Published monthly by the American Association for International Conciliation. Entered as second-class matter at Greenwich, Conn., Post office, July 3, 1920, under Act of August 24, 1912. PRESENT PROBLEMS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF BRITISH NATIONS CONFERENCE OF PRIME MINISTERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ”” THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE DOMINIONS AND INDIA, HELD IN JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST, I92I OCTOBER, 1921 No. 167 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION EDITORIAL office: 407 WEST II7TH STREET, NEW YORK CITY PUBLICATION office: GREENWICH, CONN. It is the aim of the Association for International Con- ciliation to awaken interest and to seek cooperation in the movement to promote international good will. This movement depends for its ultimate success upon in- creased international understanding, appreciation, and sympathy. To this end, documents are printed and widely circulated, giving information as to the progress of the movement and as to matters connected therewith, in order that individual citizens, the newspaper press, and organizations of various kinds may have accurate information on these subjects readily available. The Association endeavors to avoid, as far as pos- sible, contentious questions, and in particular questions relating to the domestic policy of any given nation. Attention is to be fixed rather upon those underlying principles of international law, international conduct, and international organization, which must be agreed upon and enforced by all nations if peaceful civiliza- tion is to continue and to be advanced. A list of pub- lications will be found on page 86. Subscription rate: Twenty- five cents for one year, or one dollar for five years. CONTENTS Summary of the Transactions 5 Opening Speech by Mr. Lloyd George 25 Opening Speech by Mr. Meighen 36 Opening Speech by Mr. Hughes 38 Opening Speech by General Smuts 51 Opening Speech by Mr. Massey 58 Opening Speech by THE Honorable Srinivasa Sastri . . 71 Statement by Mr. Churchill on the Colonies, etc. . . 75 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/presentproblemsoOOimpe 339 CONFERENCE OF PRIME MINISTERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE DOMINIONS, AND INDIA, HELD IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, 1921 SUMMARY OF THE TRANSACTIONS 1. Preliminary Note The proceedings of the Conference of Prime Ministers and Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and India, opened at 10, Downing Street, on 20th June, 1921, and were continued until 5th August. During that period thirty- four plenary meetings took place, which were normally at- tended by the followng; Great Britain The Right Hon. D. Lloyd George, Prime Minister. The Right Hon. A. Chamberlain, Lord Privy Seal. The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, Lord President of the Coun- cil. The Most Hon. The Marquess Curzon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Right Hon. W. S. Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies. Canada The Right Hon. A. Meighen, Prime Minister. The Hon. C. C. Ballantyne, Minister of Naval Service. Australia The Right Hon. W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister. New Zealand The Right Hon. W. F. Massey, Prime Minister. I5] 340 South Afnca General The Right Hon. J. C. Smuts, Prime Minister. The Hon. Sir Thomas Smartt, Minister of Agriculture. Colonel The Hon. H. Mentz, Minister of Defence. India The Right Hon. E. S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India. His Highness The Maharao of Cutch. The Hon. Srinivasa-Sastri. Secretariat Great Britain Sir M. P. A. Hankey. Sir Henry Lambert. Sir Edward Grigg. Colonel S. H. Wilson. Canada Mr. C. H. A. Armstrong. Australia Mr. P. E. Deane. New Zealand Mr. F. D. Thomson. South Africa Mr. G. Brebner. India Mr. G. S. Bajpai. In addition, the following attended meetings for the dis- cussion of subjects which particularly concerned their re- spective Departments : The Right Hon. Viscount Birkenhead, Lord Chancellor. [ 6 ] 341 The Right Hon. Sir L. Worthington-Evans, Bart., Secre- tary of State for War. The Right Hon. H. A. L. Fisher, President of the Board of Education. The Right Hon. F. G. Kellawa}', Postmaster-General. Sir Eyre A. Crowe, Permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Field-Marshal Sir H. H. Wilson, Bart., Chief of the Im- perial General Staff. Sir C. J. B. Hurst, Legal Adviser, Foreign Office. Sir B. P. Blackett, Controller of Finance, Treasury. Sir G. L. Barstow, Controller of Supply Services, Treasury. Major-General Sir F. H. Sykes, Controller-General of Civil Aviation. Captain E. F. C. Lane, Private Secretary to General Smuts. The Right Hon. Sir Robert Horne, Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Right Hon. Lord Lee of Fareham, First Lord of the Admiralty. Captain The Right Hon. F. E. Guest, Secretary of State for Air. .^.dmiral of the Fleet Earl Beatty, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. Air-Marshal Sir H. M. Trenchard, Bart., Chief of the Air Staff. Sir Phillip Lloyd-Greame, Director of Overseas Trade Department. Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, Chief Economic Adviser to His Majesty’s Government. Rear-Admiral Sir E. P. F. G. Grant, First Naval Member of Naval Board and Chief of Australian Naval Staff. Captain B. E. Domvile, Director of Plans Division, Admi- ralty. Mr. C. Hipwood, Mercantile Marine Department, Board of Trade. Mr. L. C. Christie, Legal Adviser to Department of Exter- nal Affairs, Canadian Government. [7] 342 Apart from the plenary meetings, the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions met on eleven occa- sions, and eight meetings of Committees were held at the Colonial Office. The greater part of the proceedings, particularly that relat- ing to Foreign Affairs and Defence, was of a highly confiden- tial character, comparable rather to the work of the Imperial War Cabinets of 1917 and 1918 than of the Imperial War Conferences of those years. Other parts, though not so secret in their nature, were intermingled with matter which must for the present be kept confidential. In regard to such dis- cussions only an indication has been given here of their gen- eral tenor. II. Opening Statements Mr. Lloyd George, as Chairman, opened the proceedings with a comprehensive review of the situation in which the Conference had assembled. He outlined its tasks, stated broadly the principles of policy which commended themselves to the British Government, and dwelt upon the significance of the Conference and the importance of its work. He was followed in turn by all the other Prime Ministers, by Mr. Sas- tri for India, and by Mr. Churchill for the Colonies and Protectorates. This preliminary discussion occupied two days. The speeches were published in full immediately after- wards, and are attached to this summary. HI. Foreign Policy The Conference then addressed itself to a detailed con- sideration of the Foreign Policy of the British Empire. The discussion on this was opened by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who made an exhaustive statement upon the course of foreign affairs since the Peace Conference. His statement was supplemented by Mr. Churchill, who dealt with the special problems of the Middle East. There followed a series of important discussions, which were largely conversational in form, each representative in- [ 8 ] 343 tervening in turn as occasion prompted, without formality of any kind. The objects in view were threefold: first, that the members of the Conference should all put their ideas into the common stock and thus gain a thorough understanding of each other’s point of view; second, that the principal questions of foreign policy should be examined by this means from every point of view; and third, that there should be a free and full discussion of the general aims and methods to be pursued. The discussions, which covered the whole area of foreign policy, and extended over many days, proved most fruitful in all these respects. They revealed a unanimous opinion as to the main lines to be followed by British policy, and a deep conviction that the whole weight of the Empire should be concentrated behind a united understanding and common action in foreign affairs. In this context, very careful consideration was given to the means of circulating informa- tion to the Dominion Governments and keeping them in con- tinuous touch with the conduct of foreign relations by the British Government. It was unanimously felt that the policy of the British Empire could not be adequately representative of democratic opinion throughout its peoples unless repre- sentatives of the Dominions and of India were frequently associated with those of the United Kingdom in considering and determining the course to be pursued. All members of the Conference expressed a vivid sense of the value of this year’s meeting in that respect, and a desire that similar meet- ings should be held as frequently as possible. A precedent created by the Imperial War Cabinet was also revived with valuable results. From 1916 till the Armistice, the Prime Ministers of the Dominions and the Representa- tives of India frequently sat with members of the British Cabinet to determine the measures necessary for the prose- cution of the War. This method of procedure was also adopted by the British Empire Delegation during the Peace Conference in Paris, when all cardinal decisions were taken by the delegation as a whole. In accordance with this precedent, the Prime Ministers of the Dominions and the Representa- [9] 344 tives of India present in London this year were invited to meetings with members of the British Cabinet called to deal with Imperial and foreign questions of immediate urgency which arose in the course of the sittings. One of the most important of these was the Upper Silesian question, which during the session of the Conference assumed an acute form, and was debated at each stage by the members of the Conference, whose interest in a matter so closely af- fecting the relations of Great Britain and France was incon- testable. The main lines of British policy in connection with the solution of this problem received the unanimous approval of the Conference, and it was with satisfaction that they heard, before the termination of their sitting, that, the preliminary difficulties having been resolved, the final settle- ment of the question of the Silesian frontier was remitted, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, to an immediate meeting of the Supreme Council at Paris. The problems of the Western Pacific and the Far East, together with the Anglo- Japanese Agreement, were also fully discussed; and President Harding’s invitation to a Confer- ence on Disarmament was warmly welcomed by all the mem- bers of the Conference. The following statement, made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, on nth July, represents the general view of all members of the Conference on the main issues of the Pacific, as also on the question of disarmament: “The broad lines of Imperial policy in the Pacific and the Far East were the very first subjects to which we addressed ourselves at the meetings of the Impeiial Cabinet, having a special regard to the Anglo- Japanese Agreement, the future of China, and the bearing of both those questions on the relations of the British Empire with the United States. We were guided in our deliberations by three main considerations. In Japan, we have an old and proved ally. The agreement of twenty years’ standing between us has been of very great benefit, not only to our- selves and her, but to the peace of the Far East. In China [ 10 ] 345 there Is a very numerous people, with great potentialities, who esteem our friendship highly, and whose interests we, on our side, desire to assist and advance. In the United States we see to-day, as we have always seen, the people closest to our own aims and ideals with whom it is for us, not merely a desire and an interest, but a deeply-rooted instinct to consult and co-operate. Those were the main considerations in our meetings, and upon them we were unanimous. The object of our discussions was to find a method combining all these three factors in a policy which would remove the danger of heavy naval expenditure in the Pacific, with all the evils which such an expenditure entails, and would ensure the development of all legiti- mate national interests of the Far East. “We had, in the first place, to ascertain our exact posi- tion with regard to the Anglo- Japanese Agreement. There had been much doubt as to whether the notification to the League of Nations made last July constituted a denuncia- tion of the Agreement in the sense of clause 6. If it did, it would have been necessary to decide upon some interim measure regarding the Agreement pending fuller discus- sions with the other Pacific Powers, and negotiations with this object in view were, in point of fact, already in prog- ress. If, on the other hand, it did not, the Agreement would remain in force until denounced, whether by Japan or by ourselves, and would not be actually determined until twelve months from the date when notice of denunciation was given. The Japanese Government took the view that no notice of denunciation had yet been given. This view was shared by the Secretary cf State for Foreign Affairs; but, as considerable doubt existed, we decided, after a preliminary discussion in the Imperial Cabinet, to refer the question to the Lord Chancellor, who considered it with the Law Officers of the Crown, and held that no notice of denunciation had yet been given. “It follows that the Anglo-Japanese Agreement remains in force unless it is denounced, and will lapse only at the in] 346 expiration of twelve months from the time when notice of denunciation is given. It is, however, the desire of both the British Empire and Japan that the Agreement should be brought into complete harmony with the Cove- nant of the League of Nations, and that wherever the Covenant and the Agreement are inconsistent, the terms of the Covenant shall prevail. Notice to this effect has now been given to the League. “The broader discussion of Far Eastern and Pacific policy to which we then turned showed general agreement on the main lines of the course which the Imperial Cabinet desired to pursue. I have already explained that the first principle of our policy was friendly co-operation with the United States. We are all convinced that upon this, more than any single factor, depends the peace and well- being of the world. We also desire, as I have stated, to maintain our close friendship and co-operation with Japan. The greatest merit of that valuable friendship is that it harmonizes the influence and activities of the two greatest Asiatic Powers, and thus constitutes an essential safe- guard to the well-being of the British Empire and peace of the East. We also aim at preserving the open door in China, and at giving the Chinese people every opportunity of peaceful progress and development. “In addition to these considerations, we desire to safe- guard our own vital interests in the Pacific, and to preclude any competition in naval armaments between the Pacific Powers. All the representatives of the Empire agreed that our standpoint on these questions should be communi- cated with complete frankness to the United States, Japan, and China, with the object of securing an exchange of views which might lead to more formal discussion and conference. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accordingly held conversations last week with the Ameri can and Japanese Ambassadors and the Chinese Minister, at which he communicated to them the views of the Im- perial Cabinet, and asked in turn for the views of their [12I 347 respective Governments. He expressed at these conversa- tions a very strong hope that this exchange of views might, if their Governments shared our desire in that respect, pave the w-ay for a conference on the problems of the Pacific and the Far East. “The views of the President of the United States were made public by the American Government this morning. It is known to the House. Mr. Harding has taken the momentous step of inviting the Powers to a Conference on the limitation of armaments, to be held in Washington in the near future, and he also suggests a preliminary meet- ing on Pacific and Far Eastern questions between the Powers most directly interested in the peace and w'elfare of that great region, which is assuming the first importance in international affairs. I need not say that we welcome with the utmost pleasure President Harding’s wise and courteous initiative. In saying this I know that I speak for the Empire as a whole. The world has been looking to the United States for such a lead. I am confident that the House will esteem it as an act of far-seeing statesmanship and will whole-heartedly wish it success. I need hardly say that no effort will be lacking to make it so on the part of the British Empire, which shares to the full the liberal and progressive spirit inspiring it.” In accordance with the suggestion which was believed to have been made by the American Government, that the Conference on Disarmament should be preceded by friendly conversations or consultations between the Powers who were principally concerned in the future of the Far East and the Pacific, the Imperial Conference, anxious that for the Anglo- Japanese Agreement should be substituted some larger ar- rangement between the three Great Powers concerned, namely, the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain, and holding the firm conviction that the later discus- sions on disarmament, to which they attached a transcendent importance, could best be made effective by a previous mutual 1 13] 348 understanding on Pacific questions between those Powers, devoted many hours of examination to the question how such an understanding could best be arrived at, where the proposed conversations could best be held, in what manner the repre- sentatives of the British Dominions, who were so vitally affected, could most easily participate in them, and upon what broad principles of policy it was desirable to proceed. It was difficult for the Dominion Prime Ministers, owing to the exigencies of time and space, to attend at Washington late in the autumn. On the other hand, 'advantage might be taken of their presence in England to exchange views with represen- tatives of the other Great Powers who had been invited to Washington later on. It was in these circumstances that the idea was mooted that the preliminary conversations or con- sultations, to which the American Government had in prin- ciple agreed, should be held in London. When it transpired a little later that there was some mis- understanding as to the nature of the preliminary conversa- tions which had been suggested, the British Government, in the earnest desire to remove any possible misconception, and to meet what they believed to be the American views at each stage of the impending discussions, volunteered to attend a meeting on the other side of the Atlantic, at which the agenda of the forthcoming Conference at Washington could be dis- cussed, and a friendly interchange of views take place in order to facilitate the work of the main Conference later on. The British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, together with the Dominion Prime Ministers, were prepared to attend such a meeting, if invited to do so by the American Govern- ment. The Japanese Government signified their willingness, if invited, to take part in the suggested conversations. The American Government, however, did not favour the idea, which was accordingly dropped. This conclusion was viewed with the utmost regret by the members of the Imperial Conference, who had devoted no small portion of time to the working out of an arrangement, [14] 349 which they understood would be equally acceptable to all parties, and the abandonment of which could not, they feared, be otherwise than prejudicial to the great objects which all had in view. At no stage had it been suggested that the results of such a consultation as was contemplated should either antic- ipate the work or tie the hands of the Washington Conference at a later date. On the contrary, holding, as they do, the firm belief that without a Pacific understanding the Conference on Disarmament will find it less easy to attain the supreme results that are hoped for by all, the Imperial Conference made the proposal before referred to anxious to remove every possible obstacle from the path of the Washington Meeting, which they desire to see attended with complete and triumphant success. IV. League of Nations A discussion took place in regard to the League of Nations during which Mr. Balfour explained at length the work which had been carried out by the League and the special difficulties with which it has to contend.