TREATY SIGNED.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18148, 11 August 1924, Page 9

TREATY SIGNED.

BRITAIN AND RUSSIA. REASON FOR AN OMISSION. 'HI CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION'— COprRIOKTI 'AUSTRALIA:; AND Z!.Z. CAEI.3 ASSOC" ATICX.) LONDON. August S. The ''Evening Standard" says that the omission of the Kind's name from the Anglo-Soviet Treaty was not duo to any desire to placate the Bolsheviks' susceptibilities, but the result of legal enquiries by the Foreign Office, based upon the difficulty that there is no formal head in Russia corresponding to the King. For this reason, tho Treaty could not be properly balanced if the preamble stated it was Ijctween the King and the Union of Soviet Republics. The document was then made out as between the two Governments. City circles are amazed aE the terms of the agreement, and there h an influential opinion that the Stock Exchange should veto dealings with the loan on the grounds that Russia's refusal to honour her bonds outside those of British ownership since March lCt-h, 1021, is tantamount to discrimination. The Anglo-Russian Treaty was signeel this evening by Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Mr A. A. W. H. Poneonsbv, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Britain, and MM. Rakovsky, Kchienemann, Joffe, Tomskv, and Radchenko, on behalf or Russia. Tho "Daily Herald" Gays: "Tho unique preamble to the Anglo-Russian Treaty was chosen, not only for the reasons quoted by the 'Evening Standard,' but because tho Dominions are not parties to treaties unless- they explicitly adopt them. Treaties signed bv his Majesty with foreign Powers automatically bind all the Dominions. Therefore, it became noeessai*y to find a new formula binding only Britain. The new preamble is important, because it marks a new step in the decentralisation of the Empire. Henceforth there will I*3 two kinds of treaties, those bearing the Kind's name unci binding tho whole Empire, and others binding only portions of the Empire specifically named."

PREAMBLE CRITICISED. (Received August 10th, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, August 9. The "Daily Chronicle,'' criticising the preamble of the Anglo-Russian treaty, asks why the Dominions were not consulted regarding the negotiations. If there i 3 no longer a common foreign policy for the British Empire, in what sense can the Empire be said to continue to exist?