matter afresh. The Council undertook to do so, stipulating that the Governments which laid this duty upon them should lend them effective support for the realisation of whatever plans they might propose. The matter immediately engaged their attention, and throughout the meeting of the Assembly, either in the full Council or in the Austrian Sub-Committee which they appointed, negotiations and discussions went on without interruption. The difficulties were immense. The political rivalries of the "interested" States-Czechoslovakia, Italy, and France-many times threatened to wreck all hope of success. It was, moreover, doubtful whether any proposals that could save Austria from destruction would not mean a policy of internal reform so drastic that no Austrian Government could carry it through. Assurances on this point, however, were given in the most confident and positive manner by M. Seipel, the Austrian Chancellor, who, together with the Austrian Foreign Minister, attended the more important of the Council discussions on the matter.

At length, before the separation of the Assembly, the Council were able to announce that they were on the verge of reaching a complete agreement. The scheme which they had adopted provided for the financial control of the Austrian Republic by a High Commissioner, to be appointed by the League. In addition to this High Commissioner there was to be a Committee composed of representatives of the various States-now seven in number-which should join collectively in guaranteeing a foreign loan of 26,000,000l. sterling, with which Austrian finances were to be restored. There was also laid down a programme of domestic reform which the Austrian representatives undertook to carry through, and for the execution of which they promised to secure the necessary powers from the Austrian Parliament.

It still remains to be seen whether in fact, even with the Government's guarantee, a large enough loan will actually be raised to save the Austrian State. So far admirable progress has been made. Since the end of October the Austrian crown has remained stable. In the last three months of 1922 the cost of living has successively fallen for the first time since the Armistice to approximately 20 per cent. less than it was before the League began its work. Saving in Austria has enormously increased. The Austrian Parliament duly granted the Government the necessary powers to carry out the programme of internal reforms, and at the end of the year the total number of civil servants (25,000) who were to be dismissed had all ceased to burden the public budget.

There is one other piece of political work to which reference should be made. During its debates on Disarmament, the Third Committee of the Assembly discussed at some length the problem of Reparations. It was natural that on a matter so vast no conclusions could be reached, nor even a programme

laid down. But the discussions served to demonstrate how universal was the demand in the interests of the whole world, and particularly of every European country, that a complete and final settlement of the Reparations problem and of the other questions allied to it should immediately be reached. The Resolution which was finally adopted also showed that in the opinion of the Members of the League the institutions of the League might be of essential service in finding such a solution, and it was so drafted as to provide an opening for reference to the League whenever the Governments might desire it.

The question of Disarmament is no doubt primarily political. But up to the present time it has been dealt with in the League through technical commissions, and has not yet passed into the sphere of politics proper. There are two bodies in the League established to deal with it-the Permanent Military Commission, established under Article 9 of the Covenant, and the "Temporary Mixed Commission," a special body charged with preparing concrete plans for the reduction of armaments. During 1922 the second of these bodies considered three propositions of importance. The first was for a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, and was laid before it by Lord Robert Cecil. The essential principle on which he founded his scheme was that no State could be expected to disarm unless it were given a guarantee that its frontiers would be protected by the other Members of the League in case it were unjustly attacked. He therefore proposed a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee which would only come into effect for each of its parties as and when they carried out the provisions of a supplementary agreement for the reduction of their military forces. This proposal he embodied in a series of resolutions to which the Temporary Mixed Commission agreed and which were afterwards adopted, in a slightly modified form, and after a most animated discussion, by the Third Committee of the Assembly. The Committee further instructed the Temporary Mixed Commission to elaborate these resolutions in the form of a draft treaty to be considered by the Assembly at its next meeting.

The second proposal laid before the Commission was Lord Esher's scheme for the reduction of land forces. This scheme again was embodied in a series of resolutions, but while it laid down a few general principles concerning the reduction of land armaments, its main substance lay in a definite proposal for a fixed number of troops to be maintained by each European State. Undoubtedly in proposing definite figures at the outset Lord Esher made a tactical mistake. His allocation of military strength aroused so much hostility on the part of the Governments concerned that the principles on which the scheme was based were never adequately considered. Some progress was, however, made on the basis of this scheme by a sub-committee of the Temporary Mixed Commission and the matter is, in

[151 accordance with the instructions of the Assembly, being taken up afresh.

The third proposal laid before the Commission was that made by Admiral Segrave for a special Naval Conference to apply the principles of the Washington Naval Convention to all the Powers who were not signatories thereto. The Temporary Mixed Commission, the Council, and the Assembly, all adopted this proposal, and it is expected that the proposed Conference will be summoned in the course of 1923, and when it is held, the Assembly recommended that Russia should be invited to attend.