* While a more equitable distribution between its members of the cost of the League was considered essential to its future, there was general appreciation of its work and of the League’s claim to the support of the British Empire as a step forward in the regulation of international affairs. V. Egypt Close consideration was given to the question of British policy in Egypt, and the future status of that countiqq and general agreement was reached regarding the principles by which His Majesty’s Government should be guided in the negotiations with the Egyptian Delegation. VI. Imperial Defence (a) Naval Several plenary meetings and several meetings of the Prime Ministers alone with the Secretary of State for India, ^Mr. Balfour’s statement was published in full in the official report of the Conference. [ 15] 350 were devoted to considering the Naval Defence of the Empire, and the following Resolution was adopted: “That, while recognizing the necessity of co-operation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such Naval Defence as may prove to be essential for security, and while holding that equality with the naval strength of any other Power is a minimum standard for that purpose, this Conference is of opinion that the method and expense of such co-operation are matters for the final determina- tion of the several Parliaments concerned, and that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming Conference on Disarmament.” In addition, a number of useful consultations took place between the Admiralty and the Representatives of the several Dominions and India, at which were discussed such matters as the local co-operation of each Dominion in regard to the provision of oil tanks, local naval defence, etc. (b) Military and Air Defence A discussion took place on the Military and Air Defence of the Empire, and the views of the General and Air Staffs on the principles which should be adhered to in order to ensure co-operation in these matters were laid before Ministers. VII. Imperial Commltnications The question of improved communication throughout the Empire, including Air, Telegraphy, Telephony, and Shipping, was considered, and a special Committee under the chairman- ship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies was appointed to go into the whole question. This Committee reported to the main Conference, and eventually the following conclusions were arrived at: (a) Air. “The Conference, having carefully considered the report of the expert Sub-Committee on Imperial Communica- tions, are of opinion that the proposals contained therein [i6] 351 should be submitted for the consideration of the Govern- ments and Parliaments of the different parts of the Em- pire. “On the understanding that the cost involved will be in the region of £i,8oo per month they recommend that, pending such consideration, the existing material, so far as useful for the development of Imperial Air Communica- tions, should be retained.” {b) Imperial Wireless Scheme. “It is agreed that His Majesty’s Government should take steps for the erection of the remaining stations for which they are responsible, as soon as the stations are designed ; that the Governments of Australia, the Union of South Africa, and India, should take similar action so far as necessary, and that the Governments of Canada and New Zealand should also co-operate.” The above scheme was accepted by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth subject to giving full freedom of action to Australia to decide the method in which Aus- tralia will co-operate. (c) Shipping. As regards the Report of the Imperial Shipping Com- mittee on Bills of Lading, it was decided to adopt the following Resolution: “The Conference approves the recommendations made in the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on the Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability by Clauses in Bills of Lading, and recommends the various Govern- ments represented at the Conference to introduce uni- form legislation on the lines laid down by the Com- mittee.” A Resolution was also adopted to the effect that, pend- ing the constitution of a permanent Committee on Ship- ping, the existing Imperial Shipping Committee should continue its inquiries. [ 17] 352 The representatives of His Majesty’s Government and the Governments of New Zealand and India were ready to agree to a wider resolution recommending the constitution , under Royal Charter of a permanent Committee to carry out the duties specified in the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee dated 3rd June, viz.; (i.) To perform such duty as may be entrusted to them under laws in regard to Inter-Imperial Shipping, appli- cable to the whole or to important parts of the Empire ; (ii.) To inquire into complaints in regard to ocean freights and conditions in Inter-Imperial trade or questions of a similar nature referred to them by any of the Govern- ments of the Empire; (iii.) To exercise conciliation between the interests con- cerned in Inter-Imperial Shipping; (iv.) To promote co-ordination in regard to harbours and other facilities necessary for Inter-Imperial Shipping. The representative of Canada, however, did not agree to this wider resolution, and the representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa reserved the matter for further consideration. The position as regards rebates was discussed, and strong representations were made by Dominion Ministers in regard to it, but no resolution was passed, it being understood that the matter is at present under considera- tion by the Imperial Shipping Committee. (d) Wireless Telephony. The present position regarding the development of Wireless Telephony was explained, and the following Resolution was adopted ; “That the Radio Research Board be asked to investi- gate the subject of Wireless Telephony and to report on its development, whether Governmental or private. “That the Postmaster-General shall supply to the Governments of the Dominions and India technical reports showing its position and possibilities.” I18] 353 (e) Cable and Wireless Rates for Press Messages. The Special Committee on Communications received a deputation representing the Empire Press Union and the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, and subsequently Mr. Robert Donald, Chairman of the Empire Press Union, made representations to them on the subject of wireless telegraphy. The following Resolution was agreed to and thereafter adopted by the main Conference: “The Committee agrees with the Resolution passed at the Second Imperial Press Conference, held at Ottawa in 1920, that any assistance given by the Governments of the Empire towards the reduction of rates for Press services by wireless and cable should appear specifically in the Estimates of Public Expenditure, and should be so directed as not to affect the quality of the news service supplied or the freedom of the newspapers so served. “The Committee is in full sympathy with the object of reducing rates, both by cable and wireless, for press messages, and recommends the most favourable exami- nation by the Governments concerned of any practicable proposals to this end.” VIII. Reparations The Conference agreed that the Reparation receipts under the Treaty of Versailles should be apportioned approximately as follows; . United Kingdom 86.85 Minor Colonies .80 Canada 4.35 Australia 4.35 New Zealand 1.75 South Africa .60 Newfoundland .10 India 1.20 [ 19] 100.00 354 IX. Position of British Indians in the Empire The question of the position of British Indians in the Em- pire was discussed first at a plenary meeting when the repre- sentatives of India fully explained the situation and the views held in India on the subject. The question was then remitted to a special Committee under the chairmanship of the Secre- tary of State for the Colonies. At a final meeting on the sub- ject the following Resolution was adopted: “The Conference, while reaffirming the Resolution of the Imperial War Conference of 1918, that each community of the British Commonwealth should enjoy complete con- trol of the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration from any of the other commu- nities, recognizes that there is an incongruity between the position of India as an equal member of the British Em- pire and the existence of disabilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled in some other parts of the Empire. The Conference accordingly is of the opinion that in the inter- ests of the solidarity of the British Commonwealth, it is desirable that the rights of such Indians to citizenship should be recognized. “The representatives of South Africa regret their ina- bility to accept this resolution in view of the exceptional circumstances of the greater part of the Union. “The representatives of India, while expressing their appreciation of the acceptance of the resolution recorded above, feel bound to place on record their profound con- cern at the position of Indians in South Africa, and their hope that by negotiation between the Governments of India and of South Africa, some way can be found, as soon as ma}' be, to reach a more satisfactory position.” X. Empire Settlement and Migration The question of Empire Settlement and Migration was considered by a special Committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the following Resolution was finally adopted by the Conference : [20] 355 “The Conference having satisfied itself that the proposals embodied in the Report of the Conference on State- Aided Empire Settlement are sound in principle, and that the several Dominions are prepared, subject to Parliamentary sanction and to the necessary financial arrangements being made, to co-operate effectively with the United Kingdom in the development of schemes based on these proposals, but adapted to the particular circumstances and conditions of each Dominion, approves the aforesaid Report. “The South African representatives wish to make it clear that the limited field for white labor in South Africa will preclude co-operation by the Union Govern- ment on the lines contemplated by the other Dominions. “(2) The Conference expresses the hope that the Gov- ernment of the United Kingdom will, at the earliest possible moment, secure the necessary powers to enable it to carry out its part in any schemes of co-operation which may subsequently be agreed on, preferably in the form of an Act which will make clear that the policy of co- operation now adopted is intended to be permanent. “(3) The Conference recommends to the Govern- ments of the several Dominions that they should consider how far their existing legislation on the subject of land settlement, soldier settlement and immigration, may require any modification or expansion in order to secure effective co-operation; and should work out, for dis- cussion with the Government of the United Kingdom, such proposals as may appear to them most practicable and best suited to their interests and circumstances.” XI. Empire Patent A memorandum prepared in the Board of Trade on the demand for an Empire Patent was considered by a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the following recommendation, which was concurred in by the main Conference, was agreed to: [21] 356 “The Committee recommends that a Conference of representatives of the Patent Offices of His Majesty’s Dominions shall be held in London at an early date to consider the practicability of instituting a system of granting Patents which should be valid throughout the British Empire.” XII. Nationality A memorandum prepared in the Home Office with refer- ence to the nationality of children of British parents born abroad was considered by a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the following resolution, which was finally approved by the main Conference, was adopted : “The Committee, having considered the memorandum prepared in the Home Office regarding the nationality of ihe children born abroad of British parents, commends the principle of the proposals contained therein to the favour- able consideration of the Governments of the Dominions and India.” XHI. CoNDOMINITTM IN THE NeW HEBRIDES The Condominium in the New Hebrides was discussed by a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. XIV. The Proposed Conference on Constitutional Relations Several plenary meetings and several meetings of the Prime Ministers were devoted to a consideration of the question of the proposed Conference on the Constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire, and the following resolu- tion was adopted: “The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions, having carefully considered the recommen- dation of the Imperial War Conference of 1917 that a special Imperial Conference should be summoned as soon [22 ] 357 as possible after the War to consider the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire, have reached the following conclusions: “(a) Continuous consultation, to which the Prime Ministers attach no less importance than the Imperial War Conference of 1917, can only be secured by a substantial improvement in the communications be- tween the component parts of the Empire. Having regard to the constitutional developments since 1917, no advantage is to be gained by holding a constitutional Conference. “(b) The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and the Representatives of India should aim at meeting annually, or at such longer intervals as may prove feasible. “(c) The existing practice of direct communication between the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions, as well as the right of the latter to nominate Cabinet Ministers to represent them in con- sultation with the Prime Minister of the United King- dom, are maintained.” XV. Address to His Majesty the King The Prime Minister was asked by the members of the Conference to present the following humble address to His Majesty the King: “We, the Prime Ministers and other Representatives of the British Empire, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, the British Dominions, the Indian Empire and the British Colonies and Protectorates, desire, on the eve of concluding our meeting, to present our humble duty to Your Majesty and to reaffirm our loyal devotion to Your Throne. We have been conscious throughout our deliberations of a unanimous conviction that the most essential of the links that bind our widely-spread peoples is the Crown, and it is our determination that no changes [23] 358 in our status as peoples or as Governments shall weaken our common allegiance to the Empire and its Sovereign. “Knowing Your Majesty’s deep interest in all that touches Your people’s happiness, we trust that our labours in this time of world -wide unrest may be satisfactory to you and conduce to the welfare and safety of Your domin- ions as well as to the peace of the world. “We pray that Your Majesty and the Queen may long be spared to enjoy the affection of Your subjects and to see all classes equally recovered from lh^ strain and sacri- fice of the War.” XVI. Resolution of Thanks to Prime Minister and His Colleagues The Prime Ministers of the Dominions and the Represen- tatives of India desire to put on record their deep apprecia- tion of the large amount of time and work devoted in a time of heavy strain by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in His Majesty’s Government to the Conference. They look with great satisfaction upon their m.eetings, which have, in their opinion, made clear the lines of common action in Imperial and foreign affairs and still more firmly established the free co-operation of the peoples of the Commonwealth. XVII. Appreciation of work of Secretariat The Prime Ministers of the Dominions and the Represen- tatives of India desire to put on record their great apprecia- tion of the work of Sir Maurice Hankey and other members of the British Secretariat. They consider that his efficiency and that of his staff have contributed in an invaluable degree to the success of the Conference, and they hope that his assist- ance may be available at future sessions for many years to come. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his colleagues also desire to express, on behalf of the British Secretariat, their warm acknowledgment of the cordial and most efficient co-operation of the Dominion and Indian Representatives on the Secretariat. [24] 359 APPENDIX I OPENING SPEECHES 20th June, 1921 OPENING SPEECH BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE Mr. Lloyd George: Gentlemen, I bid 3^ou all a hearty welcome to Great Britain and to Downing Street. It was only with great unwillingness that I asked you to postpone our first meeting until to-day, and I hope it has not caused any serious inconvenience to anyone. I am deeply grateful to you for meeting my own personal difficulty by postponing the Conference for a few days. Since we last met, there are some notable gaps in the British Empire Delegation. Our last meetings, I think, were held in Paris at the famous Peace Conference. My old friend. Sir Robert Borden, has laid down the cares of office, after long and sterling service throughout the War and throughout the making of peace, both to his own great Dominion and to the Empire. I relied a great deal upon his sane and ripe judg- ment. I am glad to hear his health is much restored and I am sure we can count on him still for many years of valuable service in any work which he decides to undertake. In his place we welcome his successor, Mr. Meighen, who is no stranger to our counsels, because he was with us at the meet- ings of the Imperial War Cabinet in the summer of 1918, though this is his first appearance as Prime Minister. By General Botha’s death the whole Empire has sustained a heavy loss. He was a king of men, one of the greatest and most striking figures of our time, and I feel certain that history will endorse our high contemporary esteem of his breadth of vision and nobility of character. South Africa and the Empire are fortunate in that his mantle has fallen on his dis- [25] 360 tinguished colleague, General Smuts, who has already played a great part in Imperial Councils during the War and in the making of the peace. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Massey are very old friends. I believe that we three enjoy the unenviable distinction of being the only Prime Ministers who took part in the War and who, so far, have survived the troublesome years of peace, and I am rejoiced to see both of them looking as 3mung and fit as ever. Let me also extend a most cordial greeting to His Highness the Maharao of Cutch and to Mr. Sastri, who have come here as representatives of the Indian Empire. We shall, I know, find them wise and cogent interpreters of the Indian point of view in the great questions which we have to discuss. May I also express our regret that the Premier of New- foundland has not found it possible to be present at our delib- erations. The Conference falls at a time of great stress in this country and of serious trouble in many parts of the world. It was in- evitable that the nations which had put forth such colossal efforts and sustained such unparalleled losses of life, limb and treasure during the War, should feel ail the consequences of overstrain and exhaustion. The systems which perplex the statesmen of all the belligerent countries at the present time are due to the condition in which the nations of the world have been left by the great War. The nerve exhaustion and heart strain which characterize such cases produce a feverish rest-, lessness and a disinclination to steady labour which aggravate the disease and retard recovery. Never did statesmanship in all lands demand more patience and wisdom. The years that followed the Napoleonic wars produced similar or even worse experiences. In this country the distress amongst the popula- tion was very much greater after the Napoleonic wars than it is at the present moment. As a matter of fact, in spite of great unemployment and a good deal of labour unrest, there is no actual privation amongst the population, and I attribute that very largely to the self-sacrifices made by the more well- to-do of all classes in order to share their better luck with their [26] 36i less fortunate fellow-countrymen. But still there is no doubt at all that the War has produced a state of things from which it will take years to recover. There are European countries where the poverty and the actual dist. ess is appalling and we are doing our best out of our spare means to assist. But in spite of a good deal that is discouraging, I am confident the world is slowly working through its troubles; there is an in- creasing disposition to face and accept the facts industrially and internationally. The natural disinclination of human nature to admit unpleasant facts has, at home, provoked in- dystrial troubles, and abroad, fierce outbursts of protest. But gradually the world is passing through its usual experience of first of all denying the existence of palpable realities and then settling down to act upon them. It is a distinctly en- couraging fact in the international situation that there is an increasing impatience with those who, from whatever motive, seek to keep the world in a state of turmoil and tension. There is a widening and deepening conviction that the world must have peace, if it is ever to recover health. Some of the most troublesome and menacing problems of the peace have either been settled or are in a fair way of settlement. You must have watched with close interest the developments of the last couple of years in Europe, the series of conferences and gather- ings and assemblies of all kinds where we were trying to carry out the terms of the Peace Treaty, and to settle the various difficulties that arose iii consequence. There were two questions that gave us great anxiety. One was the question of the disarmament of Germany and the other was the question of reparation. There were other im- portant questions, but these were the two questions around which most of the controversies centred. The disarmament of Germany, I think, may be stated to be a settled problem. The German fleet has disappeared, and so has the Austrian. The German army has disappeared as a great powerful force. It numbered millions; it now numbers little more than 100,000 men. It had tens of thousands of guns, great and small; it has now got a few hundreds. It had an enormous number of [27] 362 machine-guns and trench mortars; these have gone. Millions of rifles — they surrendered about 30 million rounds of big ammunition — all that has gone. It is true they have still got some rather irregular