FOREIGN POLICY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 151, 8 April 1930, Page 5

FOREIGN POLICY

THE LEAGUE COVENANT. questions in the house. 81-LATERAL AGREEMENT 1 ISSUE. (United Press Association—Copyright.) (Received This Day, 9.15 a.m.) LONDON, April i. In. the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Arthur Henderson) replied to a series of questions regarding the interpretation of Article 6 of the League of Nations Covenant. He said he could not undertake that no bi-lateral agreement would be made without consulting Parliament. Any agreement would be submitted for ratification. The House had not been consulted before the Locarno Agreement. Mr MacDonald would make a full statement as early as possible- I R the meantime lie appealed for a continuation of patience during the delicate discussions. He was in the closest touch with the delegates from India and''the Dominions. Commander Locker-Lampson (Conservative) said: “In view of the unsatisfactory replies I shall move the adjournment of the House.” GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE. NO PLEDGE CAN BE GIVEN. (Received This Day, 11.5 a.m.) LONDON, April 7. Commander Godfrey Locker-Lampson (who was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the late Conservative Government), in the House of Commons this evening, moved an adjournment of an hour “on a definite matter oi urgent public importance, namely, the imminence of an agreement between the Government and foreign Powers regarding the interpretation to be placed on Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, without any consultation with the Council of thegLeague, thereby engendering suspicion and endangering good relations with other Powers.” The Prime Minister, replying, saicl if there was any re-interpretation of Article 16 of the Covenant involving fresh commitments, and that if reinterpretation was to be made, he would consult other members of the Council of the League and give the House an opportunity of considering the matter. before any agreement involving such re-interpretation was entered mto. If he gave a pledge of that character it would amount to this: That it would be quite impossible for this Government, or any other Government, to exchange yiews or express its views regarding the meaning of the Article, which was somewhat vague in its meaning, as between France and ourselves, Germany and ourselves, or Czecho-Slovakia and ourselves. He could not make such a pledge. What was more, there could not be such a pledge. Mr MacDonald continued: ‘ Reference has . been made to. certain work that we have in hand just now. If we do discuss Article 16, all that it amounts to is that one says to. the other, ‘What meaning do.we individually attach to Article 16?’ At Locarno that was not the case. . At Locarno Germany wanted an assurance as to what obligation it would he undertaking if it joined the League of Nations. That is a very serious thing. That is an absolute interpretation which I saw straight away can be made only bv the Council of the League if it is going to have any binding authority at all. But at Locarno that interpretation was given by Powers other than Germany represented there, and tjie interpretation was a new one in its language, which was not found in the Covenant of,the League. It was handed to Germany as a guarantee, and initialled and approved as ar< annexe to the Treaty. lam not raising that in any controversial spirit, hut as a matter of history. No one knows better than Commander Locker-Lampson that no Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary can give the pledge he asks for. All ne can do is to say that, haying ascertained as far as we humanly can the opinion of the country and the opinion of the House, negotiations and discussions on these subjects will be conducted with that opinion well in mind and never forgotten at any stage. We have been doing our best during the last two and a-half months.” Mr MacDonald added that if the leaders of the parties consulted him lie would tell them exactly the state of affairs. This would not commit either of them to support him, hut they would understand the difficulties. Sir Samuel Hoare (Conservative) said he would convey the Prime Minister’s suggestion to Mr Baldwin (Conservative leader).

Mr Lloyd George also accepted the proposal because it was very desirable that foreign policy should not •he the subject of controversy between parties.

• Commander Loeker-Lampson consequently withdrew his motion.—British Official Wireless.