Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 1924. IMPERIAL CONFERENCE DEFECT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 140, 14 June 1924, Page 6

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 1924. IMPERIAL CONFERENCE DEFECT

Sir James Allen is credited by the " Morning Post " with a " remarkable plain-spoken speech," but there is nothing in the cabled report of his speech at Wembley to justify this comment. In referring to the position of the preference resolutions as having "caused general disappointment in the Dominions and the colonies," and to "the grave unrest in Australia and New. Zealand owing to the abandonment of the Singapore scheme," Sir James said nothing that could be reasonably described as remarkable for plainness of speech or anything else. With characteristic discretion, he refrained from the pessimistic and polemical conclusions which have been freely and unwarrantably drawn by Sir Thomas Mackenzie and others. It is also characteristic of the " Morning Post" that it should find in the speech a convenient stick for beating the Labour Government with, but on an Imperial issue even the " Morning Tost" should refrain from such wild talk as that "between them Mr. Snowden and Mr. Mac Donald have sickened the Dominions of conferring together." So far as the tariff is concerned, it is sheer nonsense to assert that the offer of preferential duties made by the Baldwin Government without any reciprocal concession from the Dominions should be treated as binding after that Government had been wiped out by a crushing majority for Free Trade. Singapore is a much more serious matter, but if the action of the Government could not be condemned, it was merely because the Conference had approved the scheme without taking any responsibility and without even any substantial offer from the Dominion- Governments directly concerned.

Sir James Allen's reference to what he regards as a defect in the constitution of the Imperial Conference touches an aspect of the problem which offers much more hope than the limitation of the powers of the British democracy which would be required to meet the desires of the "Morning Post." Unfortunately, however, he piques our curiosity on this point without satisfying it. The text of the reference as cabled is as follows:—

Sir James urged the desirability of removing the defect in the constitution of the Imperial Conference by securing that the Prime Minister and other delegates should represent Parliament and the whole people. There seemed no reason why, after a discussion in Parliament, or between the leaders of the parties, the representatives at the Imperial Conference should not be .placed in a position. equally as strong as that of the representatives in the War Cabinet.

Sir James Allen is usually so clear in thought and expression that the uncertainty in which his conclusion is wrapped seems, to be more probably attributable .to an error in summarising or in transmitting than in the speech itself. It looks as though he were giving a general suppor* to the Colonial Secretary's suggestion, that Oppositions should be represented as well as Governments. The "other delegates." who would accompany the Prime Minister after a discussion between the leaders of the parties would presumably be the other leaders or representatives of their respective parties appointed by them.

What Sir James Allen says of the strong position of the Dominions' representatives on the^ Imperial War Cabinet has a special application to New Zealand. Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward as the. two leaders of the National Government made a sta'OKg combination,

but could they have co-operated as effectually if the war had not made them colleagues in the same Government? And would any good purpose have been served if Mr. Holland as well as Mr. Wilford had accompanied Mr. Massey to the Conference last year 1 Another interesting point is suggested -by the reference to the War Cabinet, though it does not seem to have been in Sir James Allen's mind; and that is the strong position of the Cabinet itself. The Imperial War Conference was transformed into an Imperial War Cabinet, and exercised genuine executive powors of a very momentous character. Why has there been such a grievous backsliding since the war 1 Why is there no Imperial 'Cabinet now corresponding with the Imperial War Cabinet, and actually doing things and getting things done instead of merely talking about them? One answer that has been given is that the Dominions were pulling their full weight in the Imperial boat during the war, but that they are not doing so now. They have indeed become little more than passengers. They have plenty of time for talking and enjoying themselves and criticising those who are doing all the work and taking all the responsibility and paying all the expenses. When the Dominions realise that peace lias Imperial responsibilities for them no less than war, the Imperial Conference may be transformed once more into a genuine instrument of government.

Sir James Allen's mention of the Imperial War Cabinet recalls yet another-interesting point. One of the resolutions passed by that body was that one of the tasks of peace should be to review the constitution of the Conference with a view to promoting the effective unity of the Empire. But the Conference of 1921 decided that no constitutional inquiry was necessary, and the matter was postponed sine die. The question is one of such immense difficulty that it is easy to understand the anxiety of the delegates "to leave it alone, but the sterility with which the Conference is threatened in its present form, and the recent proof that the inconclusive character of its proceedings for which the Dominions have hitherto stickled is a two-edged sword, may enforce a reconsideration. The inquiry suggested by Mr. Mac Donald in his statement on the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty which was reported a week ago related solely to treaties, but an inquiry once started could hardly stop there. The question of treaties involves the whole problem Qf responsibility for foreign policy,, and from this problem the responsibility for defence cannot be separated. Mr. Mac Donald's polite suggestion that the vague slop-work of the Conference resolution on the treaty question should be made " a little more definite, so as to remove possible misunderstandings" may lead us far.