formations which we have not succeeded in completely getting rid of. It is not so much Prussia that is giving us trouble as Bavaria. That difficulty will, I think, be overcome in a very short time. So that the problem of dis- armament, which was a very vital one because so long as Germany had a big army and big armaments there was no guarantee of peace, will disappear. The other problem is the problem of reparation. No one knows better than Mr. Hughes the practical difficulties sur- rounding that problem. It is not a question so much of adju- dicating claims; it is a question of how you are to transfer payment from one country and make it in another. As Mr. Hughes knows, that problem baffled all our financial experts and the financial experts of all countries in Paris, and it is only after two years that we hit upon an expedient which seems on the whole to have given satisfaction to all moderate and practical men in European countries. So far as we have been able to gather, that is the view of the Dominions. We shall probably hear something about it, because they have a very direct concern in it. Germany has accepted a very practical plan of liquidating her liabilities. France has accepted; Italy has accepted; and the public opinion of this country has also accepted; so that the two most troublesome problems are either settled or in a very fair way of being adjusted. There are two remaining difficulties, one of which is the fixation of the boundaries of Poland, partly in Lithuania, and now in Silesia. I am not going to anticipate what will be said upon that subject; therefore I am only mentioning it. The second difficulty we have had has been the making of peace with the Turkish Empire. Those are the two great outstand- ing difficulties, but I am very hopeful in regard to both of them. Once those two are settled, then I think we may say that peace has been made; but until then we cannot say, in [28] 363 spite of the fact that we have signed Treaties of Peace, that peace has been made and established in the world. The first essential of peace — a stable peace — and reconstruc- tion is that we should stand by our Treaties. There are those who grow weary of these great responsibilities, and who speak as though it were possible to renounce them in this quarter or in that without injustice to other peoples or detriment to our- selves. I venture to say that such arguments are as short- sighted as they are false. The nations and peoples of the world have realized their interdependence in a measure far greater than ever before the War, and the League of Nations — whatever may be thought of the provisions of the Covenant- stands as witness to their realization of that truth. No progress can be made towards the rehabilitation of Europe, or the establishment of permanent peace in the world, except upon the basis of acceptance of Treaties and an enforcement of Treaties. There may be relaxations here and there, following the discovery of new conditions, with the consent of all par- ties. We have had some relaxations of that kind— and I think they are wise modifications of the Treaty — -in the matter of allowing more time for payment, and more time for disarma- ment; and in the prosecution of war criminals we made a concession to German national susceptibilities. There have been questions of that kind where, by the consent of all the Powers, there have been modifications. But the Treaties must stand where such consent is not forthcoming, and no signatory should have the right to override any part of a Treaty to which we are all parties. The British Empire from end to end is bound by honour and by interest alike to the Treaties which it has signed. We have appended our signa- tures — all of us — and we must honour those signatures. Unless Treaty faith is maintained, an era of disorganization, increas- ing misery and smouldering war will continue, and civilization may very easily be destroyed by a prolongation of that state of things. I propose to call on Lord Curzon, on his return, to give the Conference a comprehensive survey of foreign affairs, and I [29] 364 will not anticipate his detailed statement now. But I should like to refer very briefly to one of the most urgent and impor- tant of foreign questions — the relations of the Empire with the United States and Japan. There is no quarter of the world where we desire more greatly to maintain peace and fair play for all nations and to avoid a competition of arma- ments than in the Pacific and in the Far East. Our Alliance with Japan has been a valuable factor in that direction in the past. We have found Japan a faithful ally, who rendered us valuable assistance in an hour of serious and very critical need . The British Empire will not easily forget that Japanese men- of-war escorted the transports which brought the Australian and New Zealand forces to Europe at a time when German cruisers were still at large in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. We desire to preserve that well-tried friendship which has stood us both in good stead, and to apply it to the solution of all questions in the Far East, where Japan has special inter- ests, and where we ourselves, like the United States, desire equal opportunities and the open door. Not least amongst these questions is the future of China, which looks to us, as to the United States, for sympathetic treatment and fair play. No greater calamity could overtake the world than any further ac centuation of the world’s divisions upon the lines of race. The British Empire has done signal service to humanity in bridging those divisions in the past; the loyalty of the King Emperor’s Asiatic peoples is the proof. To depart from that policy, to fail in that duty, would not only greatly increase the dangers of international war; it would divide the British Em- pire against itself. Our foreign policy can never range itself in any sense upon the differences of race and civilization be- tw'een East and West. It would be fatal to the Empire. We look confidently to the Government and people of the United States for their sympathy and understanding in this re- spect. Friendly co-operation with the United States is for us a cardinal principle, dictated by what seems to us the proper nature of things, dictated by instinct quite as much as by reason and common sense. We desire to work with the great [30] 365 Republic in all parts of the world. Like it, we want stability and peace, on the basis of liberty and justice. Like it, we de- sire to avoid the growth of armaments, whether in the Pacific or elsewhere, and we rejoice that American opinion should be showing so much earnestness in that direction at the present time. We are ready to discuss with American statesmen any proposal for the limitation of armaments which they may wish to set out, and we can undertake that no such overtures will find a lack of willingness on our part to meet them. In the meantime, we cannot forget that the very life of the United Kingdom, as also of Australia and New Zealand, indeed, the whole Empire, has been built upon sea power — and that sea power is necessarily the basis of the whole Empire’s existence. We have, therefore, to look to the measures which our security requires; we aim at nothing more; we cannot possibly be content with less. I do not propose to deal in any detail with the agenda for this Conference to day. We have no cut-and-dried agenda to present. We will discuss that amongst ourselves. The British Government has been under some suspicion in some quarters of harbouring designs against this gathering as a Conference. We are said to be dissatisfied with the present state of the Empire, and to wish to alter its organization in some revolu- tionary way. Gentlemen, we are not at all dissatisfied. The British Empire is progressing very satisfactorily from a constitutional standpoint, as well as in other ways. The direct communication between Prime Ministers, established during the War, has, I think, worked well, and we have endeavoured to keep you thoroughly abreast of all important developments in foreign affairs by special messages sent out weekly, or even more frequently when circumstances required. Indeed, at every important Conference either here or on the Continent, one of the first duties I felt I ought to discharge was to send as full and as complete and as accurate an account as I possibly could, not merely of the decisions taken, but of the atmos- phere, which counts for so very much. I have invariably, to the best of my ability, sent accounts, some of them of the [31 ] 366 most confidential character, which would give to the Do- minions even the impressions which we formed, and which gave you information beyond what we could possibly com- municate to the press. Another change, which has taken place since the War, is the decision of the Canadian Government to have a Minister of its own at Washington — a very important development. We have co-operated willingly with that, and we shall welcome a Canadian colleague at Washington as soon as the appoint- ment is made. We shall be glad to have any suggestions that occur to you as to the methods by which the business of the Dominions in London, so far as it passes through our hands, may be transacted with greater dignity and efficiency, though you will all, I think, agree that the Empire owes much to Lord Milner and Lord Long for their services in the Colonial Office during a period of great difficulty and stress. We shall also welcome any suggestions which you may have to make for associating yourselves more closely with the con- duct of foreign relations. Any suggestions which you can make up)on that subject we shall be very delighted to hear and dis- cuss. There was a time when Downing Street controlled the Empire; to-day the Empire is in charge of Downing Street. On all matters of common concern we want to know your standpoint, and we want to tell you ours. I will give you my general conception of the mutual rela- tionship in which we meet. The British Dominions and the Indian Empire, one and all, played a great part in the war for freedom, and probably a greater part than any nation, except the very greatest Powers. When the history of that struggle comes to be written, your exertions side by side with ours will constitute a testimony to British institutions such as no other Empire in history can approach or emulate. In recognition of their services and achievements in the War the British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations by the whole world. They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and to all the other Treaties of Peace; they are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and their [32 ] 367 representatives have already attended meetings of the League; in other words, they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British Common- wealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even clearer to their own communities and to the world at large we shall be glad to have them put forward at this Conference. India’s achievements were also very great. Her soldiers lie with ours in all the theatres of war, and no Britisher can ever forget the gallantry and promptitude with which she sprang forward to the King Emperor’s service when war was declared. That is no small tribute both to India and to the Empire of which India is a part. The causes of the War were unknown to India; its theatre in Europe was remote. Yet India stood by her allegiance heart and soul, from the first call to arms, and some of her soldiers are still serving far from their homes and families in the common cause. India’s loyalty in that great crisis is eloquent to me of the Empire’s success in bridging the civilizations of East and West, in reconciling wide differences of history, of tradition and of race, and in bringing the spirit and the genius of a great Asiatic people into willing co-operation with our own. Important changes have been effected in India this year, and India is making rapid strides towards the control of her own affairs. She has also proved her right to a new status in our councils; that status she gained during the War, and she has maintained it during the peace, and I welcome the representatives of India to our great Council of the Empire to-day. We shall, I feel sure, gain much by the fact that her sentiments and her interests will be inter- preted to us here by her own representatives. I have given you my view of our relationship. May I just remind the Conference of what our unity has meant. The War demonstrated — I might say, revealed — to the world, including ourselves, that the British Empire was not an abstraction but a living force to be reckoned with. Who would have believed before the War that the Empire outside Great Britain would, [33] 368 in an hour of emergency, have raised two millions and more soldiers and sent them to the battlefield to serve the common cause, side by side with the United Kingdom? Even the ardent soul of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in his most glowing mo- ments, never predicted so impressive a rally to the Flag. The opportune revelation of the reality of the British Empire has, in my judgment, altered the history of the world. Those of us who know — and many if not most of us sitting at this table were here during the most critical hours of the War and sat at this same table — those of us who know how narrow the margin was betWfeen victory and defeat, can proclaim without hesitation that without these two million men, that came from outside the United Kingdom, Prussianism would probably have triumphed in the West and the East before American troops arrived on the stage, and Lord Curzon, who is at this moment discussing with M. Briand, the Prime Minister of France, the execution of a victorious Treaty, would have been discussing how best to carry out the humiliating conditions dictated by the triumphant war lords of Germany. The reign of unbridled force would have been supreme, and this generation would have had to spend its days in interpret- ing and enduring that calamitous fact in all spheres of human activity and influence. The unregulated unity of the British Empire saved France, Britain and civilization from that catastrophe. Our present troubles are bad enough. Victory has its cares as well as defeat. But they are ephemeral and will soon be surmounted. Defeat would have reversed the engine of prog- ress, and democracy would have been driven back centuries on its tracks. If I may venture to quote what I said at the Imperial Conference of 1907 when Sir Thomas Smartt and I first met — I think we two and the present Colonial Secretary are the only survivors — I ventured to say, in reference to the Empire : ‘We agree with our Colonial comrades of the Dominions that all this unity is worth concerted effort, even if that effort at the outset costs us something. The federation [34] 369 of free commonwealths is worth making some sacrifice for. One never knows when its strength will be essential to the great cause of human freedom, and that is priceless.” I venture to say that that prediction has been gloriously proved by great events. The British Empire is a saving fact in a very distracted world. It is the most hopeful experiment in human organi- zation which the world has yet seen. It is not so much that it combines men of many races, tongues, traditions and creeds in one system of government. Other Empires have done that, but the British Empire differs from all in one essential respect. It is based not on force but on goodwill and a common under- standing. Liberty is its binding principle. Where that principle has not hitherto been applied it is gradually being introduced into the structure. It is that willing and free association of many nations and peoples which this Conference represents. Think of what we stand for in this room to-day. First of all the long political development of the British Isles, with all its splendours and its pains, the crucible from which the framework of the whole great structure has emerged. Canada, British and French; South Africa, British and Dutch— -both now great Dominions whose unity is due to the free and willing combination of two proud races in a single nationhood. Australia and New Zea- land, British civilizations both, but planted and developed with a genius of their own by the sheer enterprise and grit of their peoples in the furthest antipodes. India a mighty civilization, whose ruleis were known and respected through- out the western world before the first English post was planted on Indian soil. Side by side with these the wonderful varied colonies and protectorates in their different stages of develop- ment, which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is here to represent. In all the marvellous achievement of our peoples which this gathering reflects I am most deeply impressed by the blending of East and West — India with her far descended culture and her intensely varied types, so different from ours, present in this room to concert a common policy with us in [35] 370 the world’s affairs, and to harmonize, as we hope, still more completely her civilization and ours. It is our duty here to present the ideals of this great association of peoples in willing loyalty to one Sovereign, to take counsel together for the progress and welfare of all, and to keep our strength both moral and material, a united power for justice, liberty and peace. OPENING SPEECH BY MR. MEIGHEN Mr. Meighen: I think we might utilize a little more time to-day in hearing statements from some of us of a general character and then proceed to lay down the agenda. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that anything I might say in advance of our discussion of concrete subjects would be of sufficient importance to warrant a day or even half-a-day’s adjournment for preparation. I have listened to the illumi- nating introduction 'of the Prime Minister, and I cannot bring myself to think that such a pregnant and impressive address will not receive full publication. It is unfortunate that the obligation of speaking first should fall upon me, the least experienced representative of the Dominions, but it is well that the traditional order of pre- cedence be followed. The Prime Minister referred to conditions in the British Isles, which, of course, we all from the various Dominions watch with great interest. The words of encouragement which he gave were very welcome to my ears. In Canada we do not suffer in the same degree from unemployment, but none the less we have much more than the normal. The extent and proportion of our agricultural population is such that we have in our belief less unrest than in most countries, and we feel also that our comprehensive and reasonably generous policy towards returned men, particularly to those entering upon agriculture, has reduced the evil in that respect. The information that the Prime Minister has given as to the progress of peace negotiations, or rather the re-establishment of actual peace upon the basis of the peace treaties, is indeed [36] 371 encouraging. I feared myself that he would not be able to make quite so gratifying a report. As to the observations he made on the principles to be kept in mind in our deliberations on the Japanese Treaty and its renewal, we cannot over-estimate their importance. Possibly in the outlying Dominions we are not disposed to give the same attention to one feature which he draws attention to, the paramount necessity of seeing to it that no step is taken that leaves out of mind the importance of mitigating racial divi- sions. What I have to say as to this subject will, of course, be more appropriate later. All I can do now is to assure you that I, representing Canada, approach this question with a full sense of responsibility, and in seeking to interpret what I believe is the prevailing opinion of my country on the subject, I do so with a firm resolve to reach, if it can be reached, common ground with all representatives here. The Prime Minister referred to suspicions that had been generated of designs on the autonomy of the Dominions, conspiracies to bring about revolutionary changes in our Constitutional relations. I may say thaf I do not think any responsible representative of any Dominion, I am quite certain of Canada, requires to have his mind cleansed of evil thought in that respect. It is due to the Conference, and particularly the Prime Minister, that I should gratefully acknowledge here his striking and memorable words in referring to the services rendered by the British Dominions and India during the late War. No finer expression of the feelings of the people of the British Isles has been uttered, and I feel that his valued tribute will be long remembered throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. There can be no doubt as to the value of Conferences such as this. The whole progress of the world, particularly since the War, has emphasized the value of conferences. Indeed, it is the method that has been incorporated as the very basis of the new order which the world is seeking to establish whether under the name of the League of Nations, or under [37] 372 some other name or under no name at all. For ourselves, of course, for this Britannic Commonwealth of nations, this method or principle has a peculiar significance. We are united by the history of our being, by a mutual trust, and by a fundamental intention to preserve a common allegiance. We therefore confer under conditions particularly favourable to free and open communication one with another, and in an atmosphere of complete mutual confidence. There are two conditions of success that I think of impor- tance, though perhaps they are only partly under our control. If our conclusions are to be sound, and being sound, to be acted upon, they must be accorded