Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

I desire to call attention to the action of the Government in failing to appoint one of their Members as a delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva. I am doing this as one who supports the Government and desires to do everything to assist them in their difficult task, which ought to be shared by others who are sitting on the other side of the House. I quite understand that their attention has been concentrated very closely on affairs at home, but I submit that perhaps for that reason they are making a great mistake in not sending out one of their own Members as, for instance, the Foreign Secretary, to represent them at the League of Nations. In all our Debates in the House, and in the discussions that have taken place in Committee rooms upstairs, it has been emphasised over and over again that what we are trying to do here is only a temporary palliative at best, that it may not even be that, and that for a final solution of the problems of this country we have to look to international action and cooperation between the different nations of the world in one way and another. I have only to refer to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) a day or two ago for a conference of the countries on the gold basis.

There is a report of the Gold Delegation of the League of Nations to be discussed at Geneva. There is the work of the European Committee now being considered there, and the report of the Financial Committee is also being considered. Then there are the proposals of the Macmillan Committee which all point in the same direction. In view of these considerations, it will be very much in the interest of this country if we have the Minister directly responsible taking part in these deliberations at Geneva. It can surely be no disadvantage to the Foreign Minister to be in a place where upwards of 20 other foreign Ministers are gathered. That is the place to carry on the foreign affairs of this country at the present moment. If it is suggested that the Foreign Minister is engaged on work which prevents him carrying out these duties, one would be inclined to think that some other person might have these duties delegated to him. This is the first meeting of the Assembly of the League when this country has not been represented by a member of the Government. It is a new precedent, and I hope it is one which the Government will not make, and that they will send a Minister out before the deliberations come to an end.

If the Foreign Secretary is very fully occupied, I suggest that there are other Ministers who might be sent out. What about the two other Liberal Marquesses in the Government? Lord Crewe has had an extensive diplomatic experience and would most worthily represent the Government at Geneva. There are other members of the Cabinet very well qualified to undertake that work, and apart from that we have in the Government, in the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) and in the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper) two gentlemen who, during the last few years, have represented the Government of this country with great ability at Geneva, as I have seen with my own eyes. I suggest that one of them might have been sent out. Possibly the Under-Secretary of State himself, if he could be spared from his new duties, might have gone there. I am sure he would have upheld most worthily the reputation of this country.

I do appeal to the Government to-night not to miss the opportunity that still lies before them. After all the Assembly has gone into Committee only this week. Most of the important work is done in Committee. I urge that the Foreign Secretary might consider whether he could not go out, if even for only a few days, because the psychological effect would be enormous. It would show that this Government was, as I believe to be the case, genuinely and seriously interested in the League. I know it may he said that we are well represented there by Lord Cecil, and I agree that there is no man in this country, or possibly in the world, whose reputation and prestige stand higher at Geneva than his. But he is not a member of the Government—I wish he were—and I know that on several occasions when he has had to speak in the Assembly he has had to say, "I am not speaking for the British Government. I am only expressing my own opinins." The fact that he has to make remarks of that kind when dealing with important international problems shows how important it is that there should be a Minister there who is able to say that he does speak for the British Government, and that the British Government are keenly and earnestly desirous of cooperating in every way with the League and using the structure and framework of the League for solving the international problems that lie so heavily on all the nations of the world. I earnestly appeal to the Under-Secretary, if he cannot give a definite assurance to-night, to make representations to his Noble Friend with a view to some action being taken during the next few days or before the Assembly comes to an end.

I must confess to a certain measure of surprise that the hon. Member has thought it necessary to raise this subject in this form to-night. I cannot help thinking that if he had read with care the very full reply I returned to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on Monday last he might perhaps have spared himself this amount of trouble. I only hope that his action tonight will not create misunderstanding where at present no misunderstanding exists. I can add nothing to what I have already told the House. Nobody is more anxious that the Foreign Secretary should be represented at Geneva than my Noble Friend himself. He has been most anxious to go himself, and he is so now. He has not by any means given up the idea—he is still seeking an opportunity—but the House will be well aware, as is public opinion here and opinion at Geneva, of the very exceptional circumstances of the present time.

It is not necessary for me to weary the House with details of dates, but I may remind the House that- this Government was formed a few clays before the Council met. The first meeting of the Assembly Was on the day before the meeting of Parliament. In those quite exceptional circumstances I do not think there can he any reasoned criticism of the fact that no actual Member of the Government was present at Geneva on those occasions. My hon. Friend is wrong in pleading any urgency in this matter, for there is great probability that it will be another 10 days at least before the Assembly completes its work. During that time my Noble Friend will make every effort in his power to be present if only for a very short visit. The hon. Member has suggested very kindly that I myself might go to Geneva. If I did so I do not know who would reply to the questions with which he not infrequently honours the Foreign Office. But in any event I would impress upon the House that the position is quite clearly understood at Geneva. When the Government found it impossible to have one of their own Ministers present, they did the best thing they could in the circumstances. The head of the present delegation is Viscount Cecil, and he is not only very fully acquainted with all those with whom he works at Geneva, but he is also equally familiar with all the problems before the Assembly. The Noble Lord is in constant and daily touch with His Majesty's Government at home.

I think that there is nothing further that I can add except that it is only in these most exceptional circumstances that the Government have departed so far from the traditional practice which my Noble Friend is himself so eager and anxious to fulfil. In any event, I ask the hon. Member who has raised this question to believe that the position is well understood at Geneva, and I hope, after my explanation, that it will he equally well understood here. I will add this further word. I am sure the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) did not wish to suggest by raising this question that there is any lack of interest on the part of the Government—which I understand he supports—for the work of the League, because nothing could be further from the truth. The present Government are as anxious and determined as any of their predecessors to give active support to the work of the League of Nations. That fact also is well understood in Geneva, and I hope that after this explanation, it will be well understood here.

I would like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I have no mandate to speak for my party, but I think I shall be expressing the views of most hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we, as a party, consider the appearance at Geneva of the most representative Member of the Government that may be in office as one of the most important duties in connection with that Government. I have been fortunate in having seen practically the birth and the continued growth of the League of Nations for at least nine years—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not in office as one of the most important present; House counted; and 40 Members duties in connection with that Govern not being present—

The House was adjourned at Ten Minutes before Eleven of of the Clock till To-morrow.