Evenig Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1927. ENLIGHTENMENT NEEDED

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 8, 11 January 1927, Page 6

Evenig Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1927. ENLIGHTENMENT NEEDED

Sir Francis Bell's fellow-coun-trymen are glad to welcome him back from a well-earned holiday during which he has found time to enhance their gratitude by two notable additions to his long record of public service." At two of the most momentous gatherings of last year the .Dominion would in ordinary course have been represented by untried men! At the 'General Assembly of the League of Nations in September the place of Sir James Allen, who as High Commissioner had represented." us .at every previous session, was to be taken by. Sir James Parr, who had only succeeded him a few; weeks previously. %yAt the Imperial Conference in the following month our veteran Prime Minister, who had become the Father of.the Conference, was to be replaced by Mr: Coates, whdse equally staunch Imperialism was handicapped by his lack of experience in external affairs. In both cases the Dominion was glad to have its official representation reinforced by the inclusion of Sir Francis Bell, who in his familiarity with the problems of foreign and. Imperial problems stands 'second to Sir James Allen alone among our public men and on all their, constitutional aspects is without a rival. The confidence of- the country has been fully justified by the result. At' Geneva, on the important question raised by the reservations attached by 'the United States Government to its participation in the World Court Sir Francis Belt\spoke with an aii'thority which on such an issue has probably not'been attained by the representative of any Dominion except when Sir John Salmond represented us at Washington. On this issue, on the representation of the Dominions in the Council, of 'the League, and'on the other aspects of his stewardship at Geneva, it is to be v hoped that Sir Francis Bell will soon,be giving the country the benefit of his opinion. The enthusiasm "which he brought with him from the Third Assembly of the League contributed materially to the stimulation of public interest in the muchneglected subject, and, it is badly, in need of'anolher dose. „ /■As to the work of the Imperial Conference, the public stands almost equally in need of enlightenment, and Sir Francis Bell is equally well fitted to supply it. But, from motives which everybody must respfect, the statement which we published yesterday did not carry the matter very far. It was expository and not critical, and the exposition was so guarded that no argument was implied in the marshalling of the facts. The reason given is as creditable to' Sir Francis Bell's loyalty-as the result is disappointing.- He, considers that to criticise the conclusions reached or not reached by the Conference would be to trench on the province of policy, and that in, a matter of that kind it is not for him to anticipate the ■ Prime Minister.

I do not think it right, he says, for. anyone but a Prime Minister to speak.more definitely than I have done of ' the subject matters considered by tho Conference or to comment Upon the results or their probable effect.

Regarding the question of status, Sir Francis Bell gives as an additional reason for refraining from criticism that the matter was referred' to a committee on which the Dominions were represented by their Prime Ministers only, and therefore he has "no direct knowledge" of the considerations which influenced the Committee. It may, however, be conjectured that his indirect knowledge covers everything essential, and that •he is just as well qualified to deal 'with the Committee's report as Lord JBalfour himself. „ But to the contention that Sir Francis Bell's decision •derives no support from the second of the reasons, adduced, he may safely reply that it does not need N any.' His ' reluctance to make what -might be regarded as a policy speech is conclusive, and will be generally accepted, 'as correct. ' When Mr. Coates .has cleared the way the public will look to Sir Francis Bell for guidance on certain aspects of the proceedings of the - Conference with which' nobody, else is/ equally well qualified to' deal. Concerning the Committee's pronouncement which was adopted without amendment by the Conference, or, what Sir Francis Bell calls "the most important and serious matter relating to the status and separate rights of the Domin: ions," all that he cares to say at present is this:—

That statement was a distinct advance in'thc definition, and, to a certain oxtcnt,' the 'limitation of theories which had been advanced by the Government's of the various Dominions in recent years.

At the first glance we were disposed to say that, brief as this statement is, it contains one word too much. To speak of theories advanced by ihe Governments of £pthe various Dominions" is to imply that all the Dominions have been engaging in these speculations. If New Zealand has not been so engaged, "various Domin-

ions," without the generalising "the" would have allowed for the exception. , But, though New Zealand has strongly dissented from--the theories based by other Dominions on their status in the League'of Nations, it may be that the dissent has involved theorising, although in the opposite direction, and therefore comes within the general term used by Sir Francis. It will be interesting indeed when he is free to speak, to hear him explain to what extent New Zealand's dissent' has been compromised and her theory limited by the unanimity of. the Imperial Relations Committee and the Conference on this point. The unanimity of the agreements' arrived at regarding the status of the Governors-General and the treaty rights of the Dominions was stressed still more strongly by Sir Francis Bell. On the second of these problems the agreement was that "every treaty should be made in the name of His Majesty upon the advice of His Majesty's Ministers of Great Britain or of the Dominion entering into the treaty," and this he declares to be "the main point." We should have thought the main point to be that an Empire which runs its foreign policy on these go-as-you-please lines must soon land itself in an unholy mess, but that is obviously an aspect of the case with which Sir Francis Bell cannot deal .till, Mr. Coates has put him on side.