not only general support, but intelligent support throughout the countries we represent. It is therefore essential that we fully inform the public of our proceedings. There may, in respect of some questions, be limitations; we shall indeed at times be bound to respect what may be called the right of privacy of Governments and peoples other than our own. The problem is not a simple one, but I venture to suggest that it is better in the long run to err on the side of publicity than on the side of secrecy. The other con- dition is that such conferences as these should be as frequent and as regular as the growing necessities of inter-Dominion and inter-Empire relations demand. Time, I know, is impor- tant. It is difficult for Canadian Ministers to be absent, and that difficulty is accentuated in the case of Ministers of other Dominions. The expeditious despatch of business while here will assist all round. I shall reserve any further remarks until we reach the discussion of the definite subjects that are to be brought before us, 2ist June, 1921 OPENING SPEECH BY MR. HUGHES Mr. Hughes; I desire to congratulate you on the admirable review of the position that you presented to us yesterday. I am sure it was most valuable as well as most interesting. We were all very glad to learn from you. Sir, that though the [38] 373 adjustment of those matters which arose out of the War is not yet complete, all our obligations, and our ex-enemies’ obliga- tions under the Treaty, were in a fair way of being fulfilled. We recognize that there are difficulties, and that it is not easy to satisfy those who preach a counsel of perfection, but I think we ought to congratulate you and the Government on having, during these last two years, weathered a great storm full of menacing possibilities, and though it would savour of too much optimism to say that we had yet reached the haven, still, on the whole, we have much to be thankful for. I very sincerely congratulate you as the head of the Government of the United Kingdom. You have asked us to consider and review the situation as it presents itself to us, and I think we may do this with advantage before we pass on to the discussion of the various questions, or, indeed, decide the order in which we are to discuss them. The circumstances of this. Conference are in themselves sufficiently remarkable. This is the first time we have met since the dark shadow of the great War has been lifted, and we are showing to the world and to the various parts of the Empire that those counsels which we took together during the War were not ephemeral expedients, but that we are resolved to continue along that path in company, being guided by each other’s counsel and believing firmly that in co- operation and in unity lies the safety of all, and, in no small degree, the peace and welfare of the world. Well, Sir, we are here — some of us have come very great distances, and all have come at great personal inconvenience. Some of us, like Mr. Massey and myself, have come 12,000 miles. We have each given our views to our representative Parliaments as to what this Conference intends, or hopes, to do. Much is expected from us, and I do venture earnestly to hope that this Conference will do something which will convince the people that we have found a practical and sure way of bridging that apparently impossible chasm which divides complete autonomy of the several parts of the Empire from united action upon matters affecting us all. 1 39] 374 That we must do something is essential if this Conference is not to be a last magnificent flare of a dying illumination. I am sure, Sir, you will realize how difficult it is for us to leave a Parliament for five or six months. I shall not, I hope, be suspected of trespassing upon the sacred domain of domestic politics if I ask you just to conjure up in that vivid Celtic mind of yours — as I do in mine — the possibility of your being away for six months. Now, amongst the great problems that are to be considered three stand out. You referred to all of them yesterday. They are: — Foreign Policy in general, the Anglo- Japanese Treaty in particular, and Naval Defence. There are other problems, of course, which are intimately associated with these. If we are to give effect to the principle, which I take it has already been accepted, viz., the right of the Dominions to sit at the Council table on a footing of equality, and to discuss with you and the other representatives the question of the Foreign Policy of the Empire — these also must be not only considered, but settled. I do not think I am misinterpreting the opinions of all my friends here when I say that this voice, this share, in the Council of the Empire in regard to foreign policy must be a real one, must be one of substance and not merely a shadow. This involves the creation of some kind of machinery, and here we come to a very difficult position , to which I shall refer very shortly later. We are now asked to deal with foreign policy, and in order that we may do this, you have said that Lord Curzon would review the present position of foreign affairs. We shall await that statement with great interest. The whole Empire is concerned in foreign policy, though this was for many years regarded as the sole prerogative of Great Britain. Wars are hatched by foreign policy. No one is able to say that any act affecting foreign nations will not, in the fullness of time, lead to war. No one is able to say that the most apparently trivial and innocent action will not involve us in international turmoil, and in the fullness of time bring us to the bloody plains of war. So, when we see on every side the British line — [40] 375 or, if you like, the line of this Commonwealth of British nations — being lengthened and the line of defence necessarily thinned, the points of potential danger multiplied — we are naturally uneasy. We have seen that a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand can cover the whole heavens. And so. Sir — I speak only for myself, of course — I am sure you will quite understand our desire to know the reasons for your policy in Mesopotamia, in Palestine, in Russia, in Egypt, and your policy in Greece and Turkey. If I have singled these things out it is not because they cover the whole field of foreign policy, but because these matters are perhaps the most obvious. Now, if we are to have an effective voice in the foreign policy of this country, we must first of all know precisely how we stand, and the reasons for the policy adopted and the extent to which we are committed to it. I start with the assumption that our right to decide foreign policy is not denied. Very well, let us consider the thing under two heads— first, in regard to matters of foreign policy as they now present themselves before the British Government, and, second, in regard to policy in the future. We can express our opinions, and if needs be modify the present foreign policy by a full discussion and expression of opinion. Decisions am be registered and given effect to. But the position in regard to policy in the future is very difficult. Everyday a new situation arises or may arise. How is it to be dealt with? We shall be scattered to the four quarters of the earth. How are the Dorninions to have an effective voice on foreign policy when, as things stand, they can only be told after things have been done and are not consulted beforehand? That is a question which we shall have to consider. I stated. Sir, at the outset that other matters than those three of which I spoke — Foreign Policy in general, the Anglo- Japanese Alliance, and Naval Defence — will arise intimately related to these, and that we shall have to discuss them. I come to one now. You yourself said yesterday. Sir, that direct communication between the Prime Minister of Great [41 ] 376 Britain and his colleagues overseas had worked well. So it has; that is to say, the principle has worked well; but I think I ought to tell you, Sir, that it is rarely that one does not read in the newspapers, sometimes a day, sometimes more than a day, before receiving your telegrams, a very good imitation of their substance. This arises through the great delay in the transmission of messages. I am not going into details now — I have set this matter down on the agenda — but I want to say that it is absolutely essential, if we are going to have any effective voice in foreign policy, that we shall be in the closest possible touch with you and with each other, and that we shall know, not when the thing is done, but before the thing is done, what is intended, or what is desired to be done. This is essential because in foreign policy, as, indeed, in many cases in domestic policy, you cannot delay. Action is imperative. A thing that is possible to-day is impossible to-morrow, and action must be taken. So, if we are going to have a real voice in foreign policy, then we must have improved communication — means whereby you will be able to communicate quickly with your colleagues overseas, and they with you and with each other. That is absolutely essential. When we come to that item on the agenda paper, I shall show you, in one or two ways, how some improvement may be made. But I confess that all I can suggest falls very far short of that ideal condition of things which one would desire. Now I leave foreign policy in general, and come to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. Here we are dealing with a matter definite and urgent. It is not a thing to be settled in the future, but now. The British Government has only postponed settle- ment in order that the matter might be dealt with round this table. It is an urgent matter. It must be settled without delay. The attitude of Australia towards it has been quite clearly stated. We have not a clean slate before us. If we had to consider for the first time whether we should have a Treaty with Japan, the position might be very different. We have not. For many years a Treaty has existed between [42] 377 Japan and Britain. Its terms have been modified, but in substance the existing Treaty has been in force for a long time. No doubt it cannot be renewed precisely in its present form. It must conform to the requirements of the League of Nations. But the case for renewal is very strong, if not indeed overwhelming. To Australia, as you will quite understand, this Treaty with Japan has special significance. Speaking broadly, we are in favour of its renewal. But there are certain difficulties which must be faced. One of these arises out of the attitude of America towards this Treaty. I am sure I state the opinion of Australia when I say the people have a very warm corner in their hearts for America. They see in America to-day what they themselves hope to be in the future. We have a country very similar in extent and re- sources, and it may be laid down as a sine qu& non that any future Treaty with Japan, to be satisfactory to Australia, must specifically exclude the possibility of a war with the United States of America. It ought to do this specifically, but if not specifically then by implication so clear and unmistak- able that he who runs may read. It is perfectly true that the present Treaty does this by implication, but not so plainly as to preclude misinterpretation. In any future Treaty we must guard against even the suspicion of hostility or unfriend- liness to the United States. I hope you are not forgetting, Sir, that there are many who seek to misinterpret the intentions of this country, and to confound them we must put in plain words what are our intentions. That being so, and subject to that condition — which is not a new condition at all, because Japan has accepted the position for many years — ^Australia is very strongly in favour of the renewal of the Treaty. As I have said, the Treaty dearly must conform to the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant, and it must have regard to the circumstances of the world to-day, but I think it ought to be renewed ; I am strongly in favour of its being renewed. I think from every point of view that it would be well that the Treaty with Japan should be renewed. Should we not be in a better position to exercise greater influence over the Eastern [43] 378 policy as an Ally of that great Eastern Power, than as her potential enemy? Now, if Japan is excluded from the family of great Western nations — and, mark, to turn our backs on the Treaty is certainly to exclude Japan — she will be isolated, her high national pride wounded in its most tender spot. To renew this Treaty is to impose on her some of those restraints inseparable from Treaties with other civilized nations like ourselves. We will do well for the world’s peace — we will do well for China — we will do well for the Commonwealth of British nations to renew this Treaty. We want peace. The world wants peace. Which policy is most likely to promote, to ensure, the world’s peace? As I see it, the renewal of the Treaty with the Japanese Empire. Now let us consider America’s objections to the renewal of the Treaty. Some of these relate to the emigration of Japanese to America; but the hostility to Japan, more or less marked, that exists in America to-day, cannot be wholly accounted for by this fact. As it is vital in the interest of civilization that a good understanding should exist between America and ourselves, we should endeavour to do everything in our power to ascertain exactly what it is to which America takes exception in this Treaty. We ought not to give her room for criticism which the world could support. We must make it perfectly clear that the Treaty is not aimed against her, and that it could never be used against her. War with America is unthinkable. As the contingency is quite an impossible one, it need not be seriously considered. Yet it is well that the attitude of Australia should be made quite clear. Whether it would be wiser to invite a Conference with America and Japan, to ascertain what would be mutually acceptable, is a suggestion which I throw out. If one were quite sure that America desired, or was prepared to accept, what would form a reasonable basis of an Alliance with Japan, then I certainly would strongly press the suggestion. But in any case we ought to try and ascertain precisely what America’s views are on this most important matter. Now I turn from the consideration of the Anglo- Japanese [44] 379 Treaty, Sir, to a question of supreme importance which you raised yesterday, and it is one which is related both to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty and to Naval Defence — I mean the question of disarmament. You said. Sir, and I am sure the world will be very glad to read those words of yours, that you would welcome any suggestion and discuss with any Power any propositions for disarmament or limitations of armaments. Your words come most opportunely. I think this is the psychological moment. We ought not to underestimate the value of this Conference — it is no use denying the fact that in America they do distinguish between England and the Dominions in a very marked way — and a suggestion coming from you backed by the Dominion Prime Ministers might gain a hearing where the voice of England alone failed. After all, the distinction which Americans draw between us is easy to understand. History partly explains it. They see, too, in us replicas of themselves. They see us struggling and fighting towards the goal that they have already attained. And I think they are right in supposing that, subject to that deter- mination which we have to achieve our destiny in company with each other and with Britain, we resemble so many Americas. We are free democracies. We want peace. We at least are free from the suspicion of Imperialistic ambitions. The world, tired of war, is yet neurotic, its nervous system so disturbed by war that, while it cries aloud for peace, force is the first thing to which it turns to redress its grievances. You cannot expect, you cannot hope for any more favourable moment than the present. If you fail to secure agreement for the limitation of armaments now, how can you expect to do so in the years to come? The appalling race for naval suprem- acy has already begun, although the fires of the Great War are not yet cold. It creates interest in the various countries where this suicidal race is run. This vicious rivalry grows by what it feeds on. Every year it becomes more difficult to stop. Speak therefore now on behalf of this gathering of Prime Ministers. Let us give the world, weary of war and staggering beneath its crushing burdens, a lead. Invite the United 1 45] 38 o States of America, Japan and France to meet us. We cannot hope that the world will beat its sword into a ploughshare, but at any rate it can stop building more ships. Let us stop naval construction and naval expenditure other than that necessary for the maintenance of existing units without prejudice to what may be agreed upon hereafter. In this matter, the first step is everything. If the world resolves to stop making any further preparations for war, everything is possible; until that step is taken, we are only beating the air. Such an invitation issued with such authority behind it would, I think, find great support in America, and I hope and believe in Japan too. In ten years’ time, in five years’ time, the position will be that both these countries will be poorer. They cannot continue such a competition indefinitely. If they persist, we and all the great nations of the world must follow their example. What hope does such a prospect hold out to the war-weary world? To stop naval construction pending a permanent settlement of the basis for naval power will not prejudice their interests. The relative strength of each will not be affected by stopping now. I do most strongly urge you to set an example, speaking as you will be able to do on behalf, not merely of England, but on behalf of all those free nations whose representatives are gathered here. Let us show to the world that these young nations gathered round this table have resolved to make their entrance into world politics by setting an example which the world has long wanted. I am not without hopes that such an invitation on your part, and such an example on ours, would be provocative of great good and prove to be the turning point in the world’s history. I come now to the last point with which I intend to deal at length, and that is Naval Defence. Whatever may be agreed upon, one thing is clear, that we must have such naval defence as is adequate for our safety. Naturally the amount of force necessary to ensure our safety in a world which has agreed to suspend naval construction, a world in which the three great Naval Powers have, for example, come to such an under- standing as would have the force and effect of an alliance, [46] 38 i would be much less than in a world which resounds with the clang of hammer beating into shape bigger and still bigger navies. That applies, too, to the renewal or non-renewal of the Anglo- Japanese Treaty, but in any case we must have such naval defence as is necessary for our security. The War and the Panama Canal has shifted the world’s stage from the Mediterranean and the Atlantic to the Pacific. The stage upon which the great world drama is to be played in the future is in the Pacific. The American Navy is now in those waters. Peace in the Pacific means peace for this Empire and for the world. With an agreement between three Great Naval Powers— -or, at worst, between two — then the force necessary to defend this Empire by sea — and that it rests on sea power is certain, and I am never tired of repeating this most significant fact to those who are apt to forget how the British Empire came into being and has been maintained — would be much less. But whatever it is we must have it. And now one word about the part of the Dominions in Empire defence. You, Sir, said some time ago that Britain had paid so dearly for victory and was groaning under such a crushing burden of debt that it could no longer alone be responsible for the defence of the Empire by sea as it had heretofore, and that the other parts of the Empire must do their share. To that doctrine I subscribe without reservation. I think it is the corollary of our admission into the councils of the Empire to determine the foreign policy. The foreign policy determined or approved by us at this Conference may lead to war. In any case the foreign policy of a nation must be limited by its power to enforce it, whether that power be wholly resident in itself, or come from an alliance, or from the League of Nations. The ambitions of men and nations are curbed by their material power. In our case, sea power is, and must always be, the determining factor of our foreign policy. Now we cannot fairly ask for the right to decide the foreign policy of the Empire, and say that we will have no part whatever in naval defence, we will not pay our share. If (47] 382 you ask me what is our share, I say frankly that I am not prepared at this moment to indicate it. We can do that when we come to deal with the matter in detail, but one principle seems to emerge and it is this. I do not think that our share per capita should be as great as Britain’s share per capita, because Britain has Crown Colonies, and dependencies, and India to defend. But whatever is our fair share should be borne upon a per capita basis by all the Dominions. That, I think, is the only fair and proper basis. If the converse be conceded for a moment, and some pay more per capita than others, then I do not understand the basis of union amongst us. Dangers to the Empire or to any part of it are to be met surely by unity of action. That is at once the principle upon which the Empire rests, and upon which its security depends. The Dominions could not exist if it were not for the British