INNER HISTORY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 273, 18 November 1927, Page 7

INNER HISTORY.

DISARMAMENT ISSUE.

Lord Cecil Discloses Reasons

For Resigning.

EXPERTS DOMINATE.

(By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright.)

LONDON", November 17.

In the House of Lords, as the outcome of a reference to questions of foreign policy by Lord Parmoor, Viscount Cecil made a personal explanation regarding his resignation of the position of British delegate to the League of Nations.

He said it was the culmination of a series of events, such as the rejection bv the late Labour Government of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which was followed by the rejection by the Conservative Government in 1924 of the Geneva Protocol.

Lord Cecil said he went to the Naval Arms Limitation Conference in Geneva conscious that his instructions would cause serious difficulties. Exactly what he anticipated had occurred* He repeatedly was put in the position of having to defend situations seeminglv wholly indefensible, and thereby creating the impression that Britain was lukewarm on the subject of disarmament.

Owing to the harmfulness of many incidents he had asked for a free hand personally to decide minor matters. This was declined. He trusted the Cabinet had now seen the result of too great deference tp expert advice, and that it would give his successor, Lord Cushendun, greater support than it felt able to accord to himself.

When he returned from Geneva he was exhausted and discouraged. He felt that though the conference was not a complete failure the advance made was not commensurate with its objective. Above all, he felt that there was a fundamental difference between his view and that of the members of the Cabinet on the importance of an international effort to disarm.

The culmination of many telegrams was the recall of Lord Cecil, who proceeded to trace a£ length the subsequent negotiations. The Government, he said, had taken a course which he believed had caused the failure of vital negotiations. If he had remained in office he would have had to take the responsibility for that failure as well as to defend it. That was impossible.

Lord Balfour said lie regarded the Geneva Conference as having been interrupted, not ended. Compared with the great issues at stake, the differences that had arisen were small and petty. (A. and X.Z. and Sydney "Sun.")