A.—sd.

In the opinion of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the League's successes were too often forgotten in contemplation of its failures, and this, coupled with the loss of important members, had restricted not only faith in co-operation, but the power to fulfil all the obligations of the Covenant. But the ideals of the League remained, and, in the words of Mr. Eden, those ideals were the promotion of international co-operation and the achievement of international peace and security on the basis of respect for international law. In spite of all that had happened, the League remained as an instrument, the best so far devised, for giving effect to these ideals, and its machinery should be used to the fullest extent permitted by circumstances. Non-membership of the League should not be regarded as a hindrance to friendly relations, nor should the League become the home of any ideology except that of peace through international co-operation. We should continue to use the instrument available, hoping that in time all nations would be united in a desire to co-operate. It is, I think, true to say that during the remainder of the meeting no harsh voice was raised, and even if Mr. Wellington Koo, the representative of China, was highly critical of League action, or want of action as manifested in its attitude towards his own country, he did not deny his faith in an organization which had been built on the ruins wrought by the greatest war in history. It seemed to me that the occasion required a reaffirmation of New Zealand's faith in the League, and I spoke as follows :— " I have listened with great interest to the declarations which have been made by Mr. Eden on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and M. Delbos on behalf of the Government of France and by other members of the Council, and fully understand that experience has prompted the representative of China in his remarks—an experience which we regret. " Speaking on behalf of my own Government, that of New Zealand, I would state in the strongest possible terms that, in spite of all that has happened since 1936, our faith in the ideals and aims incorporated in the Covenant of the League of Nations remains as strong as ever, for we believe that, given the will, co-operation amongst the nations of the world in the spirit of the Covenant is possible. The terms of the Covenant are now under the consideration of a special committee, and perhaps this is not the time nor the place for making any statement in detail on the views held by my Government on measures of reform, if, indeed, reform is necessary. These views are contained in the memorandum which my Government submitted to the Secretary-General on July 16th, 1936, and my Government firmly believes that the hope for the future good relationship of nations lies in the observance of a code of conduct of which the Covenant is an expression, and it reaffirms its attitude towards the League in the terms of that memorandum. "In an historical period extending over thousands of years the period of the life of the League is almost nothing. We realize that everything cannot be accomplished in a day, and that the time may not be ripe for putting into immediate operation every principle for which we in New Zealand stand ; yet we are not prepared to abandon, in the face of aggression and detraction of the League's performances (and many of its performances have been both striking and efficacious), our faith in right and justice based on a sound conception of international relations through a strong League of Nations." The various speakers expressed on behalf of their Governments faith in and fidelity to the League. All statements more or less showed appreciation of the actual position. What is the position ? Article 16 of the Covenant was applied, not in full measure it is true, and its application in the ItaloEthiopian conflict was looked upon as a test case. Sanctions failed in that case. There are those who assert that they need not have failed, that in time they would have served their purpose. Since their failure the international situation has grown steadily worse, and many of the smaller countries are no longer willing to sliare with the other members of the League responsibilities and sacrifices which they were readily prepared to share with all the great Powers (with the exception of the United States of America) in the League. Let us take the case of Switzerland. Much has been said and written of her special position, which was recognized by the Council of the League in 1920. That position is one of perpetual neutrality, but it was expected by the Council that Switzerland would play her part in the event of the imposition of economic and financial sanctions. Obviously a country like Switzerland is willing to play her full part only if she can rely on League help in the event of an attack on her by another Power. At the beginning of the present decade all three Great Powers whose frontiers march with those of Switzerland were members of the League. Now one of them is no longer a member, and another has given notice to quit. There are, of course, other circumstances which make for circumspection. Even the keenest partisan of the Covenant as it is, without qualification of any kind, must admit that the conditions prevailing to-day are not the conditions which were envisaged when the Covenant was drawn up. I offer no apology for the smaller nations. I only try to indicate that circumstances are against the League and that it would be a disservice to the League to press unduly at the moment proposals which would receive little or no support. The third meeting of the Council was held on the afternoon of the 28th January, at first in private and then in public. The following four items were considered at the private meeting — (1) Appointment of an Auditor to the League of Nations.—The term of office of M. Ceresa, who has audited the accounts of the League for many years, expired on the 31st December, 1937. The office required filling, and this duty devolved upon the Council. The Supervisory Commission, as the watchdog of the League's finances, had been actively engaged in seeking a successor to M. Ceresa, but was not yet in a position to suggest a name. Its Chairman suggested that the Council should authorize

14