LEAGUE & BRITAIN

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 March 1926, Page 5

LEAGUE & BRITAIN

SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH. INTEREST IN COMMONS. (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (By Gable—Press Assn. —Copyright.) LONDON, March 4. A crowded House of Commons was surprised at a postponement to-day of the promised statement in connection with the League Council seats by Sir Austen Chamberlain, especially as it is understood that a lengthy Cabinet meeting reached an agreement on the basis of Germany’s unconditional admission, and the settlement of other claims thereafter. A more optimistic feeling consequently prevails. Mr. Baldwin announced to the House he would move the adjournment till to-morrow afternoon to permit Sir Austen Chamberlain to make a full statement regarding the League Council, especially the claims for permanent seats. Time would be allowed for the House to fully discuss the subject. The Prime Minister told Air. Harris that there would be ample opportunity at Geneva for a discussion by Dominion delegates on the constitution of the League- Council. On the formal motion for adjournment, Sir A. Chamberlain said that in view of the anxiety here and abroad it was only right there should be a statement of the British viewpoint on the subject of increasing the Council of tlTe League of Nations. Personally, he felt that it would be much easier to increase the difficulties with which they would be confronted at Geneva thlin to lessen them by any words he could use. He confessed that they had to watch the controversy with the greatest anxiety. They would meet - at Geneva with many conflicting views, inspired by national feeling and tradition, but if the League were to continue to grow in influence and power, they .must at Geneva talk not in their own language, but in the language of EuropeThere has been too little recognition of that viewpoint in the Press controversy, said Sir A. Chamberlain, but he was encouraged to hope for better things from the statements of representatives of the nations directly concerned, all of whom showed tlie same appreciation of the difficulty and delicacy of the situation, and proof of moderation of outlook in the desire to arrive at an agreement. “We regret that these large issues have arisen at the present time. We did not raise them or instigate the raising, but perhaps it is inevitable that they should have cropped up.’’ Sir A. Chamberlain said that if he understood aright, the British nation was not unalterably opposed to any change or addition to the Council, but feared the opening of the question would endanger the Locarno Agreement, or that there was something-in the air that was not fair play. The other day Herr Stresemann alluded to the presence of Lord Castlereagh’s photograph in a room where the Locarno Pact was signed, and rightly deduced that it meant British policy was the same now as Castlereagh s alter the Napoleonic wars. The difference was that the League was used as an instrument of present policy, which was to protect the world against a repetition of the evils or dangers it had just escaped and welcome back to the concert of nations the enemy of yesterday. It must always be the guiding principle for British delegates to Geneva that they should not be parties to anything endangering the success of Locarno; or making it impossible at the last moment for Germany to enter the League as she sought in fulfilment of her assurance of peaceful intentions. How all the divergencies could be reconciled no man could say. Britain would not be a party to trying to re-create within the League camps of opposing forces, which were the curse of Europe before the war, but what was one vote more or less to anybody since there could be no result,' unless the Council were unanimous. There might be an exceptional case when the Council would have to decide by majority vote, then it would be a temptation not to malte the Council as authoritative and influential as possible for peace; but lobby to obtain a majority. Therefore till the changes took place, which he did not expect to see, it was essential to preserve the rule of unanimity.

In preparation for to-morrow’s debate on the question of the expansion of the League Council, the Liberal group, headed by Air. Lloyd George, tabled a motion urging that the occasion of admitting Germany to the League and according her a perman ent seat on the Council should not be used to effect any other changes in the Council, whatever their intrinsic merits.

There is a similar Labourite motion which adds that, apart from other considerations, an increase ; in the permant seats in order to accommodate the claims of other nations than Germany could be regarded as a variation of the Locarno agreement, and ought not to be supported by the British Government. PRESS COMMENTS LONDON, March 4. The “Morning Post’s” Geneva correspondent suggests that it will be proposed to Dr. Stressemann during the course of Sunday’s pourparlers that Germany first be admitted and then that a. second Council be held, Germany participating, at which the Council will recommend to the Assembly Commission non-permanent seat, pending a Commission, in accordance with the British suggestion, for the purpose of studying the re-or- 1 ganisation of the Council and reporting at the September meeting. The cor respondent adds that it is definitely assured that no permanent seat will be granted at present. The “Daily Herald’s” diplomatic correspondent says: “It is clear that a settlement will be made during the informal Sunday conversations merely to regularise the arrangement being made this week, of which many of the essential parts will not be disclosed. The results of the hard diplomatic bargaining will be presented to the world as a new manifestation of the Locarno spirit. The “Daily Telegraph” affirms that the suggestion for a Commission is supported throughout Dominion circles. In a leading article, “The Times” declares “Since Germany is coming into the League, it is not fair play to make sudden important changes without consulting her, particularly since it may be interpreted as an attempt to create,- hastily and nervously a counterpoise against Germany. This

is what strikes the ordinary British mind as an attempt to queer the pitch. It simply cannot be done.” BELGIAN MINISTER’S SPEECH (Reuter.) BRUSSELS, March 3. In the Belgian Chamber, M. Vahdervelde, referring to the question of the Council, of the League, said that Belgium periodically had to rim ths risk of not having her seat renewed. He thought that it Was desirable to counter that risk by means of a regulation fixing definitely the duration of such mandates and the conditions for re-election. This regulation had been framed, and, if ratified by Spain if would come into force as an amendment to Article Four of the Covenant. He declared that it was a serious mistake to describe the new candidatures for a permanent seat on the League Council as a counterpoise to the entry of Germany. He spoke of the possibility of other States than the present candidates demanding permanent seats on the Council. Thus the Council would be compelled to create fresh permanent members and, consequently to increase the number of non-per-manent members and, consequently, to increase the number of non-pennanent seats. Thus they would have a Council of eighteen or twenty, and even of more members. The result would be that the League Assembly would be discredited by comparison with the Council, which would include nearly all the politically important States, while the States that were members of the Council would suffer a dangerous loss of influence, and there inevitably would arise in the unweildy Council a small committee which would be the really decisive body. M. Vandervelde concluded by. re-echoing Sir Austen Chamberlain’s desire to go to Geneva with hands free and seek a conciliatory solution. The Senate unanimously adopted the Locarno agreements and the adhesion of Belgium to the Hague Court of International'Justice.