Egypt. He thought that a League of Nations representative might well be called in to advise in the negotiations which would no doubt soon be opened between the British and Egyptian Governments. Coming to the Zinovieff letter, he thanked Mr. Chamberlain for the statement he had made about his (Mr. MacDonald's) position in the matter. He asserted emphatically that whatever misunderstanding there might have been with regard to the Note to M. Rakovsky, it was not due to any disloyalty on the part of the Foreign Office officials. He was still not convinced that the letter was authentic, chiefly because a copy had got into the hands of a London newspaper as well as the Foreign Office. He deplored the action of the Government in cancelling the Anglo-Russian Treaties, and thought it constituted a dangerous precedent. Mr. Fisher, on behalf of the Liberals, hoped that the Government's aversion to the methods of Moscow would not deter them from trying to make some arrangement for the advantage of British fishermen in Russian waters and of creditors of the late Russian Government. He also thought that the Government ultimatum to Egypt had been far too strong, and made some suggestions for utilising the machinery of the League of Nations in framing an Anglo-Egyptian settlement. In the main, however, he approved the Government's policies in regard to Egypt and Russia as against the Labour amendment, which was lost by 363 votes to 132.

On December 16 Mr. Wheatley moved an amendment to the Address regretting that the Government were committed to a policy of leaving the solution of the housing problem mainly to private enterprise and the operation of occupying ownership. He adduced figures to prove that the private builder exploited the public, and that while he could provide houses which the wealthier classes would buy, he would never build houses which the poorer classes could rent. Mr. Neville Chamberlain in replying disputed Mr. Wheatley's statements of fact. For the twelve months ended September 30 last, he said, 110,000 new houses had been built, 95,362 or 86 per cent. of them by private enterprise. Of all these houses, upwards of 90,000 were of a rateable value of under 261. a year, and so well within the reach of the working classes. Further, from January 1, 1923, to December 1 of this year, 7,866,000l. had been advanced under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, enabling 10,168 houses to be purchased by their occupiers. Mr. Wheatley's Act, which had increased the subsidy by 165l. per house, could, he maintained, never add a single house to the number which would have been built without it, because the limiting factor was not want of capital but shortage of labour, and this Mr. Wheatley did nothing to remedy. After due consideration, he said, he had decided to drop the Bill introduced by Mr. Wheatley for controlling prices and costs of materials, as there was no reason to believe that the manufacturers were overcharging. In conclusion he spoke with favour of the experiment of steel houses

introduced by Lord Weir, and promised a grant to any local authority which would erect them. After some debate the amendment was defeated by 356 votes to 136.

In the House of Lords on December 16, Lord Newton expressed alarm at the large number of Russians who were admitted into the country in connexion with the Russian Mission and Trade Delegation, and about whom, he said, the one thing certain was that they were here for the purposes of political propaganda. Lord Curzon, in replying, proved his suspicions to be groundless. The Home Office, he said, examined most carefully every application for admission, and then only granted permission for a limited period. Since 1921 some 340 visas had been granted to Russians connected with the Missions or Trade Delegations and 500 to others. Some of these might have occupied themselves in activities foreign to the purpose for which they had been allowed to enter; but it must be remembered that if the Russian Government wanted to conduct propaganda in this country they need not employ their own countrymen, but could employ non-Russian foreigners, or even Englishmen. Generally speaking, the activities of any Russians whom there was reason to suspect were carefully regarded by the Government, but during the years to which he was referring no occasion had arisen on which it was judged necessary to exercise the power of deportation against them.

On the last day of the debate on the Address (December 17), Captain Wedgwood Benn moved a Liberal amendment regretting that the King's Speech foreshadowed the introduction of tariffs and preference. He asked the Prime Minister to declare clearly what were the Government's positive proposals in this matter. Mr. Baldwin in reply indicated that a Bill would be introduced next year entitling any industry which could prove itself substantial and efficient to general protection against unfair competition from abroad. He also announced that it had been decided to set up an Imperial Economic Committee to devise the best methods for marketing Empire produce in the United Kingdom, and that it was proposed to allocate about 1,000,000l. a year to this purpose. Mr. Snowden denounced Mr. Baldwin's safeguarding of industry proposal as being merely protection under another name, and said it was the most impractical and ridiculous suggestion for a tariff that ever emanated from the brain of a tariff reformer. Mr. Lloyd George agreed that the Prime Minister's proposal meant a complete change in the fiscal system of the country. The Safeguarding of Industries Act had been introduced originally merely to deal with a temporary emergency due to the depreciation of foreign exchanges, and it had been directed against particular countries, not against all alike. This new proposal was a not very straightforward method of putting on a general tariff. Mr. Churchill, in replying for the Government, said that the mandate given by the electorate was to give effect to the policy of Imperial Preference

without the imposition of taxes on food, and to bring in the safeguarding of industries without the institution of a general tariff. The Government was going to execute that mandate, but it declined to be drawn prematurely into definitions of the Bill which it would subsequently introduce.

