London, Sept, 12.
The morning papers express! diverse opinions with regard to Sir Austen Chamberlain's speech. Most of them, however, agree that public opinion in Britain and the Dominions is dead against Britain accepting further heavy obligations.
The "Daily Telegraph," for instance, remarks that. the speech states in downright terms that the British Government does not intend to add to its alrendy heavy obligations for preventing war: this d claration, it says, will doubtless be heard with relief by all parts of the Empire.
While the. British " newspapers generally support Sir Austen Chamberlain's attitude, some criticise his method.
The "Daily News," for example, declares that this language was ill-chosen and provocative, The "Daily Chronicle" describes his defence of the British attitude as unskilful and calls on the Government to take an early oppor tunity to re-state the British posi tion in better and ampler terms Comment in the French press is ied.
"Lo Petit Parisien" says: "Sir Austen Chamberlain's attitude was magnificent, Hf stated that the British Empire would not accept any undertaking which it was not yure of being able to carry out."
Lo Gaulois" declares: "Sir Aus-Chamberlain had the task of ing the British Empire from engagements it has never wished to assume, His frankness was somewhat brutal but necessary."
"Lo Matin" says: "Britain apparently wishes to increase the risks of war by restricting her engagements,"
"LaEcho de Paris" declines: "England has said her last word: 'Let the League of Nations die rather than the British Empire.'
The speech made a deep impres-in Germany, where the Nationalist section of the press exultantly declares that Sir Austen Chamberlain "has finally dissipated the Polish hopes of an eastern Locarno and has given he cold shoulder to the French militarists and their Warsaw satellites—Reuter, Sir Austen Chamberlain Hopeful Geneva, Sept, 12.
Sir Austen Chamberlain in a statement to international journal-fists said he thought the method employed at this year's Assembly of the League of Nations, namely, orators frankly offering criticism, was far better than the old way of merely approving the actions of the big Powers. He was, he claimed, soberly optimistic. He would not say that war was impossible, but every meeting of the League made it more difficult—Reuter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.