* * * * -Sir Arthur also drew attention to
the advice of the Law Officers against accepting the Convention, as it stands, with the interpretations of the London Agree- ment of 1926,-on the ground that the interpretations would not be valid in English courts.- But the legal aspect should surely have been taken into account at the time. We cannot congratulate the Government on their atti- tude to the work of the International Labour-Office from the first. This country stands to gain a great' deal by bringing the standards of other countries nearer to our own. The debate at Geneva has resulted in a deadlock, for others besides thp workers' delegates are unwilling to cast the whole question of hours of work once more into the melting-pot. Revision is negatived for the present—and indeed it is pointed out that the clause permitting revision would apply only after experience of the working of the Convention—but we hope that M. Albert Thomas, the resourceful Director of the Office, will devise some solution of the difficulty before the statutory date for re-examination, 1931. M. Jouhaux, the French workers' representative, has talked of the British Government's refusal as " endangering the existence of the Organization," but that is nonsense. Excellent work is being done in many fields.
* * * *
Previous page
