute a very highly disaffected section of the population, and it is a position of great difficulty to say to a State: "You are not to treat these minorities in the least differently from other citizens," when they reply to you in effect: "Well, we are quite ready not to treat them differently, provided they do not behave differently." The two sides have to be considered. It is most important that minorities should receive fair and just treatment, but it is also right to say that we must never forget the immense difficulties that beset the Governments of some of these countries in dealing with this situation.

Then the noble Lord asked me whether the difficulties that had arisen between the officials of the Refugees Commission in Greece and the Greek Government had been settled. I understand they have been settled completely, and I think that we may anticipate that there will be no recrudescence of that difficulty. He paid a very well deserved compliment to the work of Mr. Morgenthau, while he was Chairman of that Commission. I think it right to add that we have been exceedingly fortunate in securing another Chairman of that Commission, Mr. Howland, also an American, whose work is as admirable as that of his predecessor.

With regard to the Mosul question I have not yet seen the full report of the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice, but I understand that the substance of it is this, that they have decided that the Council in dealing with the Mosul question will deal with it as an arbitral decision. They will deal with it as the Council of the League, but as an arbitral decision. The position is a little complicated, it must be admitted. If the matter had been referred to the members of the Council as arbitrators—that would have been a perfectly possible thing to do—then they would have acted as arbitrators, and their decision would have been by a majority. But the reference was to the Council, and the Court has decided, I understand, that, though they will act as arbitrators and will give an actual decision, and not a mere mediatory recommendation, yet they must act as a Council, they must act unanimously—apart, of course, from the votes of the interested parties. His Majesty's Government will, of course, attend at Geneva whenever the matter comes up before the Council—it meets on December 7—and will have to hear what the Council decide to do in execution of the power which the Court have decided that they have got.

The noble Lord said, and said quite truly, that he was sure that the British Government would accept the decision of the Council. I cannot imagine any British Government who, having gone to a body which has been decided to be an arbitral body, in accordance with their own contention—because they have always contended that it was an arbitral body—should then turn round and say that they were not prepared to accept the decision of that body. Evidently they must be prepared to accept the decision of the body, just as they must be prepared to accept, and will of course accept, the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice. I also find myself in agreement with the noble Lord in thinking that it is far better in these circumstances not to discuss the merits of the matter which will have to be discussed before the Council at Geneva. The noble Lord for that reason did not invite me, and I thank him for not inviting me, to enter upon any question as to the merits of that discussion. Geneva is the only proper place where that should be discussed now.

I now come to the more weighty part of the noble Lord's speech, which was concerned with disarmament and arbitration. He began by pointing out that in the Geneva Protocol aggressive war had been described as an international crime. That particular provision was taken from the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance and adopted in the Protocol. I am very glad that at Geneva this year the Assembly unanimously reaffirmed that principle, and I think now, as far as anything can be made international law by anything that the League does, it may be regarded as international law in the sense that aggressive war is an international crime. That, I agree with him, is a very important advance, and a reversal, as I understand it, of what was the law, and what I suppose in a sense still is the law, apart from the League, in international matters.

He said, and said truly, repeating what the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, said with great force and lucidity yesterday, that it was essential if you were really to make that prohibition effective to proceed to the reduction and limitation of armaments. I agree. I have always thought, and the Government think, that disarmament is an essential part of the pacification of the world. That is true, but it is also true that there are very great difficulties in the way of disarmament, and the Assembly this year were convinced that before any practical step in that direction could now be taken you must have a thorough investigation of the principles on which disarmament should proceed. I am sure that is right. It is no use merely calling a Conference for disarmament unless you know something of the basis on which that Conference is to proceed. A really careful examination will have to be made of what can be done, and, as the noble Lord pointed out, the Assembly suggested, and the Council agreed, that there should be summoned a Committee of the Council which should recommend to the Council at its next meeting what should be the body which should make that investigation—whether it should be the Co-ordination Committee, as it is called, or some other body, or some modification of that body, and what should be the programme which should be set before that body. The Committee which is to advise the Council on those two points is to meet on December 3, and His Majesty's Government have asked me to attend as their representative on that Committee. We shall have to advise the Council as to what is to be the nature of the investigation and to draw up a programme I can assure the noble Lord, although it would be obviously improper for me to so further, that the Government are taking that matter extremely seriously. They will be prepared with their own proposals when the time comes, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention whatever of in any way obstructing, or even neglecting, the duties which fall upon the League in that matter.

