A.—sc

It would, perhaps, be out of place for the Commonwealth Government, removed as far as possible from that part of the world whose conditions may have so largely determined the principle on which the Protocol has been framed, to offer any observations on the manner in which the problem of disarmament has been envisaged in that instrument. Whilst recognizing the existence of very strong feeling which prevails in European countries that no reduction of armaments can be effected without some equivalent substitute being forthcoming from other sources, it is felt that to confine the question of disarmament within the four comers of compulsory arbitration and attendant sanctions is to impose limitations which may prejudice any general agreement being arrived at and thus render the problem insoluble. The development of a spirit of mutual confidence amongst Nations will, it is believed, contribute more effectively to prepare public opinion to accept disarmanent than the setting up of the most elaborate machinery for settlement of disputes. Whilst, therefore, sympathizing entirely with the spirit of the Protocol, which was designed with the object of strenthening the League, my Government sees very serious objection to the methods proposed. Apart from being distinctly unacceptable to Australia, for the reasons already given, it will have the effect of still further alienating Nations who are already hesitant about accepting the authority of the League, and will in the present state of International opinion defeat the object which the designers of the Protocol had in view. We are anxious that the authority of the League should grow, but as its authority depends mainly on the spirit which animates its members we are opposed to what in the circumstances must be regarded as a dangerous attempt to accelerate its growth. The time may come when it will be possible to set up some machinery such as that proposed. We feel, however, that the attempt should not be made until there is no possibility of compromising the achievements that the League has already won. Ends. —Forster. Note. —Copy sent to Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland by despatch, 12th March, 1925.

No. 13. The Governor-General of New Zealand to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. [Telegram.] 7th March. Your telegram of 3rd March.* Your telegram of 4th March.} Geneva Protocol. Following for Prime Minister from my Prime Minister : — Begins : I agree fully both with course His Majesty's Government propose to take and with tenor of the statement which it is propose that Foreign Secretary should make as set forth in your telegram of 4th March} to the Governor-General. I desire, however, that it should be noted that the proposed statement of reasons for rejecting the Protocol is no doubt properly confined to the reasons which would affect any great Power considering the subject from a general and common sense point of view and that therefore the reasons for the rejection which are founded upon considerations specially affecting the British Empire are excluded. As the New Zealand Government was concerned more especially with excluded reasons 1 wish it noted that my entire concurrence in the proposed statement does not indicate that the statement sets forth all the reasons which have induced the several Governments of the Empire to refuse concurrence in the plan of the Protocol. Ends. —Fergusson.

No. 14. The Governor-General of Canada to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. [Telegram.] 7th March. Following from Prime Minister for your Prime Minister: — Begins: Statement on Geneva Protocol referred to in your telegram 3rd of March* was received shortly after despatch} had been sent summarizing conclusions to which Canadian Government had come on same subject. We have read this statement with much interest and are pleased to note that our Government have taken substantially the same view as to additional obligations involved in sanction provisions of Protocol. Ends. —Byng.

* No. 9. t No. 10. t No. 11.

10