The amendment was negatived by 331 votes to 151, and the Address was then agreed to.

On December 18 in the House of Lords, Marquess Curzon, replying to Earl Beauchamp, said that the date fixed in the Treaty of Versailles for the evacuation of Cologne was January 10, 1925, but then only on condition that the Treaty had been faithfully carried out by Germany. An Allied Commission had been inquiring for over two years into the military situation in Germany, but owing to the persistent obstruction it had met with it could not possibly send in its report by January 10, so that there was no hope of the evacuation taking place by that date, much to the regret of the Government, which had not the slightest desire to continue the occupation.

On the same day Mr. Baldwin informed Mr. MacDonald in the House of Commons that, in the view of the Government it was the duty of the Attorney-General, when considering a prosecution likely to involve matters of public policy, to inform himself of the views of the Government or the appropriate Minister before coming to a decision. Considering this a sufficient recantation on Mr. Baldwin's part, Mr. MacDonald withdrew the motion of which he had given notice for discussing his earlier statement on the subject.

Immediately afterwards Parliament rose for the Christmas vacation and the year closed without further political incident. An atmosphere of complete political calm had succeeded the ferment with which the year opened and the excitement which accompanied its course. The country as a whole was content to see the chief direction of affairs in the hands of a leader who derived his political inspiration from Disraeli, and Mr. Baldwin's Government had every prospect of a long lease of power.

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL HISTORY.

CHAPTER I.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

LITTLE need be said concerning the constitutional development of the League of Nations during 1924 except that there has been a marked tendency during the year for Governments to send to meetings of the organs of the League their responsible Ministers. of State. At the Fifth Assembly, for example, there were no fewer than seven Prime Ministers, including the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France, and sixteen Foreign Secretaries, apart from a considerable number of other Cabinet Ministers in office. The year was also notable for the fact that the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the first time acted as British Member of the Council.

Largely as a result of this tendency, there has been a great increase in the authority and prestige of both the Assembly and the Council. There has also been increasing efficiency in the work of the various technical and expert commissions, whose co-operation with the national administrations of the various. Members of the League becomes continually more effective.

Of the general work accomplished by the Members of the League through its machinery during 1924, undoubtedly the most important is the "Geneva Protocol" prepared by the Fifth Assembly. [For the text of the Protocol, see under Public Documents in Part II.] For four years the League through two technical commissions had been endeavouring to work out a practical policy to fulfil the obligations of Article 8 of the Covenant by which all League Members undertook to reduce their national armaments. These efforts had led to no practical result. The first approach towards agreement was made at the Third Assembly in 1922 when resolutions were adopted laying down the principle that disarmament and guarantees for security must go together. In the succeeding year the Temporary Mixed Commission prepared a draft treaty -known as the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance-for the purpose of giving practical effect to this principle. During 1924 the British Government came to the conclusion that the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance was not acceptable, though the French Government made it plain that they would regard it as

a satisfactory guarantee for French security. Moreover, the French Government were not prepared to take the measures necessary to bring about the reconstruction of Germany until they had some assurance that a revived Germany would not be free to embark on a war of revenge against France at an early date. At the London Conference on Reparations, therefore, M. Herriot accepted a very liberal policy towards Germany on the basis of an assurance from the British Prime Minister that the question of French security would be considered and dealt with at the Fifth Assembly of the League. It was accordingly with this undertaking from the British Government towards France, and with warm French support for the general scheme of the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, that the Assembly began its consideration of disarmament.

The work of the Fifth Assembly on this subject was embodied in the Geneva Protocol. It consists of three parts which relate respectively to Arbitration, Security and Disarmament. The reason why security and disarmament are linked together has been explained already. Arbitration was a third necessary part, because a number of states were unwilling to agree to the creation of a system of international military guarantees unless they had assurance that these guarantees would only be used against a state which was genuinely guilty of aggression. They believed that such guarantees could be found in a general system for the pacific settlement, by compulsory means, of all international disputes, or, as it was loosely called in Geneva, by a general system of "compulsory arbitration." To secure the unanimity which was required, therefore, any scheme for disarmament had to embody the three elements which have been mentioned.

The most important provisions of the Protocol relate to "arbitration," that is to say, to the compulsory and pacific settlement of all international disputes. It provides that all disputes which are capable of settlement by the application of legal rules-disputes which are commonly known as "justiciable"-shall be referred on the demand of any one party to the If there is any Permanent Court of International Justice.

difference of opinion as to whether there are legal rules which cover a given dispute this difference shall also be decided by the Permanent Court itself. It was expected by the authors of the Protocol that a great number of international disputes would thus be dealt with by judicial process; the more so since international law is at present being developed with great rapidity. For such disputes as are not dealt with in this way, that is to say, for "non-justiciable" disputes, the Protocol provides that in the first place the Council shall fulfil the same functions which it at present fulfils under Article 15 of the Covenant. Its duty under this Article is to seek by all the means in its power to effect a settlement of non-justiciable disputes by common agreement between the parties, and to this end it is empowered to