I do not need to go into the argument which the noble Lord presented to your Lordships as to the international position of disarmament. I agree with him, there is no doubt whatever that there was a most specific undertaking that German disarmament should be followed by general disarmament. That is not only in the Treaty of Versailles, but, as he pointed out, was repeated in rather more precise terms in the correspondence that preceded the initialling of the Treaty of Locarno, and he will not forget that in the Locarno Protocol itself that has been reasserted in the most definite terms. The document signed by the representatives of Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Poland and CzechoSlovakia says that they undertake to give their sincere co-operation to the work relating to disarmament already undertaken by the League of Nations and to seek the realisation thereof in a general agreement. Therefore, there is no doubt at all about the international position and I need not say any more about it than that.

If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think he went a little far in stating that nothing has been done for disarmament since the League was formed. We have done a great deal practically in disarming this country. We have reduced our armaments, as the noble and learned Lord knows, apart from the question of air armament, to a good deal below what they were before the War; and they were not unduly high even then. If the noble and learned Lord will look into the figures he will agree, I think, that there has been a considerable reduction of armaments in the last year or so, taking Europe as a whole. There are also the Washington Treaties. It is true that apart from the Washington Treaties there has been, to use the words of the Covenant, no scheme formulated for the reduction of armaments. It is that duty which the League has still to discharge. But even there the League has not been idle. At every Assembly, I think, since its formation this matter has been under consideration. The difficulties immediately after the War were overwhelming and it was absurd to talk of disarmament for the first year or so after the War. But since that time a great deal of consideration and thought has been given to it, and I do not think it would be fair to say that nothing has been done. At the same time, as I have already said, we recognise most fully our duty to carry this policy to its successful conclusion so far as we can possibly do so, and the steps we are taking are, I think, an earnest of our good intentions in that respect.

The noble and learned Lord asked me about the position of the question of the private manufacture of arms. The position, as I understand it, is that when the Co-ordination Committee met last summer they drew up a questionnaire, or directed a questionnaire dealing with this question to be drawn up and addressed to the Governments. It was then submitted to the technical committees of the League—the Financial Committee, the Economic Committee, and so on; and I believe that is now on the point of being issued. It has not, I think, been actually issued. Of course that is the first step that will have to be taken and then, no doubt, the Assembly will urge very strongly that, if possible, a conference should be held before the next Assembly to deal with this question. At the same time, I do not want the noble and learned Lord to forget that by the acceptance of the Traffic in Arms Convention, which was perfected last summer, I will not say the whole case has been met because it has not, but a considerable part of the case about private manufacture has been dealt with. We shall at any rate know what is going on—at least we hope so—in regard to the sale and traffic in arms. It does not meet the whole case; I do not say it does; but it meets, and has always been considered to meet, a certain part of the case.

The noble and learned Lord also asked me something about the substitution of the League for the other agencies of disarmament of ex-enemy countries. So far as I understand that matter, it is still under the consideration of the Council and I do not know that there is anything I can usefully say to your Lordships upon the subject.

With regard to the other matter, compulsory arbitration, the noble and learned Lord asked me a specific question. I took it down as nearly as I could and he will correct me if my version is substantially inaccurate. He asked: "Has there been any change in views on the part of the Government as to arbitration since Locarno?"

LORD PARMOOR

As to compulsory arbitration. Arbitration generally is a different matter.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

—"as to compulsory arbitration since Locarno?" I was not able to get down the exact wording of the second question, but roughly it was: "Will we apply to ourselves the principles by which the Locarno Agreements are to be applied as between Germany, France, and so on?"

LORD PARMOOR

That is right.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I do not think I can say there has been any change of view by the Government as to their general attitude towards arbitration, compulsory or voluntary, since Locarno. Our position has always been the same, as I understand it—that we are strongly in favour of arbitration; that we would rejoice to see arbitration the normal way of settling international disputes, and that we are very anxious to take any steps that can be taken which we are satisfied will be useful for the purpose. The only question between us is as to what is the best and surest method of achieving that end. What the noble and learned Lord said is perfectly true, and I will not deny it for one moment: there is a very strong feeling in all the speeches made at the Assembly in favour of arbitration.

LORD PARMOOR

In favour of compulsory arbitration.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Well, yes—in favour of compulsory arbitration. In favour of arbitration also, and in favour of compulsory arbitration. There is no doubt that this is a very general feeling. At the same time I sometimes ask myself, when I listen to those eloquent periods, whether the speakers have fully envisaged what would be the actual consequences of the sentiments they are announcing if they were immediately put into effect. I am afraid there is a danger in some minds of treating arbitration as almost in the nature of a charm. It is not that. It is the alternative to war. You must somehow arrive at a position in which war will not be adopted and then arbitration certainly will be adopted. But if you think you can do that by accepting verbal arbitration without fully realising what it really means and what it really intends, you are not really making any advance. There is a danger that, if there were provisions for compulsory arbitration which were not fulfilled, a terrific blow would be struck at the whole principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes. Considerations of that kind and not the fear of arbitration, not a dislike of it, but a desire to move surely and certainly in the direction of progress, have really moved not this Government only but almost every Government that has considered it, in dealing with this question.

