BRITISH POLICY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 17 November 1927, Page 5

BRITISH POLICY

ON LEAGUE QUESTIONS UNSIGNED PROTOCOL UNACCEPTED. A TOO TERRIBLE RISK INVOLVED. (British Official Wireless).

(Received 17, 11.50 a.m.) Rugby, Nov. 16. In the House of Lords, Lord Cushendun (formerly Mr. Ronald McNeill) who has succeeded Viscount Cecil as British Representative to the League of Nations, replied to the demand of Lord Parmoor for information about the Government’s policy on League questions.

■ Lord Cushendun I said he was a I whole-hearted believer in and a I supporter of the League. The Government had not yet drafted any instructions for the guidance of its representatives at next Geneva Con- ‘ ference, and matters were still ;ion,

unuer consiaerat: Regarding the reference by Lord Parmoor to the principles embodied in the Protocol of 1924, Lord Cushendun recalled that that instrument was never signed, and he denied that its principles had been universally accepted. The Protocol offered to a large number of states that which they were all anxious for. namely a guarantee of the use of British sea power.

That involved a degree of risk and commitment which no British Government would accept. The present Government would certainly not accept that terrible risk.

Replying to Lord Parmoor's question wneyier tlie Government was prepared to adopt the optional clause of the International court, Lord Cushendun said that Dominion opinion was strong and emphatic against the acceptance of the clause. Acceptance would mean the abolition ol the hitherto accepted saving clause as to vital interests, and honour and independence. He doubted whether public opinion in this country would tolerate laying down in advance that under no conceivable circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen, could any dispute arise which this country would not be ready to submit to arbitration. This country was distinguished from most others by the enormous complexity of fts governmental system, and by its material interests.

Lord Cushendun assured Lord Parmoor that the Government thoroughly accepted his view of the inseparability of security, arbitration, and disarmament, as a means of securing peace.

“WAR OF AGGRESSION.” QUESTION OF DEFINITION. (British Official Wireless). (Received 17, 11.5 a.m.) Rugby Nov. 16. Sir Austen Chamberlain was asked in the House of Commons whether, in, view of the British delegation to the eighth Assembly of the League of Nations having voted for the Polish resolution “that a war of aggression was an international crime,” any definition of the term “war of aggression” wag reached by the Assemblv before passing this resolution. Sir Austen replied that no definition was made bv the Assembly, and that, in subscribing to the Polish resolution, none of the Powers undertook any fresh engagements, since undertaking not to wage wars of aggression was implicit in, and indeed was the very essence of the Covenant of the League. Replying to supplementary questions. Sir Austen said it would be far wiser not to attempt to define the term “war of but to leave to, competent authorities who was the aggressor when the facts were before them. CLYNES "ON EMPIRE. (Received 17, 9.55 a.m.) London, November 16. The Rt. Hon. J, R. Clynes. speaking at the League of Nations’ Union, said: “We are proud of our Empire, but pride can be .pushed too far. and often precedes a fall. Ido not want to see the Empire regarded as a substitute for the League. It should only regard itself as a unit-of the common family of mankind l .”—(A. and N.Z.)