Navy. We must not forget this. We are a united Empire or we are nothing. Now who is to say from what quarter dangers will come to any of us? It comes now from the East and to- morrow from the West. But from whatever quarter it comes we meet it as a united Empire, the whole of our strength is thrown against the danger which threatens us. If some Dominions say “we are not in any danger, you are, you pay; we will not, or cannot, contribute towards naval defence,” an impossible position is created. I cannot subscribe to such a doctrine. It is incompatible with the circumstances of our relationship to Britain and to each other, it menaces our safety and our very existence, it is a negation of our unity. I need hardly say that I do not believe that the Dominion quota for naval defence should be expressed in terms of a money contribution, but in terms of Dominion Navies. This is a point upon which the Admiralty has expressed itself very strongly, and the suggestion of monetary contribution is not to be seriously considered. In any case, we shall be able to discuss the matter when naval defence is being dealt with. I have nothing further to say on those matters to which you referred yesterday, but reference to one other point may be permitted. It is well that we should know each other’s [48] 383 views. We ought not to discuss things in the dark. It has been suggested that a Constitutional Conference should be held next year. It may be that I am very dense, but I am totally at a loss to understand what it is that this Constitu- tional Conference proposes to do. Is it that the Dominions are seeking new powers, or are desirous of using powers they already have, or is the Conference to draw up a declaration of rights, to set down in black and white the relations between Britain and the Dominions? What is this Conference to do? What is the reason for calling it together? I know, of course, the Resolution of the 1917 Conference. But much water has run under the bridge since then. Surely this Conference is not intended to limit the rights we now have. Yet what new right, what extension of power can it give us? What is there that we cannot do now? What could the Dominions do as independent nations that they cannot do now? What limita- tion is now imposed upon them? What can they not do, even to encompass their own destruction by sundering the bonds that bind them to the Empire? What yet do they lack? Canada has asserted her right to make treaties. She has made treaties. She is asserting her right to appoint an Ambassador at Washington. Are these the marks of Slave States, or quasi-sovereignty? In what essential thing does any one of the great Self-Governing Dominions differ from independent nations? It is true there is a sentiment, a figment, a few ancient forms; there is what Sir F. Pollock calls the figment of the right of the British Parliament to make laws affecting the Dominions. Supposing the British Parliament should make a law to-morrow which would take from me the very position in which I stand, namely, a representative of a Parliament that exists and was brought into being by a British Statute. I suppose that would apply to you, General Smuts, and to you, Mr. Meighen. They could pass that law, and although we might be here as individuals, so far as legal or constitutional status is concerned we should have ceased to exist. But, as Sir F. Pollock says, this power of the British Parliament is a figment, a shadow. Either it must limit our [49] 384 rights of self-government, or it must weaken the bonds of Empire, or it must simply content itself with asserting rights and privileges and responsibilities that are ours already and that none question. In effect, we have all the rights of self- government enjoyed by independent nations. That being the position, what is the Constitutional Conference going to do? The proposal to hold a Constitutional Conference is causing considerable anxiety, at any rate in Australia. So far from anticipating that it is to give us greater power, some fear it will take away some of the powers that we have, and my difficulty is, and has been, to try and allay those doubts, which are very strongly held. I think every one of us is con- fronted with the same position. I think even this Conference is surrounded with clouds of suspicion. Our right to a name is in question. If we call ourselves a Conference it is wrong: if we call ourselves a Cabinet it is wrong — a Council is still worse. I am sure between General Smuts and myself there is, in fact, very little difference, if any. But, nevertheless, I say that we are treading on very dangerous ground, and I say this to him. We have achieved this wonderful progress — and it is wonderful progress — along certain lines. Is he not satis- fied with the progress we have made? The difference between the status of the Dominions now and twenty-five years ago is very great. We were Colonies, we became Dominions. We have been accorded the status of nations. Our progress in material greatness has kept pace with our constitutional development. Let us leave well alone. That is my advice. We have now on the agenda paper matters which mark a new era in Empire government. We, the representatives of the Dominions, are met together to formulate a foreign policy for the Empire. What greater advance is conceivable? What remains to us? We are like so many Alexanders. What other worlds have we to conquer? I do not speak of Utopias nor of shadows, but of solid earth. I know of no power that the Prime Minister of Britain has, that General Smuts has not. Our presence here round this table, the agenda paper before us, the basis of equality on which we meet, these things speak [50] 385 in trumpet tones that this Conference of free democratic nations is, as Mr. Lloyd George said yesterday, a living force. OPENING SPEECH BY GENERAL SMUTS General Smuts: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the Prime Minister of Australia in regard to the speech which you made yesterday, and, in par- ticular, speaking on behalf of South Africa, I should like to thank you very, very much for the reference you made to General Botha. General Botha was not only a great South African, but a great man, and his name will remain as one of the greatest men in the history of the British Empire, and I think the references made to him yesterday were fully justi- fied. You opened yesterday. Prime Minister, in a speech, if I may say so, of such power and brilliaace, that it is very difficult for us, in fact, impossible for me, to follow on, but we agreed yesterday that the Prime Ministers should each make a general preliminary statement, and so I proceed to make a few remarks upon the topics on which we are called upon to deal here. I think a discussion like this may be useful, because it will disclose in a preliminary and general way the attitude taken up by the Dominions on the topics which we have come here to discuss. I shall not attempt to break fresh ground in the few remarks I am going to make. I am going to adhere more or less to the tenor of what I said in the South African Par- liament when the subject matters of this Conference were under debate. What I said was generally approved in Par- liament and by the public in South Africa, and I shall there- fore adhere to what I said there. I said on that occasion that what the world most needs to-day is peace, a return to a peaceful temper and to the resumption of peaceful and normal industry. To my mind that is the test of all true policy to-day. Peace is wanted by the world. Peace is wanted especially by the peoples of the British Empire. We are a peaceful Empire, our very nature is such that peace is necessary for us. We have no military aims to serve, we have no militaristic ideals, [51] 386 and it is only in a peaceful world that our ideals can be realized. It should, therefore, be the main, in fact, the only object of British policy to secure real peace for the Empire and the world generally. Now the Prime Minister stated in his speech what progress has been made towards the attain- ment of this ideal. He pointed out that some of the matters which gave us the greatest trouble in Paris had been settled. The question of reparations, which was, perhaps, the most difficult and intricate with which we had to deal in Paris, has finally, after some years of debate and trouble, been eliminated, in a settlement which, I venture to hope, will prove final and workable. That is a very great advance. The other great advance that has been made — and it is an enormous advance — is the final disarmament of Germany. That the greatest military Empire that has ever existed in history should be reduced to a peace establishment of 100,000 men is some- thing which I considered practically impossible. It is a great achievement, so far-reaching, indeed, that it ought to become the basis of a new departure in world policy. We cannot stop with Germany, we cannot stop with the disarmament of Germany. It is impossible for us to continue to envisage the future of the world from the point of view of war. I believe it is impossible for us to contemplate the piling up of arma- ments in the future of the world and the exhaustion of our very limited remaining resources in order to carry out a policy of that kind. Such a policy would be criminal, it would be the betrayal of the causes for which we fought during the War, and if we embarked on such a policy it would be our undoing. If we were to go forward into the future staggering under the load of military and naval armaments whilst our competitors in Central Europe were free from the incubus of great armies, we should be severely handicapped, and in the end we should have the fruits of victory lost to us by our post-war policy. Already circumstances are developing on those lines. Already under the operation of inexorable economic factors we find that the position is developing to the advantage of Central [52] 387 Europe. The depreciation of their currencies, the universal depreciation of currencies, and the unsettlement of the ex- changes are having the effect of practical repudiation of lia- bilities on the part of a large part of the Continent. If we add to our financial responsibilities and have, in addition, to pile on the fresh burdens of new armies and navies I am afraid the future for us is very dark indeed, and we shall in the long run lose all we have won on the field of battle. Armaments depend upon policy, and therefore I press very strongly that our policy should be such as to make the race for armaments impossible. That should be the cardinal feature of our foreign policy. We should not go into the future under this awful handicap of having to support great arma- ments, build new fleets, raise new armies, whilst our economic competitors are free of that liability under the Peace Treaty. The most fatal mistake of all, in my humble opinion, would be a race of armaments against America. America is the nation that is closest to us in all the human ties. The Domin- ions look upon her as the oldest of them. She is the relation with whom we most closely agree, and with whom we can most cordially work together. She left our circle a long time ago because of a great historic mistake. I am not sure that a wise policy after the great events through which we have recently passed might not repair the effects of that great his- toric error, and once more bring America on to lines of general co-operation with the British Empire. America, after all, has proved a staunch and tried friend during the War. She came in late because she did not realize what was at stake. In the very darkest hour of the War she came in and ranged herself on our side. That was, I believe, the determining factor in the victory of our great cause. Since the War we have somewhat drifted apart. I need not go into the story — I do not know the whole story — it is only known to you here. There are matters on which we have not seen eye to eye, to some extent springing from what hap- pened at Paris and also from mistakes made by statesmen. But these mistakes do not affect the fundamental attitude [53] 388 of the two peoples. To my mind it seems dear that the only path of safety for the British Empire is a path on which she can walk together with America. In saying this I do not wish to be understood as advocating an American alliance. Noth- ing of the kind. I do not advocate an alliance or any exclusive arrangement with America. It would be undesirable, it would be impossible and unnecessary. The British Empire is not in need of exclusive allies. It emerged from the War quite the greatest Power in the world, and it is only unwisdom or unsound policy that could rob her of that great position. She does not want exclusive alliances. What she wants to see established is more universal friendship in the world. The nations of the British Empire wish to make all the nations of the world more friendly to each other. We wish to remove grounds for misunderstandings and causes of friction, and to bring together all the free peoples of the world in a system of friendly conferences and consultations in regard to their difficulties. We wish to see a real Society of Nations, away from the old ideas and practices of national domination or Imperial domination, which were the real root causes of the great War. No, not in alliances, in any exclusive alliances, but in a new spirit of amity and co-operation do we seek the solution of the problems of the future. Although America is not a member of the League of Nations, there is no doubt that co-operation between her and the British Empire would be the easy and natural thing, and there is no doubt it would be the wise thing. In shaping our course for the future, we must bear in mind that the whole world position has radically altered as a result of the War. Europe is no longer what she was, and the power and the position which she once occupied in the world has been largely lost. The great Empires have disappeared. Austria will never rise again. Russia and Germany will no doubt revive, but not in this generation nor in the next; and when they do, they may be very different countries in a world which may be a very different world. The position, therefore, has completely altered. The old viewpoint from f54] 389 which we considered Europe has completely altered. She suffers from an exhaustion, which is the most appalling fact of history; and the victorious countries of Europe are not much better off than the vanquished. No, the scene has shifted on the great stage. To my mind that is the most important fact in the world situation to-day, and the fact to which our foreign policy should have special regard. Our temptation is still to look upon the European stage as of the first importance. It is no longer so; and I suggest we should not be too deeply occupied with it. Let us be friendly and helpful all round to the best of our ability, but let us not be too deeply involved in it. The fires are still burning there, the pot is occasionally boiling over, but these are not really first-rate events any more. This state of -affairs in Central Europe will probably continue for many years to come, and no act on our part could very largely alter the situation. Therefore, not from feelings of selfishness, but in a spirit of wisdom, one would counsel prudence and reserve in our Continental commitments, and that we do not let ourselves in for European entanglements more than is necessary, and that we be impartial, friendly and helpful to all alike, and avoid any partisan attitude in the concerns of the continent of Europe. Undoubtedly the scene has shifted away from Europe to the Far East and to the Pacific. The problems of the Pacific are to my mind the world problems of the next fifty years or more. In these problems we are, as an Empire, very vitally interested. Three of the Dominions border on the Pacific; India is next door; there, too, are the United States and Japan. There, also, is China, the fate of the greatest human population on earth will have to be decided. There, Europe, Asia and America are meeting, and there, I believe, the next great chapter in human history will be enacted. I ask myself, what will be the character of that his- tory? Will it be along the old lines? Will it be the old spirit of national and imperial domination which has been the undoing of Europe? Or shall we have learned our lesson? Shall we have purged our souls in the fires through which we [ 55] 390 have passed? Will it be a future of peaceful co-operation, of friendly co-ordination of all the vast interests at stake? Shall we act in continuous friendly consultation in the true spirit of a Society of Nations, or will there once more be a repetition of rival groups, of exclusive alliances, and finally, of a terrible catastrophe more fatal than the one we have passed through? That, to my mind, is the alternative. That is the parting of the ways at which we have arrived now. That is the great matter, I take it, we are met to consider in this Conference. If we are wisely guided at this juncture, this Conference may well become one of the great landmarks in history. It comes most opportune. The American Senate has already made the first move in a unanimous resolution calling for a Conference of the United States, the British Empire and Japan. Japan has been a consistent supporter of the League of Nations. She is one of the Great Powers with a permanent seat on the Council, and she has, so far as I can gather, consistently been a power for good in the Councils of the League of Nations. The British Empire, again, is not only one of the strongest influences behind the League, but she is honestly and sincerely feeling her way to a better order- ing of international relations. China is not only a member of the League, but has been elected a member of the Council at the last meeting of the Assembly at Geneva. All the great parties concerned in the Pacific and in Pacific policy are, therefore, pledged to friendly conference and consultation in regard to what is the most important, possibly the most dan- gerous, next phase of world politics. They are all pledged to the new system of conference and consultation, either by membership of the League and its Council, or, in the case of America, by the resolution which the Senate has just passed. It is now for this Conference of ours to give the lead and guide the Powers concerned into a friendly conference, or system of conferences, in regard to this great issue. This, I submit, is the great opportunity presented to this Conference, and I trust that our deliberations will be exploited to the full for the good and future peace of the world. As you said yester- [56] 391 day, Mr. Prime Minister, the British Empire involves the great question of East and West, the relations of East and West. That great question is now coming to a head. There is no doubt that the British Empire is more vitally inter- ested than any other country in this, for she has her feet planted on all the continents. By her great position she is called upon to act as the peacemaker, the mediator, between East and West, and nowhere else has she such scope, such opportunity, for great world service as just here. Great rival civilizations are meeting and great questions have to be de- cided for the future. I most heartily applaud what you said yesterday on this point, and I trust that difficulties on this most thorny path will not prove insuperable to us. You spoke yesterday most eloquently on the Peace Treaty, the sacred- ness of the Peace Treaty, and the obligation to carry out the Peace Treaty. There is one chapter in that Treaty which, to my mind, should be specially sacred to the British Empire. That is the first chapter on the League of Nations. The Covenant may be faulty, it may need amendment in order to make it more workable and more generally acceptable, but let us never for- get that the Covenant embodies the most deeply-felt longings of the human race for a better life. There, more than any- where else, do we find a serious effort made to translate into practical reality the great ideals that actuated us during the War, the ideals for which millions of our best gave their lives. The method of understanding instead of violence, of free co- operation, of consultation and conference in all great diffi- culties which we have found so fruitful in our Empire system, is the method which the League attempts to apply to the affairs of the world. Let us, in the British Empire, back it for all it is worth. It may well prove, for international relations, the way out of the present morass. It may become the founda- tion of a new international system which will render arma- ments unnecessary, and give the world at large the blessings which we enjoy in our lesser League of Nations in the Empire. I have spoken at length already. Prime Minister, and there- [57] 392 fore I do not wish to refer to the other great matter which we are met here to consider, and which Mr. Hughes touched upon, namely, constitutional relations. We shall come to a very full discussion of that subject, and, therefore, I do not wish to say any more at this stage. OPENING SPEECH BY MR. MASSEY Mr. Massey: In the first place, Prime Minister, I want briefly to take advantage of what you referred to as our “un- enviable privilege,” speaking for myself, the privilege of hav- ing the longest record as Prime Minister of any of those who sit around the Council Board to-day, and on that account I want to add a few words to what you have said with regard to an old friend. General Botha. During the very few months that I was acquainted with General Botha I came to regard him as one of the best men I ever met, a great man, undoubtedly, and, in addition, a great British statesman. If he had been with us to-day it goes without saying he would have been invaluable in assisting to solve some of the difficult problems with which we are face to face. I feel confident of this, that it will be a very long time before his services are forgotten, either by South Africa, with which he was more intimately associated, or with the citizens of the British Empire wherever they may happen to be. I want, too, to express my regret that we have not with us on the present occasion men who did great work in days gone by. I refer to Lord Milner, Lord Long, better known to us as the Right Honourable Mr. Walter Long, and Sir Robert Borden. I hope that their retirement from Empire service is only temporary, but, in any case, I trust, and I know it, that when we require their advice and counsel, their services to the Empire will always be willingly and faithfully given. I think I ought to say a word of welcome to those who are met in this room for the first time, and I feel confident that they will do credit to those behind them who have honoured them with their confidence, and that their coming here will be an acquisition to the Conference which I hope and believe will make for better things so far as the Empire is concerned. 