During the year the Permanent Court of International Justice held two sessions. In January it met to settle its code of procedure; and in July at its first ordinary annual session it had to render, at the request of the Council, two advisory opinions concerning the competence and functions of the International Labour Office. These questions had been brought forward by the French Government. Both the decisions which the Court gave received the immediate acceptance of the Council and of every interested party. Later in the year a further matter was referred to the Court for its decision. For some time the British and the French Governments have been in dispute as to the right of the latter to conscript British subjects in Tunis. This was a question depending exclusively on the rules of international law. At first the French Government refused every offer of arbitration. But when the British Government exercised its right under Article 11 of the Covenant, and referred the question to the Council for discussion, the French Government withdrew their objections to judicial decision, and accepted a reference to the Court. The Court is accordingly to hold a special session to deal with the matter at the beginning of 1923. As regards the various technical committees and commissions of the League, perhaps the most important work has been done by the Advisory Committee on the Opium Traffic, and by the Committee of the Health Organisation. The Opium Committee has held two meetings, resulting in a policy which shall strike at the root of the evil by an international agreement to check the cultivation of the poppy.

The Health Committee, which now includes representatives of the Russian and American Governments, has also carried through some admirable schemes of co-operation in the sphere of public health. With support from the Rockefeller Foundation it has organised a system of international instructional courses for the health officers of different countries. Two such courses, with health officers from seventeen different countries, were held in Brussels and Rome. A third is projected for 1923.

The Economic and Transport Committees have prepared projects for economic agreements between the members of the League, and the Advisory Committee on the White Slave

Traffic has also held its first meeting. Both on this Committee and on the Opium Committee the American Government have appointed official representatives. In this direction their attitude has considerably changed, and it is hoped that American co-operation with the League will develop in this way.

The year has been remarkable for the increased confidence in the League which has been shown by both Governments and peoples. The so-called "Supreme Council" of the Allies has now definitely disappeared from the arena of international affairs, and more and more the Council and the Assembly of the League are recognised as the supreme political tribunals of the world.

CHAPTER II.

FRANCE AND ITALY.

FRANCE.

THE year 1922 was signalised at its opening by the Conference of Cannes, between France, England and Belgium, which met to consider the situation created by Germany's declaration of her inability to pay what was demanded of her for 1922. The chief result of this Conference was a decision to hold a general European Conference at Genoa, and M. Briand, the French Premier, signed with Mr. Lloyd George a draft pact of guarantee which stated that "guarantees for the security of France against a future invasion by Germany are indispensable to the restoration of stability in Europe, to the security of Great Britain, and the peace of the world."

At Paris, however, the political atmosphere had become hostile to M. Briand, who, finding that he had not the support of Parliament, resigned from the Premiership at a memorable sitting on January 12.

After a very brief crisis M. Poincaré presented himself before Parliament with a new Cabinet containing several members of the previous one.

In his ministerial address, M. Poincaré said bluntly that France would defend her interests as her Allies defended theirs, and he criticised adversely the Conferences of the Supreme Council. His tone was aggressive, but at the same time perfectly courteous.

The old Cabinet was not allowed to disappear in peace. M. Briand, its head, was specially marked out for attack. A report of his ineptitude while at Washington was made the most of in order to discredit him. But his unpopularity reached its height when it leaked out that at Cannes M. Briand, against the advice of the War Ministry, had given instructions for French war material to be handed over to the Kemalists.

The advent to power of M. Poincaré caused a distinct change in Franco-British relations. Poincaré did not like conferences. He preferred the old diplomatic method by which the heads of Governments did not meet till everything had been discussed and put in order by the ambassadors.

In spite, however, of his avowed objections, Poincaré could not avoid the participation of France in the Conference of Genoa, which had been fixed for early in March. In a memorandum sent to the British Government on February 6, M. Poincaré criticised severely the programme laid down at Cannes for the Conference of Genoa. This document emphasised two points: first, that the Treaties drawn up by the Peace Conference were not to be modified in any particular; secondly, that the power and the authority of the League of Nations should not be derogated from in any way, and that its place should not be usurped by the Conference of Genoa in dealing with any of the questions which came within its competence. About a fortnight after the publication of this memorandum, Messrs. Lloyd George and Poincaré met at Boulogne (February 25) and agreed that at Genoa no discussion should be admitted either of the Treaty of Versailles and its annexes or of reparations. It may be mentioned that Briand had already obtained a similar assurance at Cannes.

The Conference of Genoa actually opened on April 15, almost a month and a half after the date originally fixed. Whereas all the other Powers were represented by their Prime Ministers, M. Poincaré remained in Paris. The French representatives were, however, men of the highest standing-Barthou, Colrat, Barrère, Seydoux, Picard, and experts of the first rank.

France's position at the Conference was difficult. In regard to Russia she was torn between the desire of defending Europe against the menace of Bolshevism, a movement repugnant alike to French tradition and French good sense, and the fear of finding herself left behind in the struggle for concessions in Russia, where she had such important interests. In regard to reparations, again, she found herself in danger of becoming isolated on the question of the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles. At that time France could not think without anxiety of a