Evening Post MONDAY, MAY 28, 1928. AN UNDIVIDED EMPIRE?

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 124, 28 May 1928, Page 8

Evening Post MONDAY, MAY 28, 1928. AN UNDIVIDED EMPIRE?

«, The contrast between the procedure by which the proposal of the United States Government for the holding of an International Conference to consider the limitation .of armaments was brought before the Dominions in 1921 and the procedure by which the draft Peace Pact of the same Government has now been brought before'them provides a striking illustration of the advance that the British Empire has made during the interval towards disintegration. In 1921 the American proposal was submitted to the British Government as the representative ' of- the Empire, and the whole Empire was represented at the Washington Conference by a single delegation which acted with perfect unity and harmony throughout. The only note of discord was sounded during the preliminary negotiations. Roth Canada and South Africa considered that the separate representation which had been given to the Dominions at Versailles and Geneva should be extended to Washington. So strong was South African feeling on the subject that General Smuts actually telegraphed to Mr. Massey the suggestion that the Dominions should have nothing to do with the Conference on the ground that they had not received separate invitations. The evidence of an eleventh-hour compromise on the point is revealed by the signatures of the treaties and other documents executed at Washington. While each of the other Dominions signs by its special representative as a member of the Empire delegation, Mr. Balfour, as he then was, signs twice—first as the head of the British delegation and afterwards as the representative of South Africa. From the standpoint of a Dominion like New Zealand, to which its membership of the Empire is just as precious as its local autonomy, the procedure of the Washington Conference was just what it should have been. Neither Britain nor any of the Dominions had Separate representation. They worked as a single team, and the result to which they all contributed was a number of documents which purported to bind not Britain or the Dominions but the British Empire. The significance of the procedure and its contrast with the theory that the Dominions had acquired from their membership of the League of Nations a new international status incompatible with the unity of the Empire were stated with his usual lucidity by Sir John Salmond in his Report on the Conference:— It is to be noticed that the invitation of the American Government to attend a Conference at "Washington on the limitation of armaments and on Pacific questions was an invitation to the Government of Great Britain and to the other seven Powers—namely, France, Italy, Japan, China, Belgium,- Holland, and Portugal. There was no invitation to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or any other Dominion of the Crown. The Government of every State so invited to Washington was left at liberty to send such and so many plenipotentiary delegates as it thought fit. The, British Government thought fit to send seven, and to appoint four of these on the recommendation-of the Governments of the overseas Dominions.. These seven constituted jointly; the British delegation representing the British Empire, just as four plenipotentiaries represented France, and three represented Italy The procedure of the Washington Conference was in itself a clear indication that the Dominions were there not in their own right as quasi-independent States, but merely as constituent portions of an undivided Empire. That Mr. C. E. Hughes, who was President Harding's Secretary of State in 1921, did'the right thing when in issuing the invitations for the Washington Conference he decided to deal with the British Government alone, is beyond, dispute. He had indeed no right to assume that the separate representation conceded by the courtesy of Powers to the Dominions at the Peace Conference and on the League of Nations had effected the dissolution of the British Empire. Less obviously Mr. Kellogg was right in refusing to assume that what a foreign tribunal had failed to effect had been effected by the Imperial Conference in that remarkable-docu-ment which was loudly acclaimed as having united the Empire more firmly than ever. Forir>"lly, the Imperial partnership had not been dissolved by the adoption of the Report of the Inter-Imperial' Relations Committee, though it had established a ridiculous go-as-you-please in diplomacy of which, in the absence of a more resolute and constructive statesmanship than was displayed at the Imperial Conference of 1926, that appears to be the inevitable outcome. But even if in that hopelessly unbusinesslike decision our Imperial statesmanship may seem to have proclaimed itself bankrupt, the firm is not yet in liquidation, and Mr. Kellogg took the only correct course in addressing his Note to the head of the firm as though nothing had happened. But he was speedily reminded of what practical- ' ly, though not diplomatically, he knew already, viz., that something had really happened. Our first word from Ottawa was that "any move towards promoting peace would be favourably considered by the Canadian Government." A few

flays later we were informed that Canada was expected lo accept the proposed Kellogg treaty, but that she had wot yet heen invited to do so. As the matter had already been under discussion between the British Government and the Dominions for weeks, this report was likely to surprise anybody who had overlooked Canada's extraordinary sensitiveness on these points, especially under Mr. Mackenzie King. In Washington at any rate there was no misunderstanding. In answer to a question whether the Dominions would make separate treaties, Mr. Kellogg had previously stated that it was a matter for the Dominions to decide in consultation with Great Britain. We Were informed by the same Washington message of the 16th May that in a general way the opinion is expressed here that it would not be inconsistent with tho Canadian policy of recent years if Ottawa elected to deal directly with Washington when it conies to declaration of policy on the arbitration of disputes and outlawing war. That is the correct diagnosis of Canada's trouble. As in 1921, but more emphatically,' the Canadian Government was not disposed to regard an invitation that had come via Downing Street as any invitation at all. Washington we know, and Geneva we know, but what have London.and the Empire to do with it? It' seems at least possible that this may be the attitude of the Canadian Governnient, and that its objections have a deeper basis than a mere matter of etiquette or manners. The Ottawa message of the 17th May to which we have' already referred concluded with these questions:— When the invitation is received the point will arise how then can Canada give adhesion? '.Will she sign as a British Dominion or sign later -as one of the smaller Powers? Though this message did ' not purport to have official authority there was a semi-official air about it, and if we may accept it as authentically representing the doubts of the Canadian Government, it is very unpleasant evidence of the progress that the logic of disintegration has made since its official recognition by the last Imperial Conference. The "Specimen Form of Treaty" approved by that Conference cut the Empire up into seven divisions, none of which would be liound except by the signature of its own plenipotentiaries. On Empire Day Mr. Mackenzie King telephoned to the- celebration in Hyde Park that Canada was proud.to bo associated with tho British Isles and other nations of the Commonwealth in proclaiming allegiance to the Sovereign. Will the man who sent this message be ashamed to see Canadfi associated with these nations in executing an Imperial anti-war treaty drawn up on this model? And will he prefer to see her signing on her own account by virtue of whatever status or dignity she may have acquired at Geneva? It will be wise to await further evidence before believing such a thing.