158 ] 393 And now, Prime Minister, I want to refer, briefly, to the very fine speech which we, the members of this organization, had the opportunity of listening to yesterday. I want to say that I look upon it as the most important speech delivered since the War, and a speech which, to the British citizens of the Dominions, will give great satisfaction, and not only to them but to the citizens at the heart of the Empire, the United Kingdom itself. It will give confidence to a number of people and a very large number of citizens who are anxious about the present position and feel a certain anxiety with regard to what may happen at this Conference. The speech was candid, outspoken, and well expressed, and it gave the impression, which I have not the very slightest doubt it was intended to convey, that the Prime Minister intends to place the whole of his cards upon the table, take us, who aie the representatives of the Overseas Dominions, into his complete confidence and ask for our assistance in settling the difficulties which at present appear to confront us. The speech, in my opinion, struck the right note, and it will give, I am quite sure, more confidence to people overseas and to citizens generally than the Prime Minister himself imagines could possibly be the case. Ever since the signa- tures of the representatives of the Dominions were attached to the Peace Treaty at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919, there has been a feeling on the part of many intelligent men and women that the future of the Empire may possibly have been endangered thereby. What I mean is this, that 1 have seen it stated repeatedly, as a result of the signing of the Peace Treaty, which, of course, included the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Dominions of the Empire had acquired complete independence, and, in case of the Empire being involved in war — ^which I say heaven forbid, and 1 say it with all my heart and soul— any one of the Dominions might refrain from taking part or assisting the Empire in any way. I do not agree with that view, and I go upon the prin- ciple that when the King, the Head of the State, declares war the whole of his subjects are at war, and that must be the [59] 394 case if some of the best constitutional authorities are right. That is one of the causes of anxiety at the present time. There is the other as a logical sequence of the first, that any Do- minion— I won’t say Dependencies, Dependencies are in a different position—but any Dominion may, on account of what has taken place, enter into a treaty with any foreign country irrespective of what the Empire as a whole may do. I am not now referring to a treaty entered into for commercial purposes, that is quite another matter. As I understand the position, any Dominion may make a commercial arrange- ment with any foreign country, but the treaties of which I am thinking and of which many other people are thinking are treaties involving war or peace or foreign policy as the case may be. These latter are the treaties which, I understand, in existing circumstances, a Dominion has not the right to enter into. I bring this up ; now I had thought of waiting for another year, but one never knows what may happen during twelve months. Personally, I doubt if it will be possible to hold the Conference which was intended for next year, for reasons which may not perhaps have occurred to many here present. I think I am right in saying there will be an election in Australia next year. I am not authorized to say this, but I have heard it said that possibly Canada will have an election next year. That I do not know, but I do know this, that New Zealand must face an election next year. Mr. Lloyd George: How many years have you? Mr. Massey: Three years. Mr. Lloyd George: How many years have you? Mr. Meighen: Five years. Mr. Lloyd George: How many years does your Parlia- ment last? Mr. Hughes: Three years. Mr. Massey: We are in the same year, so when Australia has an election New Zealand has an election. I am suggesting that we shall probably have a number of elections next year, and therefore it may not be possible to hold an Imperial Conference for any purpose whatever. [60] 395 Mr. Hughes: I am glad you mentioned that. That is one of the practical difficulties. I think I told you, Sir, it would be impossible for me to come next year. Mr. Massey: I was referring to constitutional questions which are causing difficulties at present, and I should like to see them cleared up. I think we are in a dangerous posi- tion — a position which may bring friction in a year or two’s time or in the years to come. I think it should be faced now, and we should arrive at an understanding as to exactly where we are. There is another point. The Imperial War Cabinet has been referred to on a number of occasions to-day and yesterday, and I read with a great deal of interest an article by Lord Milner in one of the papers yesterday morning, I think The Times. I may say I agree thoroughly with the opinion expressed by Lord Milner in regard to the Imperial War Cabinet. I believe it did magnificent work, and I hoped that it would become a permanent institution, modi- fied, of course, as required by a period of peace. The Imperial War Cabinet was suitable for a period of war. I do not mean to say we should go on the same lines. We are here to-day, and I think I am right in saying we do not even know what to call ourselves, and there is a great deal in a name. A Conference means consultation and consultation only, but a Cabinet also carries with it the right to recommend some definite course to the Sovereign. Of course, behind it all there is the responsibility on the part of each representative of the Dominions particularly, or even of the United King- dom, to the Parliaments behind us; we must take the responsi- bility of our actions; but I think most of us, all of us, here to-day are experienced politicians, and I am quite sure that we are not likely to go too far. There is another difficulty. The representatives of the Dominions and India meet the representatives of the United Kingdom in conference, but we have no right to join in any recommendation that may be made to the Sovereign in regard to any course which requires his assent and which may be thought desirable. Now, I am not anxious about this. I have absolute confidence in the [6i] 396 good sense of British people and British statesmen, but still there is the anomaly. There is something there that wants to be put right. Using a term which is often used, it is not democratic. I do not know whether these matters can be discussed and dealt with during the present Conference, and I am calling it a Conference for want of a better name. WTat I object to is what the name Conference implies. I do not know whether we are able to deal with it during the term of the present Conference, or whether we are not, but I do think the matter should be settled, and not left over indefinitely. We sometimes talk about what we have gained in recent years, and we have gained a great deal. There is no question about that. We have gained in status and in other ways. We stand in quite a different position from that in which the Dominions and Dependencies of the Empire, in- cluding India, stood ten years ago, but we have gone back as compared with what was the case two years ago when the Imperial War Cabinet was in existence. Mr. Hughes: I do not quite follow where we have gone back. Mr. Massey: We have lost the right which we had then on war matters, and even other matters, to assist in making a recommendation to the Sovereign, the Head of the State, in regard to any course of action which we thought desirable and which required his assent. I may be wrong in the view I take, but I feel so strongly about it, and I have discussed it with my colleagues in New Zealand, though I have not mentioned it in Parliament except by way of a brief hint. I went no further with my own Parliament, but I would not be justified in allowing this Conference to pass without bringing it up. I may say that I believe thoroughly and strongly in the partnership of nations. It does not matter what you call it — a family of nations, a Commonwealth of Nations, or anything else, so long as the partnership is applied. I believe thoroughly and firmly in that; but even a partnership of nations, any more than a nation, cannot stand still. We must either progress or decay. There is no ques- [62] 397 tion about that, and I hope those who are entrusted with the management of the public affairs of the Empire itself, and of the countries of the Empire, will see that no decay takes place. There is one point I must acknowledge in this con- nection, and it is this. While I have called attention to the anomaly, I admit, and am thoroughly of opinion, that there is a far stronger power in the British Empire to-day than any words that may be placed upon paper, either printed or written — that is, the sentiments of the British people, the patriotic sentiments of the British people. I am not merely speaking of Anglo-Saxons or Europeans, or any one race. I am speaking of the British people right through the Empire, including the native races. You cannot go beyond sentiment. And I am quite sure that as soon as they understand what is taking place or its possibility, if only its possibility, they will see that these matters, which may appear small at the time, are rectified without waiting too long. I want to say something about naval defence. It has been referred to by Mr. Hughes, and I may say that there is no difference of opinion between Mr. Hughes and myself in regard to the necessity for naval defence. The storm centre has changed undoubtedly during the last few years, so far as it is possible to judge by appearances, and many of us fear that the next war — and I wish I were optimistic enough to believe we had seen the last of wars, but I am not — we fear that the next naval war will be fought in the Pacific. Human nature has not changed very much in the last 5,000 years, and although we have profited by the lessons of the War, and I would like to think that the lessons of the War would pre- vent war, that the suffering that the people of Europe endured, the tremendous loss of life, the misery they endured, I would like to think that these, taken together or any one of them, would prevent war in the future. I am not looking forward to war in the immediate future. There are clouds on the horizon it is true, some of them perhaps no bigger than the proverbial man’s hand, but they are there, and they may bring war sooner than we expect. The wish, however, is not father to the thought. [63] 398 I hope the indications may come to nothing, and no one will be better pleased than myself if they come to naught, but so far as naval defence is concerned — I am speaking of the Empire now, a chain of countries right round the globe. Do- minions, Dependencies, and the Empire within an Empire, India, as well as the United Kingdom — whatever may happen in the future, I do hope that there will be a sufficient naval force kept in order to maintain the connexions between the different parts of the Empire, and that was where there was a danger of our losing the last War. In connexion with subma- rine warfare in its worst days, about 1917, before the hydro- phone and depth charge had been perfected, when the ships were being sunk faster than we were able to turn them out, there was a danger then of the connexions being cut between the different Dominions and the heart of the Empire particu- larly, or even between the different countries of the Empire outside the United Kingdom itself, and if the connexions had been cut we should certainly have lost the War — nothing could have saved us. Fortunately, things turned out as some of us were optimistic enough to expect, but again we have to think of the future, and we have to remember the lessons of the last W'ar. I know, of course, there are great changes — great improvements, if you can call them improvements— in the instruments of war. Probably different methods, but we can only go as far as our knowledge allows us, and I hope this point will not be lost sight of. If it were possible — for my feeling about war is so strong, and I have no doubt it is shared by everyone present — if it were possible for me by one stroke of the pen to strike out the possibility of war, I would do it without hesitation, but it is not. We know, every one of us, that there are countries in the world to-day, densely- inhabited countries, that are only kept within their own boun- daries, and kept from inflicting injustice on their weaker neigh- bours, by the fact that if they did it would probably bring down on them a stronger ?ower than themselves. Mr. Hughes referred to the financial side of the question and the upkeep of the British navy of the future. I do not suppose [64] 399 that New Zealand is in any better financial position than any other country. We have not been exactly crippled, but we feel the result of the War expenditure, and we are likely to feel it for some time to come. But for all that — I speak on behalf of New Zealand — -I take the responsibility of saying that New Zealand will find its fair share of the money necessary to pro- vide a navy strong enough in comparison with other navies to defend the Pacific in case of attack. I hope it will not be necessary, but it is only right that I should express what I feel, and I feel very strongly after seeing what took place on the last occasion in the Southern Pacific upon the outbreak of war. We have an idea of the possibilities that the future may bring forth, and while I have a great deal of respect for the opinion of General Smuts, I do think it would be unwise to leave the countries of the Empire — ^which means the Empire itself — absolutely unprotected. So far as America is concerned, I hope that we shall be able to join with America in that friendly co-operation which you. Sir, referred to in your ad- dress yesterday. I would go the length of saying that so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to join in any well thought out alliance with America. Personally, I do not think that is possible, but whatever happens I hope the time will come when America and Britain will join together, if for no other purpose and with no other object than that c£ keeping the peace of the world and preventing war. General Smuts expressed the opinion that we should do without alliances. I am sorry, but I am not able to join in that opinion. So far as our Treaties are concerned we must stand by them even if for the time being they do not seem to be to our advantage. With regard to the Treaty which was signed two years ago at Versailles, and which provided that we — I am speaking of the Empire now — should come to the assistance of France in case of necessity — I do not know whether legally that Treaty stands. I doubt it, because America has with- drawn from the position which she then took up. But so far as we are concerned I have no doubt about our moral obliga- tion. Our reputation for fair and honest dealing is one of our [65] 400 best assets and must be maintained at all costs. Then wie must ask ourselves this question: We have got through the worst war the world has ever witnessed — I hope the world will never see another like it — but if Britain had been compelled to stand alone in that War, the question that must occur to each and everyone of us would be “Could Britain have been successful?” I doubt it. With all the confidence that I have in the might and power of Britain and the patriotism of her people — and their patriotism was proved by the fact that one million Brit- ish citizens — the flower of the Empire — gave their lives to save the Empire — I doubt if by ourselves we could have stood up against the Powers of Central Europe and have come out successfully during that War. With regard to the Anglo- Japanese Treaty, this is probably one of the most important things we have to deal with. I declined even to my own Parliament to discuss details of many matters which I felt confident would be brought up before this Conference comes to an end. I took my Pailia- ment into my fullest confidence so far as the proposed Japan- ese Treaty was concerned, and I told them that in my opinion, with whatever modifications may be necessary, I was quite prepared to support its renewal. It is only right to admit that, in saying that, I am guided to a certain extent by what took place during the War period. There was one period of the War, very soon after the War broke out, when New Zealand had 10,000 men ready to send to the front, and the ships and equipment ready to send them, and information reached us from an official source — that the Pacific was not safe. I had an instinct that it was not safe, but that information decided me, so far as it was possible for a Prime Minister to decide, and I appealed, perhaps in strong terms and by strong methods which I thought justified at the time, to the British Govern- ment to send us protection for these 10,000 men before they were sent out into the Pacific, knowing that there was a strong German squadron in those waters. The strength of that squadron was proved by what happened afterwards, when they met two. quite good British ships — I will not say battle- 166] 401 ships or even big battle-cruisers, but they met two strong British warships — and sank them with a loss of i,6oo men. The ships were the “Good Hope” and, I think, the “Mon- mouth.” Mr. Churchill; Yes, that is right. Mr. Massey; They were there and it was quite impossible to find out when our transport was ready to sail, where the German squadron was located. I felt that I could not take the responsibility of sending these men off without protection. However, the British Government — I think Mr. Churchill was the head of the Admiralty at that time — acceded to our request, and arrangements were made with Japan to send out a strong battle-cruiser, not a battleship, with 12-inch guns, and a powerful British cruiser, the name of which I have for- gotten but which had been the flagship of the China squadron. Mr. Churchill; It was the “Minotaur.” Mr. Massey; When those two ships came we were perfectly safe. I think our anxiety was justified by the fact— and there are very few men to-day who will not recollect it — that that was the trip upon which the “Sydney” sank the “Emden.” By that time, by the way, the Australian ships had joined ours, and in the Indian Ocean there were about twenty-eight ships or more carrying troops totalling probably 28,000 men. I will say that we were justified in New Zealand in our anxiety for the safety of those men. My support of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty does not in the very slightest affect the fact that in New Zealand we stand by our right to choose our future fellow-citizens, and it is only fair to say that our legislation on the subject has never been found fault with by either the Japanese or any other race. Personally I do not think there will be another war during this generation. It is only right to say so, but wars have come up very unexpectedly and it is not well to leave the necessary preparations until the last moment. I trust that so far as naval defence is concerned, and it is on naval defence that the safety of the Empire of the future rests, we shall not be found unprepared. There is just another point arising out of the proposed re- [67] 402 newal of the Japanese Treaty and it is this. Supposing Japan had been on the other side? I do not mean to say that is possible, because there was the Treaty, but the Treaty as it is to-day did not compel Japan to come into the War in the circumstances in connexion with which the War was fought. But supposing Japan had been on the enemy side, one result would have been quite certain, that neither Aus- tralia nor New Zealand would have been able to send troops to the front, neither could we have sent food or equipment — equipment for the soldiers and sailors or food for the civil population of Britain. It would not have been possible. These things have all to be remembered in connection with the renewal of the Treaty. I am prepared to take the American view into consideration. I do not want to leave any wrong impression on that point. I am quite prepared, as I said, to join with America to prevent war, but I must put the posi- tion as it occurs to me and as my experience dictates, and I do not think any apology is necessary for my doing so. There are several points referred to in the address by the Prime Minister which must come up again before the Con- ference comes to an end, and I was very glad to hear what was said