As a matter of fact, it is difficult to understand
how this is a valid objection to the reference of the problem to the League, which the Liberal parties have made the subject of their united amendment to the Address, since we have just done the same thing in the case of Turkey on the Mosul question. The Turks at first refused to refer the matter to the League, whereupon Lord Curzon claimed its intervention. under Article -XI. of the Covenant. Is there any real reason why we cannot take similar action now, even though France remains unwilling.? • It cannot be said, as it was in the case of Sweden, that we are not a party to the dispute, since our share in Reparations is still unrepudiated. Short of this, why cannot we ask the French Ministers, who are over here seeking railway facilities in our Rhine zone, for a definite categorical statement of French *aims—whether they are finant , vial. or territorial—before we answer their request I M. Poineare is to make a statement in the Chamber on Monday, but we should like to see the French aims set out categorically in a formal diplomatic Note.
Previous page