Let me point out one other thing, it must never be forgotten, in dealing with this question of arbitration, what a very large measure of arbitration, and even compulsory arbitration, has been provided for by the Covenant of the League itself. There are not only those provisions of Articles 13 and 14 that deal with arbitration in what are called "justiciable disputes," which are, I admit, voluntary, but there is the immensely important jurisprudence which is growing up by which the Council refers questions that are brought before it for the advice of the International Court. That really is, in substance, compulsory arbitration. Where this operates, the dispute comes before the Council so far as it is capable of being dealt with judicially. The Council is adopting more and more the practice of asking the advice of the Court. The parties are invited to go to that Court, and present their case. If they do not go the case goes on as though they were there. That happened in the Mosul case the other day. The Government of Turkey did not think it right to appear before the Permanent Court, but the Court none the less entertained the question, gave its advice to the Council, and—of course I cannot prejudge anything the Council will do in the future—so far the Council has always accepted and acted upon the advice of the Court.

Therefore, there is a very large measure of arbitration, and even of compulsory arbitration, under the provisions of the Covenant, and it is to be observed that whereas the causes contemplated under Articles 13 and 14 are mainly questions, if I may so put it, of a minor character between countries—I do not say exclusively so, but those are the main questions contemplated under those Articles—these questions which are referred by the Council to the Court are questions which arise in the most serious disputes that can take place between nations. I venture, therefore, to say to the noble Lord, do not be impatient. Arbitration is progressing, and compulsory arbitra- tion is progressing. Locarno has given it a tremendous advance, and I am satisfied that it is going to grow and will grow in the future. I have myself always believed that before you can get such a normal and usual method of dealing with international disputes you must get a real feeling of international security, and it is worth observing that in the Græco-Bulgarian dispute, which has just taken place, you first stop the fighting, you first require each country to withdraw its troops from the other country, and then arbitration follows as a matter of course. I believe that to be, I will not say the only way in which arbitration will be established, but the normal, usual and healthy way in which it will be established.

I believe most fully, as the noble Lord believes, and as Mr. Chamberlain announced that he accepted at the Assembly most fully, that those three principles of arbitration, security and disarmanent must progress pari passu together. You cannot deal with any one of them without dealing with the others. You will begin by getting, as it were, a little security. That will lead to a little disarmament, and accompanying that you will get an advance in the direction of compulsory arbitration. I believe that the advance on this three-fold route is the way in which advance can really most successfully be made, and I venture to say there is nothing that we need regard with depression, but that we must regard with exhilaration everything about the present course of international events. The only danger, as it seems to me—I say it very seriously—that is at all likely to interfere with international advance at this moment will come if we abandon or palter with sincerity and reality in dealing with these questions, if we substitute for a real effort to make solid advance eloquent speeches and perorations, appeals to the highest sentiment, without exactly knowing how we are going to carry those sentiments into effect. That is a real danger, and the only danger that I see as likely to interfere with the magnificent work which in my judgment is being done, and has been done, in the last two years at Geneva.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there is only one point upon which I should like to say a few words in answer to the noble Viscount, and that is with regard to his very interesting views about compulsory arbitration. It appears to me that those views carry very much farther than I had understood them before the views of the present Government as regards compulsion in arbitration matters. I do not want to take any advantage of the words, but so they appear to me. I may remind the noble Viscount that under the terms of Articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant, as he knows very well, there is no compulsion of any kind. They are so framed that any one can keep outside arbitration altogether.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

So I said.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes. And when we come to the question of conciliation, as it is called, under the subsequent Article, Article 15, the only case in which you may say there can be compulsion—and there may be compulsion on all matters—is one in which ultimately you have a unanimous Council. It all depends upon that. It was to stop that loophole, as it is called, that special provision was introduced into the Protocol, but it was only partly introduced, and that loophole has been cut down in the terms of the Locarno Pact. I do not wish to say more now except to thank the noble Viscount. I acknowledge how excellent his own work has been at the League of Nations, and I agree with him that sincerity and frankness are the basis of all good work, not only of the League but everywhere else. As to the question of forced labour there will be a subsequent opportunity for pursuing that matter, if necessary. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.