about reparation. Apparently I missed the report of the negotiations: in all probability the negotiations took place between the time I left New Zealand and before I arrived here. Mr. Lloyd George: That is so, I think. Mr. Massey: I should be very glad indeed to hear a state- ment made — not merely on my own account, for I know it will be of interest to everyone present — ^of what the exact position is so far as reparation is concerned. Lord Curzon: If we circulate the short statement upon that question it might save trouble. Mr. Massey: Thank you, that will be good enough for me. Lord Curzon: I will certainly let you have it. Mr. Massey: I want briefly to refer to some matters which I think should be dealt with. The League of Nations has already been referred to. I do not know what the future of [68] 403 the League of Nations is going to be or what effect it will have in preventing war. I should like to think it would do all that it was intended to do by its promoters, but we know, most of us, in past history that attempts to prevent war have failed. The Holy Alliance, arising out of the Congress of Vienna, was just one, and had a similar intention to the League of Nations. I do not want to say the League of Nations is beyond hope, because I know better, but the Holy Alliance did fail. I do not want to find fault with the League of Nations — but until we change human nature I am afraid it will be impossible to prevent war, much as we should like to do it. Then there is the Imperial Shipping Committee set up in pursuance of a resolution passed at a previous Imperial Con- ference. I refer to what is termed the Imperial Shipping Committee, but I understand it is only a temporary arrange- ment. In the first place, I thought it was to be a permanent organization, but so far it is only temporary. I do not know when its term of office comes to an end, but I do want to emphasize that the matter of communication between differ- ent parts of the Empire is probably one of the most vital things that this Conference could deal with. It is the old story of the highways. If we do not have good highways be- tween different parts of the Empire, then we shall find our- selves in very serious trouble, and there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction at present with the manner in which shipping matters between different countries of the Empire are being dealt with or arranged. I do not want to make difficulties, but I think the position should be faced and some better arrangements made. I want to say a few words about the holding of future Conferences. One of the difficulties is, as Mr. Hughes and myself well know, that it is a long journey from Australia and New Zealand to the heart of the Empire, making it almost impossible to attend these gatherings yearly, and I think these Conferences should be held yearly, but if anything is going to be done in that way, we can look for- ward to improvements in wireless and improvements in the cable system, yet anything that we do at present must be [69] 404 based upon steamships and railways. Something ought to be done, and while I do not want to commit the country to it, it may resolve itself into a question of subsidies so that we may get our mails carried, and passengers carried, and our products carried from one country to the other at the lowest possible rates consistent with fair profits, and so far as mails and passengers are concerned, in a very much shorter time than it is taking at present. There is just one word I want to say regarding another sub- ject, and I am only going to refer to it by way of emphasizing the necessity of something being done. I mean the difficulty in the New Hebrides, where there is a dual form of Govern- ment. I am sure most of the members of the Conference understand the position in the New Hebrides and the condi- tions under which the people are governed at present. The present system is absolutely unworkable, and getting into a worse condition all the time. I do not know what to suggest — except that it might be possible to arrange an exchange of territory so as to provide one Government for these islands; that ought to be a matter to be put before the French Govern- ment. There is no question about the fertility of the islands. There is quite a large area, and a large native population rapidly diminishing in number. In conclusion, I would like to say a word on behalf of the Dominions. I have the utmost affection for the heart of the Empire. It is the Mecca of every British citizen; but I do think that, in the interests of both the statesmen of the United Kingdom and the people of the Dominions, that meetings should be held periodically in the overseas countries of the Empire. If my suggestion is given effect to, it would give the Prime Minister and Mr. Churchill — not both perhaps to- gether — an opportunity of visiting the Dominions. You can- not govern the Empire from the windows of Downing Street. I do hope the opportunity will be taken by statesmen at present in the United Kingdom to visit the overseas countries of the Empire, and they will then understand the views of these countries and the aspirations of their peoples. I do not [70] 405 think that there is anything else I want to say at this juncture. I had no idea that I should take up so much time. I should just like to say this. The people in New Zealand never be- fore seemed to appreciate to the same extent the importance of the Imperial Conference until this occasion. They were perhaps never so enthusiastic on any previous occasions. There was practically no opposition to my coming to London, and the one point that was impressed upon me in Parliament and at the public meetings which I attended a few days prior to leaving the Dominion — the one point that was impressed upon me — was to stand for unity of Empire, and if I stood by that they would forgive all my shortcomings in other direc- tions. I have nothing more to 'say. Prime Minister, and again I thank the members of this Conference for listening to me so attentively as they have done. OPENING SPEECH BY THE HONOURABLE SRINIVASA SASTRI jC The Honourable Srinivasa Sastri: In the meni. ble speech to which we listened yesterday, you made a strik ng allusion to the generous enthusiasms and noble ideals for humanity which the War has kindled everywhere. India, let me assure you, is actuated by these enthusiasms and ideals in the same measure as other parts of this Empire. That the British Empire is the most fitting exponent of these enthusi- asms and ideals we realize, and it is the peculiar good fortune of India to remain within the British Empire and take part in the work that we need ever increasingly for the realization of these noble aims and purposes. The Princes for whom my friend, His Highness the Maharao of Cutch, will speak, and the peoples of India whom it is my privilege to represent here to-day, send their hearty allegiance to the Central Council of Empire on this occasion. We made our contributions to the conduct of the recent War; we sent you supplies of wheat, making dangerous inroads on the scanty stocks of our own people. We made munitions for the soldiers to use on the field of battle, we made money contri- [ 71 ] 4o6 butions out of our poverty, and we sent you men to the tune of 1,274,000, which comes up to over one-half of the total overseas forces employed in the War. Of these contributions. Prime Minister, you made hand- some acknowledgment yesterday, and please accept our gratitude for the honourable mention of that fact in your speech. We, His Highness the Maharao of Cutch and I, con- sider it a privilege to sit at this table where history is made, and if I may strike a somewhat personal note, not being em- ployed in the service of the Government, never having taken a share in the administration of public affairs, I consider it my particular good fortune to sit alongside with statesmen who have for generations moulded the destinies and fashioned the fortunes of their kind; but the Maharao of Cutch and I cannot fail to remember that the position we occupy here is not comparable by any means to the position occupied by our colleagues from the Dominions. They are called here by virtue of their being Prime Ministers. We come by nomina- tion from our Government. We realize that that marks a great difference in our status, although not in the privileges to which we have been admitted at these meetings. We hope that next year, or the year after, our successors, who will take our places here, will come by a better right. The person who represents in the place of His Highness more than one- third of British territory in India will probably be chosen by the Chamber of Princes by election, and the man who takes my place may likewise be elected by the Central Legis- lature of the land. We have not yet acquired full Dominion status, but we realize we are planted firmly on the road to the acquisition of that status. The Government of India Act of 1919 forms a great land- mark in the growth of Indian constitution. There is nothing in our previous history with which it can be compared, either in importance or in magnitude. The Princes’ Chamber, which is going to play a great part in the evolution of India, does not form an integral part within the law of our constitution. The constitution proper of British India, inaugurated by His [72] 407 Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, not long ago, has shown a sense of responsibility and loyalty to the Empire, which, in my judgment, is second to none of the Parliaments within the Empire. The new Councils have worked better than we expected under the wise and sleepless watch of the Secretary of State for India. The reforms of a political char- acter that have just been started in India are doing great work in placing us alongside the other parts of the British Empire. I must say that we have our troubles. Non-co-operation has only to be mentioned to bring to your mind an idea of the perils in which we have to live. I am happy to say that Lord Reading, our new Viceroy, may be trusted fully, as recent experience has proved, to deal with this great danger. There are many subjects to which the Dominion Prime Ministers have alluded, to which also, perhaps, I may be expected, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to say a few words, but I will forbear. There are two topics of high domestic importance to which, perhaps, this meeting will permit me to allude, as they will not take up much time. The first question to which I will draw your attention is one in which the deepest feelings of my Mohammedan fellow- countrymen are engaged. I will not say much on that topic, as all the issues are at present in full vividness in your minds. On the Maharao of Cutch and myself, who are Hindoos, there rests a very peculiar duty of voicing the feelings of our Moslem fellow-subjects on this occasion. I will only venture on this remark — that in any arrangements that may be made for the future of the Turkish Empire, statesmen of the United Kingdom will have to remember that they must show as much chivalry and tenderness as may be expected from a mighty victor. I have no manner of doubt in my own mind that you will be actuated by these considerations, which are always present to those who have inherited the great tradi- tions of British prowess and the still greater traditions of British sportsmanship. There is another subject of great importance which I must mention — that is the status enjoyed by Indians in the Domin- [73] 4o8 ions of the British Empire. In noble words you described this Empire, Sir, as a Confederation of Races into which willing and free peoples had been admitted — willing and free peoples; consent is incongruous with inequality of races, and freedom necessarily implies admission of all people to the rights of citizenship without reservation. In impressive and far-seeing words the Prime Minister of South Africa alluded to the establishment of everlasting peace. Peace means a stable and unalterable relationship between communities — based on honourable equality and recognition of equality of status. To embody this ideal, there are deductions from it now in actual practice; we are going to submit, I mean our Indian Delegation, for the consideration of this Cabinet, a resolution, the terms of which I understand have already been com- municated to you. This is a resolution that will be regarded in India as the test by which the whole position must be judged. I won’t say more than that. It is of supreme impor- tance that that subject should be considered and disposed of satisfactorily at this meeting, and it is of the most urgent and pressing importance that we should be enabled to carry back a message of hope and of good cheer. There is no con- viction more strongly in our minds than this, that a full en- joyment of citizenship within the British Empire applies, not only to the United Kingdom, but to every self-governing Dominion within its compass. We have already. Sir, as you are aware, agreed to a subtraction from the integrity of the rights of the compromise of 1918 to which my predecessor. Lord Sinha, was a party, that each Dominion and each self- governing part of the Empire should be free to regulate the composition of its population by suitable immigration laws. On that compromise there is no intention whatever to go back, but we plead on behalf of those who are already fully domiciled in the various self-governing Dominions according to the laws under which those Dominions are governed — to these people there is no reason whatever to deny the full rights of citizenship, it is for them that we plead; where they are lawfully settled, they must be admitted into the general body [74] 409 of citizenship and no deduction must be made from the rights that other British subjects enjoy. It is my unfortunate part to have drawn prominent attention to what we consider a great defect in the present arrangements. It may seem to be of comparatively trifling importance to the other issues we have to consider. I only plead that there should be no occa- sion for small bickerings, no occasion for mutual recrimina- tions amongst us. We have great tasks. Let little things be got out of the way. I only wish that all our common energies should be bent towards realizing more and more within the Empire and extending further and further outside the British Empire, those generous ideals of progress to which. Sir, you gave such inspiring and, if I may say so, such alluring expres- sion yesterday. STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL ON THE COLONIES ETC. Mr. Churchill: The Prime Minister has asked me to give a brief statement to the Conference, or meeting, however we are to define it, about the Colonies and possessions which are administered directly under the Colonial Office, and I need hardly say that if I were to attempt to give you a picture of the condition of these States I should occupy an enormous amount of time, because each one is a story in itself full of interest and full of romance. In every one of these Colonies there are problems similar to those in larger States, though on a smaller scale. In some cases, indeed, they are more com- plex than those which are found in great States, because in many of them there are great differences of race. Their finances are also complicated. Some are so exiguous that the sale of postage stamps to those who take an interest in philately is an important feature in their revenue. The pro- duction of turtles is in one case almost the staple source of export and of revenue. Others are great, wealthy, prosperous Protectorates, exporting forty million or fifty million pounds’ worth of goods to this country, and supplying Great Britain, and to a certain extent the Empire, with the raw materials of some of their essential and vital industries. [75] 410 As long as the War lasted, practically all the Colonies and Dependencies were very prosperous, but with the arrival of the happy conditions of peace a wave of depression has fallen upon almost every one of them so far as their trade is con- cerned. During the War we got our tin from Malaya, plum- bago from Ceylon, wolfram from Hong Kong, mahogany for frames of aeroplanes from Honduras, fine cotton for their wings from the West Indian Islands. The sugar producing Colonies were prosperous beyond their dreams. The oils and fats of West Africa, which used largely to go to Germany, were useful to us, and their loss was crippling to the Germans. The Falkland Islands industry of whaling was stimulated for War purposes, and they benefited thereby. Moreover, during the War, when human passions were at such a volcanic pitch, we were happily spared the cataclysms of nature. The hurri- canes, earthquakes, droughts, which from time to time ruin the economic margin on which some of the Colonies exist, were happily absent, and it almost looked as if Nature were holding her hand to leave the field entirely free for the devastating activities of man. But the creeping paralysis of depression has spread to almost all the Colonial industries which flourished during the War. The tin on which Malaya depends so much cannot now obtain a price which covers the cost of production. Nigerian tin is in the same position. The price of rubber does not cover the cost of production. We have been approached with pressure to enforce schemes of a compulsory limitation of output, but we have not felt able to accept such schemes. From almost every one of the Colonies complaints are coming in that its principal products cannot now be sold at a profit. Even the sugar Colonies, principally Jamaica and British Guiana, are in difficulty about the disposal of their crop. The cotton crops of Uganda and Nyasaland have suffered very heavily from the fall in prices and the same w’ould have been true of West Africa but for the broad-minded action of the British Cotton Growing Association, which, rather than discourage the native producer by a sudden overthrow in the price at which [76] he has been led to hope to produce, have been purchasing cotton at a price which involves a loss to that Association of £400,000 or £500,000 in the present year. We are told that this period of depression is only a temporary phase. I do not know how far that is true. The decline in the consuming power of the world, which is making its effect felt on the highly organized industries of Britain and, I have no doubt, of the Dominions, is by repercussion producing a similar result upon the raw materials which are produced by our tropical dependencies, and practically every one of the budgets of these Colonies and Protectorates is going through a period of extreme financial difficulty and even crisis. The violent fluctuations in the value of money and the changes which affect the greatest States, operate with far more direct and unshielded force upon those smaller organizations, and there- fore as far as the immediate situation of the present is con- cerned, we are passing through a stormy period in the eco- nomic and commercial life of practically all the Colonies. But if one leaves the immediate difficulties and turns to their great and undoubted wealth and potential capabilities, one cannot help feeling how magnificent is the asset which the British Empire possesses, and of which, pending the develop- ment of more responsible and representative forms of gov- ernment in these Colonies, we in Great Britain and at the Colonial Office are the trustees. My submission to the Conference is that we must not lose heart in any way about these splendid tropical possessions which we have, but endeavour to secure credit and money for them to give them that essential technical apparatus they require to develop their great resources. In them you find every conceivable product that the world knows of, and every contributing factor even to the most highly organized super- fine forms of industry. Nothing is lacking, and now that we see the American exchange is largely turned against us, and we have such great payments to make to them, we ought really more and more to turn our attention to trying to develop these wonderful hot-houses, these great tropical gardens and [77] 412 plantations, so as to be able to purchase as far as possible the raw products that we want from them. How can any money invested in these places go out from the Dominions, or from the mother country? It can only go out in the shape of the products of labour. How can it return — in capital or interest or in profit? It can only come back in these raw materials which we especially and particularly need, and which may some day make us independent in the most remarkable way of many foreign lands. I feel that this is a matter which, although it is confined to the Colonial Office and to this country at the present time, should more and more engage the sympathies and interest of the self-governing Dominions. I illustrate this particularly by the West Indies. In the summer of 1920 a trade agreement was made between the Canadian Government and repre- sentatives of all the West Indian Colonies. It is not merely a remarkable instance of Imperial preference, but it promotes unity with the Empire through the development of Imperial communications, which the Prime Minister will remember he and I have always considered one of the most promising lines along which we can advance, ever since the Conference which he. Sir Thomas Smartt, and I attended in the year 1907. Two lines of steamers, one entirely new, will now connect all the West Indian Colonies with the Dominion of Canada. I hope Mr. Meighen and the Canadian Government will advance with increasing confidence on this path, because it seems to me that, for all the greatness of Canada and its tremendous producing potentialities, it is not a complete entity without connexion with these semi-tropical