LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I enjoy the vigour of the Duke of Northumberland's language, but there is a confusion in his attitude towards the League of Nations that rather puzzles me.
For instance, he writes : " We have scrapped our Army, tried to restore Germany's prosperity while postponing indefinitely the payment of reparations, and have encouraged by our policy the resistance of Germany and the aims of Soviet Russia." Suppose this account to be true, what has the League of Nations to do with it ? The blame, if it is a blame, falls entirely on the British Government, of which the Duke is a leading supporter. It is curious that, in trying to select what has gone wrong in. Europe, the Duke has pounced upon exactly the problems in which the League has had no hand.
Secondly, the Duke is anxious to provide for the future security of France in face of the possibility of a German War of Revenge. Quite so : that is one of the main purposes of the League, and most Frenchmen so regard it. I do not know if the Duke has any other defence for France to propose, now that the threefold treaty has fallen through ; but even if he has, it seems odd in a champion of France to wish to destroy the chief security that France now has, instead of strengthening it.
" But," says the Duke, " it might lead us into war 1 " So it might. The League's method is- conference ; but if all conference fails the members of the League must, in the last resort, stand together to crush the war-maker. The pledge implied in this method needs the most careful consideration. The Duke, in agreement with the unanimous opinion of the League Assembly, thinks that Article 3c., even in conjunction with. XVI., is not sufficiently defined. For that reason the League has been trying for three years to work out a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee which shall be both reliable and clearly limited. The Duke will have an oppor- tunity of considering it next year when it comes before the British Parliament. Or does he object on principle to all such treaties ? Is he, to quote a distinguished Frenchman, one of " ces Anglais, qui, domines, comme on sait, par l' influence Quaker, inclinent plus volontiers a preconiser la non-resistance an mat qu'a adrnettre des moyens de coercition propres a garantir la security des nations " ? If so, I confess I am a little disappointed in him.
It is satisfactory to hear that the Duke fads the general moral pressure exercised by the League of Nations Union is " becoming intolerable," especially when the only offence urged against us is that we sent a form of Service for Armistice Day to those clergymen who said they would like to have it. (The Duke says " to all clergy," but that is a mistake.) I see no " impertinence " in that. Nor yet in the fact that many Bishops and Conservative Ministers have been kind enough to give us their support. I only wish I could make the Duke realize that it is not through any agitation or any " mental and spiritual, tyranny," but from far deeper causes, that so many people in all nations are becoming convinced that frank conference is a cleaner thing than secret plotting and agreed settlement a better thing than war.
GILBERT MURRAY.
Previous page
