Imperial Conference

COMMONWEALTH (British Commonwealth of Nations)

The four hundred and fifty million subjects of the King Emperor, George V, were expected to harken last week as the note of Empire boomed fortissimo at London.

"We of the British Empire . . . have a far greater territory and far more diversified resources than the United States. . . . We have before us a greater opportunity for economic development than has ever before existed. . . ."

With such words a wiry little man, flushed and fervent, reminded five Dominion premiers* and six Indian potentates,/- of the might and glory that are Britannia's. The scene was "No. 10 Downing Street," famed residence of easy, genial, astute Premier Stanley Baldwin of Great Britain. But the fiery speaker, "The Pocket Hercules" who thundered Empire, was the Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Amery, Secretary of State for the Colonies. He it was who succeeded in vitalizing with emotional cohesion the third post-War Imperial Conference last week.

Ominous Prelude. The conference had opened on a gloomy morning after a ceremony majestic but depressing. Edward of Wales, in short, had solemnly unveiled a monument at Westminster Abbey. "In memory of the one million dead of the British Empire who fell in the Great War." Moreover President (Premier)** William Thomas Cosgrave of the Irish Free State had added gloom to the unveiling by refusing to attend. His absence, he explained, was out of respect to the "pain" still felt by Free Staters at the use of British troops to put down the Dublin uprising of 1916.

Welcome. Premier Baldwin opened the Imperial Conference with an allusion to its origin in the assembly of Dominion Premiers at London in 1887 to attend the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria. "The present Imperial Conference," he continued, "must seek to discover how the Dominions may be yet more closely knit to the mother country."

Secessionist Hertzog. This diplomatic opening at once roused the ire of General Hertzog, fiery, secessionist Premier of the Union of South Africa. Said he: "I wish to say a few words as to South Africa's attitude in regard to the Empire or British Commonwealth of Nations./= It has our hearty support and will ever have our hearty support, irrespective of parties and races, as long as it is and shows the character of a commonwealth of free and independent nations, each free and striving to attain what is best for itself, yet in such a manner and in such a spirit as will conduce as much as possible to the well-being of all.

"If I may state in a few words the principle which should guide us in matters of general imperial interest, I would say: In principle, unrestrained freedom of action to each individual member of the Com- monwealth; in practice, consultation with a view to co-operative action wherever possible."

Imperialist Bruce. Such lack of enthusiasm for the Empire, such emphasis upon the Commonwealth, naturally displeased Premier Bruce. His Australia, with but 5,000,000 population, looks with affright at teeming Japan and for protection to a well-knit Empire. Therefore Premier Bruce declared with emphasis to the press:

"If any man [i. e., Hertzog] is going to suggest that we should now take some action which might lead to the disintegration of the Empire, then for Australia I say we are going to have nothing to do with it."

Canadian Laissez-Faire. Premier King of Canada, by some suspected of being a secessionist at heart, caused many a Briton to breathe easier by declaring to newsgatherers: "I have come with no revolutionary ideas--they are all evolutionary." Mr. King, that is, seemed to take the middle course which characterized the Conference as a whole, encouraged that laissez-faire which is the chief principle to be observed in the illogical but practical development of the British constitution and indeed the Empire itself.

Developments. Besides the Hertzog-Bruce tiff, and the lengthy panegyrics of Colonel Amery who painted glowingly the Empire's progress since the last Imperial Conference in 1923 the proceedings last week embraced: 1) Foreign Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain's report of his stewardship of the Empire's foreign relations, which was delivered behind closed doors.

2) General expression by the Dominion Premiers of their desire to hold in perpetuity the various mandates which they now hold ad interim for the League of Nations.***

3) The delivery of a total of 30,000 words by practically all present on the subject of Empire trade, most of the speeches being for home consumption and suggesting trade assistance for the Dominion in question by the Empire as a whole. Pertinent to this discussion was an announcement from the Colonial Office concerning British restrictions on the production of rubber.

*William Lyon Mackenzie King (Canada) ; Stanley Melbourne Bruce (Australia) ; Joseph Gordon Coates (New Zealand) ; Gen. James Barry Munnik Hertzog (Union of South Africa) ; Walter S. Monroe (Newfoundland).

/-Headed by that picturesque six-foot potentate the Hon. Sir Bijay Chand Mah-tab, Maharajadhiraja Bahadur of Burdwan. He it was who won the Indian Order of Merit in 1908 by picking up bodily Sir Andrew Fraser, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and carrying him out of the way of some would-be assassins at Calcutta.

**Mr. Cosgrave is technically President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, which has "dominion status" and is under a governor general. He is thus the "premier" of a "dominion" in all but name. He is referred to as "President Cosgrave" to soothe the amour propre of Free Staters.

/= Lest he give offense to such as General Hertzog the King-Emperor himself employed the term "Commonwealth" instead of "Empire" in an official communication to the Imperial Conference last week.

***Example: Premier Bruce declared: "It is vital to Australia that the territory of New Guinea should be held by Australia in some way, and in no cir- cumstances should it ever again get into the hands of any foreign power, with the possibility of fortifications being erected there and its being utilized as a base from which operations could be carried on against Australia. The League of Nations Mandates Commission recently sent us a questionnaire embracing 118 questions which, in our view, is rather exceeding the necessary functions of the Commission.

"Each year, prior to the meeting of the Mandates Commission in Geneva, the same sort of charges are made of the maltreatment of natives. We have sent commissions of inquiry out and there has not been the slightest foundation for these charges."