islands. Compared to the United States, Canada lies wholly to the north with northern products, whereas the United States can produce all that Canada can produce, or very nearly all, and yet reaches down to Florida and regions which give her a semi-tropical sphere. But if the association between Canada and the West Indian Islands is developed and goes on, Canada becomes equipped with an immense range of products which makes her, from an economic point of view, a far more com- [78] 413 plete entity, and therefore I look forward to everything which tends to promote a close association between these West Indian Islands and the Dominion. It is not only from the point of view of commerce alone, but they are among the most beautiful islands in the world. They are salubrious and balmy, and it might be they would be a place of agreeable resort at seasons of the year when the climate of Canada is sometimes rigorous. Mr. Meighen: Bermuda is the chief one from that point of view, and Bermuda has declined to ratify the reciprocity agreement. Mr. Churchill: We shall'endeavour to use our influence as far as possible to secure the general acceptance of it. So far as the constitutional developments in the Colonies are concerned, progress has been continuous, and latterly, espe- cially since the War, very rapid. We have every form of gov- ernment, ranging from benevolent autocracies tempered by Downing Street, to two-Chamber systems, resting upon at least one of the Chambers being fully elected. For instance, the island of Bermuda celebrated its tercentenary of repre- sentative institutions dating from the day when the first general assembly of the islands was made, and therefore can boast a seniority which no existing State in Europe or America can disdain. In Mauritius there was a movement to promote an agitation for a retrocession of the island to France, but this movement has received a decisive check at the recent elec- tions, in which all the retrocessionist candidates have been signally defeated. There has been a strong movement in Ceylon for a more popular control over the government of the Colony, following upon the movement which Mr. Montagu and his predecessors have driven forward, fostered, and nourished in India, and a new constitution has been granted which gives a majority in the Legislature to the unofficial element. In the Kenya Colony a new constitution has been granted giving an elective basis for the unofficial members of the Council, instead of the nominated basis which existed hitherto. Uganda has reached such a stage of development [79] 414 that they have a Legislative Council with nominated member- ship. In Malta a novel experiment has been tried by my prede- cessor, and we hope it will succeed. Everybody knows the argument against giving Malta a Constitution. It was said you might as well give a Constitution to a battleship. We have arrived at a dyarchical system — two Governments in the island, one elective, dealing with Maltese affairs, and the other dealing with purely military and naval interests. General Smuts will no doubt wish to discuss, and Sir Thomas Smartt also, the conditions which prevail in Rhodesia. I hope that a delegation of Rhodesians will arrive in this country before General Smuts has to leave. I have telegraphed about this. Of course, Rhodesia is a young organization to be trusted with full responsible government. Its population is smaller than Natal, when she obtained responsible gov- ernment. On the other hand, the settlers are discontented with the present state of affairs. The Chartered Company is passing away, and it therefore has little incentive to spend money on the development of the country. I should like to say, if I may, that the work of this Chartered Company has been a very wonderful work for the British Empire. The shareholders have never received a penny in dividends, and they may never be able to secure more than a portion of their capital. A splendid region has been acquired and developed to a large extent, and it has all been done entirely by the voluntary effort of private capital. I hope, whatever arrange- ments are made, we shall not be animated by any spirit of prejudice towards this Company, who, I think, has rendered enormous service to the British Empire. As an alternative to responsible government, there is the question of the incor- poration of Rhodesia in the Union. There can only be one destination for Rhodesia ultimately, and the only question we have to consider — I will not say the only question, but the main question — is, what is the psychological moment. One wants Rhodesia to be at man’s estate before she joins the Union, and to join it willingly and as a partner. After all, Rhodesia is an enormous factor in the whole South African [8o] 415 situation. We must remember that they are very much in- clined to resent anything like an attempt to dispose of their destiny over their heads. The native question is, of course, a very serious one there, and I think I was quite right to try and get these Rhodesian delegates here at the time when General Smuts and Sir Thomas Smartt are here, in order to discuss the whole position with the Colonial Office. Also, we do not want to have any appearance of dictation. I trust that the conversations we shall have when they are here will result in some arrangement that is satisfactory. We have gone on slowly developing Imperial communica- tions. Of course, we have got very little money. The great expense of Palestine and Mesopotamia has thrown such bur- dens upon our backs that everything in regard to the Colonies has been very severely pruned. Still, we are developing. In East Africa, I am hoping at last to make the deep water pier at Kilindini. When I left the Colonial Office in the be- ginning of 1908, I had already succeeded in getting it settled to make this deep-water pier. It was definitely settled. The Uganda Railway, built at enormous expense by the Imperial Government, stops forty feet short of deep water. With such a pier you would be able to unload from the ocean steamers on to the railway which runs up hundreds of miles to the great lakes, but these forty feet intervene, and everything has now to be unloaded from the steamers into lighters and from the lighters on to the railway. All articles are subject to a charge in which local vested interests are deeply concerned. I came back to the Colonial Office after thirteen years’ absence, and I found still the same forty feet intervening. The same lighterage interests are deriving their profits, and the whole of the great transport of the War supplies was handled in this inefficient and wasteful manner. However, we hope now to take that up and give the Uganda Railway what it requires — its deep-water connexion. A new line, a feeder line, we hope to develop to the railway from the Uasin Gishu Plateau, which will tap the rich district now being opened up by the I 81] 4I6 soldier settlers, and will form the first link to the Congo Basin. A new line from Nyasaland to Chindio on the Zambesi has been constructed. An extension of the existing system to Lake Nyasa is now being considered, and in East Africa gen- erally we are trying not only railways, but all forms of light transport, including road railways. I am not at all sure that the tank has not a part to play in some of these countries. I do not mean the war tank, but a caterpillar vehicle capable of collecting the produce from the scattered estates and bringing it to the railways. The Northern Nigerian Railway which we carried through many years ago at the Colonial Office is now a very paying, prosperous proposition, and it is joined up with the Southern Nigerian Railway crossing the Niger by a fine bridge at Jebba. It reaches right up to Kano, with a branch to Bauchi. The bridge across the Benue River will contain a span 800 feet in length, and will be the third longest span in the British Empire. The whole of Nigeria is self-supporting. It is mov- ing rapidly ahead. The natives are very prosperous. We have difficulty in getting them to come forward as soldiers, although the force maintained is a very small one, on account of the big wages to be obtained. The cost of export to Lan- cashire of cotton would be very much less if it were not that the local purchaser was attracted by the idea of being able to wear clothes in increasing abundance. There is no doubt that the two Nigerias will absolutely vindicate the exertions made on their behalf by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. They constitute one of the most solid and valuable possessions of the British Crown, and will repay handsomely any further support by British credit which they may need. The extension of the Nigerian Eastern Railway, which at present consists of a line of 150 miles, is being taken in hand, and when com- plete the whole Eastern system will have 600 miles of line and will serve the rich tin mines. There are both coal and tin mines, and these are all capable of being worked, not by shafts, but by galleries. Mr. Lloyd George: Is the coal rich? [82] 417 Mr. Winston Churchill: Not compared to the best fields of England, but quite enough to run the whole of Nigeria. Mr. Lloyd George: I mean the quality. Mr. Winston Churchill: The quality is fairly good, quite good enough. At the terminus of the Eastern Railway on the Nigerian coast an important wharfage scheme has been planned. We are spending on it half-a-million, not of our money, Nigerian money. The most important wharfage scheme is at Lagos, where iL+ millions are being spent on the terminus of the main railway— i, 800 feet of wharves built of concrete blocks, and so on. A deep-water harbour is contem- plated at Secondee on the Gold Coast. Thus we are steadily developing, in spite of the difficulties of the present time, our great tropical possessions. Coming to the other side of the world, a small but necessary extension of the Ceylon Government Railway has been under- taken to open up rice-growing districts and relieve the Colony from her dependence on oversea sources of food supply. Then we come to the Federated Malay States. Their rail- ways were joined up with the Siamese Government Railways on the 1st July, 1918. The Federated Malay States railway system now comprises 950 miles of line, all built out of cur- rent revenue, and loans have been made to Siam by the Federated Malay States on easy terms to enable the con- nexion to be made between the two systems — a through train now runs from Singapore to Bangkok, and a further connexion is being made along the East Coast. The Federated Malay States form a most important feature in our administration. The Conference will remember the gift of the battleship “Malaya” in the year 1912 just in the nick of time for it to be ready. It was the most powerful battleship then constructed. It was one of the five fast and powerful battleships of the “Queen Elizabeth” type, and cost £3,000,000. Had our dreams of a great sea battle materialized there is no doubt that these ships would have played a very decisive part in turning the head of the enemy’s line. In many other ways the Federated Malay States have voluntarily [83] 418 come to our aid. They have given us more assistance than any other part of the Colonial Empire has been able to do. At the present moment they are hard hit on account of the tin and rubber prices prevailing, but I am sure these condi- tions are temporary. The modern world cannot get on without these commodities. Then I mention the name of the great port of Singapore, that is a matter which the Conference will have brought before them on other days when we discuss Pacific strategy generally, but it will certainly bulk increas- ingly largely in all our minds as the years go by. Now, I have only one other topic which I wish to refer to because I do not want to trespass too long on the attention of the Conference. It was raised by Mr. Srinivasa Sastri this morning, the question of the Indian settlers in some of our Colonies, and no doubt that problem also occurs in South Africa to a certain extent. I think there is only one ideal that the British Empire can set before itself in this regard, and that is that there should be no barrier of race, colour, or creed which should prevent any man by merit from reaching any station if he is fitted for it. At any rate I do not feel able to adopt any lesser statement of principle in regard to the Colonies, but such a principle has to be very carefully and gradually applied because intense local feelings are excited, and there is no doubt that extraordinary social stresses arise when populations are intimately mingled in some of these new countries and brought into severe economic competition. The question reaches its most acute form in Kenya. These matters are now being discussed, and I hope to find a means of overcoming difficulties in the application of the broad principles. There is one other point which I should mention, that is the Tanganyika territory which was acquired in the War, It was wrecked in the War; and we had to form an entirely new Administration over the whole place. We have endeavoured to equip it with a Government not inferior to the German Administration which it had replaced, with the result, that in the present year, we shall have a considerable deficit on the [84] 419 Colony’s administration, and I am very sorry to say that of the £1,500,000 which I asked for, the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer was unable to afford to give me more than £914,000, and I am afraid that in a year or two the state of the Tangan- yika Territory will compare unfavourably with its progress and prosperity when it was in the hands of our late opponents. However, we will do the best we can. I think. Prime Minister, although that is not by any means all I could say, because, frankly, I could go on all night talking of these places one by one — I think that gives the members of the Conference a view of that other enormous section of the British Empire^ which, at any rate, ought to be present in our minds for the completeness of the discussion which is now in progress. [Note: The report of the Conference, as published by the British Government, contains a statement by Mr. Balfour on the League of Nations (Appendix II), the report of the Imperial Air Communica- tions Committee (Appendix III), a memorandum on the Intercom- munication and Dissemination of News within the British Empire (Appendix IV), a report of a Conference on State-Aided Empire Settlement (Appendix V), a memorandum on Empire Patent (Appen- dix VI), a memorandum on the Nationality of Children Born Abroad of British Parents (Appendix VII), and the Reply from His Majesty the King to the Address from the Conference (Appendix VIII). Lack of space has made it necessary to omit them in this reprint. — The Editors.] [85] .LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Nos. I-I4S (April, 1907, to August, ipip). Including papers by Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, George Trumbull Ladd, Elihu Root, Barrett Wendell, Charles E. Jefferson, Seth Low, John Bassett Moore, William James, •Andrew Carnegie, Pope Pius X, Heinrich Lammasch, Norman Angell, Charles W. Eliot, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Haldane, Alfred H. Fried, James Bryce, and others; also a series of official documents dealing with the European War, the League of Nations, the Peace Conference, and with several of the political problems resulting from the War. A list of titles and authors will be sent on application. 146. International Labor Conventions and ReSommendations. January, 1920. 147. Some Bolshevist Portraits. February, 1920. 148. Certain Aspects of Bolshevist Movement in Russia. Parti. March, 1920. 149. Certain Aspectsof the Bolshevist MovementinRussia. Partll. April, 1920. 150. German Secret War Documents. May, 1920. 151. Present Day Conditions in Europe, by Henry P. Davison; Message of President Wilson to the Congress on the United States and the Arme- nian Mandate; Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia, June, 1920. 152. Switzerland and the League of Nations: Documents Concerning the Accession of Switzerland to the League of Nations; the United States and the League of Nations; Reservations of the United States Senate of November, 1919, and March, 1920. July, 1920. 153. The Treaty of Peace with Germany in the United States Senate, by George A. Finch. August, 1920. 154. The National Research Council, by Vernon Kellogg; The International Organization of Scientific Research, by George Ellery Hale; The Inter- national Union of Academies and the American Council of Learned Societies, by Waldo G. Leland. September, 1920. 155. Notes Exchanged on the Russian-Polish Situation by the United States, France and Poland. October, 1920. iSfi. Presentation of the Saint-Gaudens Statue of Lincoln to the British People, July 28, 1920. November, 1920. 157. Draft Scheme of Permanent Court of International Justice. December, 1920. 158. The Communist Party in Russia and Its Relation to the Third Inter- national and to the Russian Soviets. Part I. January, 1921. 159. The Communist Party in Russia and Its Relation to the Third Interna- tional and to the Russian Soviets. Part II. February, 1921. 160. Central European Relief, by Herbert Hoover; Relief for Europe, by Herbert Hoover; Intervention on Behalf of the Children in Countries Affected by the War, by the Swiss Delegation to the Assembly of the League of Nations; The Typhus Epidemic in Central Europe, by the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour; Report of the Special Commission on Typhus in Poland, to the Assembly of the League of Nations. March, 1921. 161. Disarmament in its Relation to the Naval Policy and the Naval Build- ing Program of the United States, by Arthur H. Pollen. April. 1921. 162. Addresses on German Reparation by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George and Dr. Walter Simons, London, March 3rd and 7th, 1921. May, 1921. 163. The Fiftieth Anniversary of the French Republic. June, 1921. 164. Convention for the Control of the Trade in Arms and Ammunition, and Protocol, signed at Saint-(jermain-En-Laye, September 10, 1919- July, 1921. 165. Addresses at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, by the Hon. Elihu Root. August, 1921. 166. Constitution of the Permanent Mandates Commission; Terms of the "C” Mandates; Franco-British Convention of December 23, 1920; Corre- spondence between Great Britain and the United States Respecting Economic Rights in the Mandated Territories; The San Remo Oil Agreement. September, 1921. 167. Present Problems of the Cemmonwealth of British Nations; Conference of Prime Ministers and Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India, held in June, July and August. Copies of the above, so far as they can be spared, will be sent to libraries and educational institutions for permanent preservation postpaid upon receipt of a request addressed to the Secretary of the American Association for Inter- national Conciliation. A charge of five cents will be made for copies sent to individuals. Regular subscription rate twenty-five cents for one year, or one dollar for five year.®. [ 86 ] AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION Executive Committee Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, Chairman George Blumenxhal Thomas W. Lamont Gano Dunn Stephen Henry Olin Robert A. Franks James L. Slayden Joseph P. Grace James Speyer Secretary Henry S. Haskell Director of Interamerican Division Peter H. Goldsmith Correspondents Sir William J. Collins, London, England Edoardo Giretti, Bricherasio, Italy Christian L. Lange, Geneva, Switzerland T. Miyaoka, Tokio, Japan Otfried Nippold, Saarlouis, France COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION Lyman Abbott, New York Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, Va. John R. Alpine, Chicago, III. Richard Bartholdt, St. Louis, Mo. George Blumenthal, New York Clifton R. Breckenridge, Eureka Springs, Ark.\nsas William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska T. E. Burton, New York Nicholas Murray Butler, New York Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. Horace E. Deming, New York Gano Dunn, New York Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. Austen G. Fox, New York Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J. John P. Frey, Cincinnati, Ohio Robert G.^rrett, Baltimore, Md. Joseph P. Grace, New York William Green, Indianapolis, Ind. William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. Hamilton Holt, New York David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, Cal. J. H. Kirkland, Nashville, Tenn. Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw, New York Thomas W. Lamont, New York Adolph Lewisohn, New York Clarence H. Mackay, New York Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. Brander Matthews, New York Silas McBee, New York George B. McClellan, Princeton, N. J. Andrew J. Montague, Richmond, Va. Mrs. Philip N. Moore, Washington, D. C. W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, Cal. Stephen H. Olin, New York Mrs. Percy V. Pennybacker, New York Henry S. Pritchett, New York Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. Elihu Root, New York J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. Ch.\rles Hitchcock Sherrill, New York Mrs. Seward A. Simons, Los Angeles, Cal. James L. Slavtien, San Antonio, Texas William M. Sloane, Princeton, N. J. James Speyer, New York Oscar S. Straus, New York Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal. George W. Taylor, Demopolis, Ala. O. H. Tittman, Leesburg, Va. W. H. Tolman, New York Charlemagne Tower, Philadelphia, Pa. Edward Tuck, Paris, France George E. Vincent, New York William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Ore. Mary E. Woolley, South Hadley, Mass.