CONFERENCE OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS., AUGUST, 1925.

1. At the above conference I spoke, August 3rd, on the general subject of the relation of the British Dominions and the Irish Free State to Great Britain and the Imperial Crown with special reference to the Status of the Irish Free State as defined by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December, 1921.

2. Mr. Lionel Curtis preceded me by outlining the History of Ireland up to the time of the Ulster trouble, 1922. From this time to date I dealt with the more important events and with the military, legal and economic achievements of the Government. I had no manuscript for this part of my address, but I enclose a copy of the manuscript which treated of the constitutional status of the Irish Free State.¹

3. This latter formed the text for a general discussion on August 17th on the constitutional status of the nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations in which Sir Robert Borden² and Professor Duncan McArthur (Professor in Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario) were the principal speakers. Cuttings from the press have already been sent to you giving extracts from their speeches.

4. Sir Robert Borden prefaced his speech by stating: 'I am in substantial agreement with Professor Smiddy and differ from him only in the following assertions:'

'(a) The League of Nations and its Membership weaken the ties which unite the nations which form the British Commonwealth.

(b) The unity of the Commonwealth is very largely formal.

(c) Hasty bellicose action on the part of Great Britain is thereby much lessened - as a result of the co-equality of nations forming the British Commonwealth.'

5. I wound up the debate in which I replied to Sir Robert's disagreement on these points. As regards (a): The divergence of views which has already manifested itself in non-essential matters does give rise to a belief in the weakening of the ties which unite the nations forming the British Commonwealth. Keith in his recent work, 'The Constitution, Administration and Laws of the Empire', states, 'The unit of the Empire preserved generally in diplomatic relations is largely lost in the part assigned to it in the League of Nations.' In the main I agreed that in essentials such unity is not likely to be lost as the fourth sentence of the second last paragraph in enclosed copy of my address indicates.

6. As regards (b): Sir Robert stated: 'In all essentials there must be real unity' and 'This unity is not diminished by the right of the Dominions to negotiate treaties regarding "purely domestic affairs".' In my written address I endeavoured to indicate what I consider the nature of this unity and in the subsequent discussion I further developed my idea of its implications. I pointed out that the whole British Constitution rested on the concept of constitutional rights; and while the Imperial Crown and Parliament had always the legal power to act in opposition to such constitutional rights - such as a veto of the Crown - yet it would be revolutionary of either to do so. Such legal power was merely a symbol of unity, and, hence, had only a formal validity: it did not work. In fact, Mr. Lionel Curtis went even further in this direction on the following day, August 18th, when he said 'The Crown is only a registering body and the King was only a hereditary president.'

7. Further, in this connection Sir Robert said there was no innovation in the signing [of] the Halibut Treaty, 1923, by the Canadian Minister without the concurrence of the British Ambassador. I expressed the view there was a real innovation as appeared evident from the correspondence that took place between the Canadian Government and the British Foreign Office. This Treaty is another illustration of the point that the diplomatic unity of the nations forming the British Commonwealth tends to become more formal.

8. With regard to (c), he said he did not anticipate any such hasty bellicose action on the part of Great Britain as I had thought. I replied that it was not very probable but it was possible as exemplified by the Chanak affair when Lloyd George was checked by the protests of Australia and the other Dominions. General Sir Frederick Maurice, who also took part in the debate, made a statement not calculated to raise the prestige of British Diplomacy, viz., 'that Mr. Lloyd George simply endeavoured to bluff the Turks and that he had no intention of fighting.'

9. Sir Robert made the statement that, in order to insure unanimity of action on the part of the nations forming the British Commonwealth on essential matters, their representatives should meet in London beforehand and agree on common action. Mr. Curtis was much perturbed at this statement because it would furnish a strong weapon in the hands of the opponents of the League of Nations in this country, who frequently assert that the British Empire has seven votes to the one the U.S.A. would have in the event of her joining the League, a view which Professor Rappard strongly contested on the following day.

10. In ultimate analysis there was substantial agreement in the views expressed by me, Sir Robert Borden, Professor McArthur and Mr. Lionel Curtis. To illustrate further the evolutionary character of the British Commonwealth and the extent to which it depends on the 'will' of its constituent units, Sir Robert stated 'that Canada could attain the status of an absolutely separate nation tomorrow if her people so desired; but such a desire is wholly wanting.' On this statement the New York Sun, August 21st, in an editorial, comments: The implication ' is that the present status exists not at the pleasure of the British Empire but at that of its constituent States. The question therefore is not what the Imperial Government ought to concede to them but what they will insist upon taking as their right from the Imperial Government.'

11. Sir Robert also emphasized the point that Great Britain herself was only a constituent State co-equal with the other States of the Commonwealth and that she will, in actual practice, have to accept that position.

12. In the discussion that was opened the following day, August 18th, on the League of Nations Mr. Curtis expressed himself fully on his conception of the status of the nations forming the British Commonwealth in which he gave the most liberal interpretation possible to its recent developments and its furthertendencies. He went as far as he could short of admitting that each nation in the Commonwealth was a completely separate political entity. He referred to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as being the first instrument in which is written some of the conventions of the British Constitution, and stated that the logical mind of the Irish demanded this, but that it was entirely contrary to British political tradition and to British temperament. With reference to this point Professor Rappard said such unwritten conventions were very well for a powerful nation like Great Britain which prefers the vague and undefined so that they could give words and conventions a meaning that would suit their own interests. Throughout the conference the attitude of Mr. Curtis was one of strongly marked sympathy with the Irish Free State, and I took the opportunity, at the end of the debate, to pay a tribute to his good work for the Irish Free State during the years 1922-23.

13. With reference to the discussion on the League of Nations, I simply made a reference to the registration of the Treaty and to the statement current at the time that the final settlement of the boundary between the Irish Free State and the counties under the jurisdiction of the Northern Parliament might be taken before the League and that the registration of the Treaty was made in view of this emergency; further, that the principle of submitting disputes among the nations of the British Commonwealth to the League was involved in this issue. Speaking from a personal point of view I took up the attitude similar to that recently adopted by Minister Blythe when he stated that prosperity, tolerance and the prestige of the Irish Free State would in time abolish any boundary that would be set up.

14. The audience at Williamstown was a very representative one and of the type that will diffuse knowledge of these problems throughout the country. Wide publicity was given to the addresses and the discussions by every newspaper in the U.S.A. and Canada.