HELPING THE LEAGUE.

Evening Star, Issue 19709, 9 November 1927, Page 6

HELPING THE LEAGUE.

Tux League of Nations has many kinds of workers. There arc those who would go forward slowly, liko Sir Austen Chamberlain, trusting for progress to an increasing goodwill, and most concerned lest any advance should be prevented by a multiplicity of orders and restrictions, producing their own revolt. There arc others who would pile obligation upon obligation, sanction on sanction, Protocol on Covenant for the nations that compose it, believing that only when they are tied like prisoners in a chain gang will they be able to advance towards universal peace. The League, it lias been said, is a religion to not a few of its delegates—a religion, moreover, which does not seem likely to lack its Peter the Hermit. 'There are little Peters already in more than one country; one of them, by his sermons against nationalist militarism, lias been making of late no inconsiderable sensation in Germany. It is difficult to find a place for Mr Lloyd George in any of these categories. Pie threatens to become merely a railer at the slow pace of the League, without suggesting any means by which it can he quickened. Or he might be the successor of a class whom Mr Wells onco described as “Gawd sakers,” because in every trouble they were accustomed to cry “ P'or God’s sake, do something,” without having any notion whatever of what should be done. Mr Lloyd George made a. speech recently, deploring the slow progress of disarmament and dwelling on all the dangers which beset Europe, which Sir Austen Chamberlain judged fit to characterise as “thoughtless am! reckless.” His wrath was turned against the European countries which, by refusing to reduce their armaments, maintain a “ gross breach of faith with those nations which entered the war to uphold the. sanctity of treaties.” But it was no use to revile the European Powers for not showing a more ardent disposition to turn their swords into ploughshares. If Mr Lloyd George, or anyone else, could rid them of their fears, which arc more pathetic than ■ reprehensible, the disposition might be soon evinced. It was no use blaming her sister Powers for not making a friend of Russia. It is doubtful if the Bolshevists have any more love for Mr Lloyd George than they have for, Sir Austen Chamberlain or Signor Mussolini, whom they have been representing together as .twin dragons. Time was when his own slogan in reference to the Sovietists was “ no shaking hands with murderers.” Rebuked by the Foreign Minister for the tendency of his speech to stir up resentment, instead of increasing goodwill, upon the Continent, Mr Lloyd George has now turned his attack upon that statesman. Mr Baldwin’s Government also is a party, it would appear, to the breach of faith with trustful upholders of treaties. But that Government has gone as far in reducing armaments as Mr Lloyd George would be likely to go if he were in power. It is not a fair charge against the Foreign Minister that he is “disposed to consider the Locarno Pact,” which ho initiated, “ as a final step.” Sir Austen’s case has been that it is impossible for Britain to take for every country and for every frontier the guarantee which she had taken for one by treaty, and, that is beyond argument. Lord Cecil, within the last few weeks, has paid his tribute to the Foreign Minister’s influence in saying; “Sir Austen Chamberlain had done much, especially at the meetings of the Council and Assembly, to increase the prestige of the league.”

Mr Lloyd George describes the Conservative statesman as “standing on the shore of Lake Maggiorc like a stork on one leg, looking preternaturally wise, and feeling very satisfied because lie had swallowed one trout ” —Locarno. It is very witty and amusing. But Mr Lloyd George, standing as a raven croaking lamentations and reproaches for the ills of Europe for which he has no practical remedy to offer, can only appear to the impartial onlooker as a much more incflcctual bird.