EUROPEAN UNITY.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18684, 6 May 1926, Page 8

EUROPEAN UNITY.

DANGER FROM THE EAST. LECTURE BY PROFESSOR MACMILLAN BROWN. "I am going to talk on a subject that is really hot—that is up-to-date," said Professor J. Macmillau Brown, Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, introducing his lecture, "The United States of Europe—A Forecast," delivered before tho Philosophical Institute last night. Mr C. Jfi. FoweraKer presided. Professor Macniillan Brown's introductory remarks covered a review ot universal history. In earliest times, the width of the world, he sara, removed the necessity lor the invention of peace panaceas. Histuiy began witn the clash oi empires; the <jhmese Empire, owing to its geographical position, had been the only empire ...at established peace amongst its peoples. The world State was the ancient method of producing peace, examples of such States were the empire of Alexander the Great, the ttonian Empire, and the Papacy, when controlled by a strong occupant of the Papal chair. He did not think that the Loaguo of Nations was going to secure anything like permanent peace; no nation would submit its destiny to the vote on a council of ten on which it had onlv one representative. The growth of nationalism, the result of the migrations from the east in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, was one of the troubles the League had to overcome.

Menace of Russia. The lesson they drew from Europe's experience in the Middle Ages was that the only way in which Europe could be united and pacific was a menace—that is a menace to every nation in Europe. Where was such a menace to come from? His impression was that it would be from Russia. Russia always had been alien to the spiritual atmosphere of Europe, even when it was governed by the dynasty which ended recently. Russia was still more Oriental than Occidental, and under the Czars it meddled constantly with India, China, and Japan. It was not surprising that the Bolsheviks had fallen heir to similar ambitions, and their propaganda had gone to China, Japan, and India. It looked as if Bolshevik Russia was about to try a fall witn Japan. , , _. Exploitation of China,

Both Russia and Japan were busy building strategio railways, the objective being Peking. They were after the greatest prize in the world—China--whieh possessed the greatest unexploited beds of minerals in any part or the world. China had the most marvellous people on the face of the earth for virility, efficiency, and industry, and China was a chaotic nation unless managed from the outside. Japan meant to have the management ana exploitation of China, and he predicted that Japan would be victorious over Russia as she had been at the firet RussianJapanese war. Whichever won, the result would be momentous to Europe, and Australia, New Zealand, and the United States would hove to look out for themselves. The result would mean, if Europe waß disunited, that the nations of Europe would be subdued, one after the other, and sink back into their primitive savagery.

United States of Europe. The catastrophe could be avoided only by the establishment of the United States of Europe; there was no other means of opposing the force from the Orient. There was a feeble chance that when the European nations realised that they were in bondage to the United States of America, they would unite. The United States of America were powerful economically because there were no tarifF barriers, and consequently she had the largest market in the world. If tariff barriers wero lowered in Europe there would be a market three times as big as that of the United States. As to the framework of the United States of Europe, Professor Macmillan Brown said that it should imitate the flexible, elastic organisation of the British Commonswealth of nations, rather than that of the United States. By acclamation Professor Macmillan Brown was accorded a vote of thanks, on the motion of Mr W. M. Hamilton, seconded by Mr S. C. Bingham.