t

d editim the only reason the Treaty of Versailles failed in the Senate submit vas because it contained the Covenant of the League of arding's Nations. The single cause of the unpopularity of the far as ovenant in the States was, and is, the popular delusion ropre dostered by subtle Republican journalists that it was a nothing Machiavellian British trap to entangle the unsophisticated this fatatesmen of Washington in European affairs for the benefit o look if John Bull and in the hope of saddling the United States the Covith some of our National Debt. Had British Ministers as the left the League severely alone, casting its exclusive responEuropeibility on to President Wilson-without whom it would n peoplever have been heard of in Paris-subsequent difficulties leed not have arisen. The Senate would have ratified the Treaty and some League could have been constructed esponfterwards. From the moment the British Government and confine he British Press espoused the cause of the League, in the sion that the American President and the American declar people were solid for it, "all the fat was in the fire," and has yemained there ever since. We reiterate it was not the freaty that wrecked the League, but the League that y vrecked the Treaty. For this the White House and sident Downing Street are to blame-chiefly the former for misnot representing its mandate at the Peace Conference, partly shhe latter for its blindness to the signs of the times in the Jnited States, including the Congressional Election in 1918, vhich deprived the President of control of both branches of the Legislature.

0.

ad

and

ry

LET

Varning

ET us at least abstain from repeating the stupidity of Prediting the Americans with enthusiasm they obviously don't entertain, and always bear in mind that he From Wilson many Americans are only anxious to ascertain what John Bull wants in order to do the Epposite. Anglo-American relations can therefore never be easy, nor would they be any easier in the incredible event

quer the United States joining a League of Nations including

reat Britain. On the contrary, so far from promoting peace and goodwill, the League would have a contrary effect y providing ceaseless points of friction which the various

66

Anglophobe groups across the Atlantic would be perpetually exploiting. There would not be one Ireland but te Irelands, and Anglo-American affairs would steadily dri from bad to worse until they became wellnigh intolerabl Every "disgruntled " minority in any corner of the Britis Empire, or in any British Protectorate, or wherever we had thoughtlessly assumed a mandate," would not only hav regular organized political backing in Washington, in Berli or elsewhere, supporting any grievance that might b trumped up against this country or against any Dominio Government they would likewise be provided with sympathetic " because anti-British tribunal at Geneva possibly manned by German, Swedish, Spanish, Swis Dutch, Bulgarian, Austrian, Hungarian, Turkish, Bolshevik or other judges, with whom political prejudice would the ruling motive and from whom the British case would have no chance of a fair hearing because there were scores " to be paid off against us. President Wilson, the creator and constructor of the League of Nations, firs opened our eyes to its perilous possibilities when cam paigning on its behalf in the Middle West last year. informed an audience at Indianapolis (September 4, 1919 (September 4, 1919 that Article XI of the Covenant "is the favourite Articl in the Treaty so far as I am concerned," adding, "It say that every matter which is likely to affect the peace of the world is everybody's business, and that it shall be th friendly right of any nation to call attention in the Leagu to anything that is likely to affect the peace of the work or the good understanding between nations upon which th peace of the world depends, whether that matter immed ately concerns the nation drawing attention to it or not.

old

He

THESE are grave words which should give Englishmen pause but those which followed from the lips of the President we yet graver: "In other words, at present w The Busybody's have to mind our own business. Under th Ovenant of the League of Nations we ca mind other people's business, and anything that affects th peace of the world, whether we are parties to it or not, can

Millennium

uld be pa

Ireland

whereve

that

not a

any De

ovided

al at

panish

ish, B

ice

=h case

re wa

味

ur delegates be brought to the attention of mankind. There not an oppressed people in the world which cannot get a ld stearing at the Forum." We all know what that means. Inigh int f that be the spirit in which the League of Nations is er of the Pproached by President Wilson-who is violently deounced as "pro-British " for electioneering purposes, though e is no more "pro-British" than Colonel House-we can magine how the Extremists of American politics would work the League of Nations in conjunction with our Continental enemies. We likewise realize what a good turn as been unwittingly done the British Empire by such men s Mr. William Jennings Bryan, Mr. William Randolph Hearst and others, who detest the League because they magine that Great Britain wants it! The indiscretions of General Smuts and others of its apostles in this country ave at least contributed to destroy the Covenant across he Atlantic by convincing an ignorant and excitable people hat we have set our hearts on something which not only we don't want, but which would be as fatal to the British Empire as the full programme of the Cobden Club. It would be an exaggeration to say that all sensible Englishmen are "agin" the League, because some are in its favour -they committed themselves without thinking, as did not few time-servers who imagined it would sweep the board. But its main inspiration and enthusiasm in this country proceed chiefly from those who look upon it as the best hope of dissolving the British Empire, which is their bugbear, as it was Richard Cobden's. The list of financial supporters of the movement published not long since by the League of Nations Union contained several names calculated to damp down patriotic ardour for propaganda which appeals so strongly to the Internationalist, including the international financier, who has yet to establish his claim to British leadership.

the

Wik

Nation

wher

st re

ber

rite

4

THE British Ambassador in Washington (Sir Auckland Geddes) has achieved the perilous feat of making a speech on Anglo-American relations in the heat of a Presidential election without coming to grief. Upon this he must be

An
Achievement

the

congratulated, though we sincerely hope that it may no encourage him to tempt Providence by making another until the temperature is lower. That it is ex an tremely difficult to talk Anglo-Americas affairs at any time without talking nonsens is self-evident from the painful performances of capable speakers on both sides of the Atlantic. We groan inward whenever we hear of some impending function at th Pilgrims' Club or the English-Speaking Union, where ever form of post-prandial folly is suffered gladly. Some eminen tourist is certain to gush about "blood being thicker tha water" and to proclaim his devotion to an "Angle American Alliance." If he be an American in any official position, he usually has to spend the next fortnight explaining away his "indiscretion." If he be an English man-especially a Minister-he gives umbrage across the Atlantic and provides "a bull point" for the Hearst Press which opens a fresh campaign against "European, especially English, entanglements." As neither the Americans nor the British have the faintest desire for any form of alliance which nowadays would be equally unpopular in each country there is no excuse whatsoever for the gaucheries of the Gushers, who doubtless mean well, but, like other well meaners, not infrequently attain the opposite of their desire. The present United States Ambassador in Londo is a thoroughly acceptable personality wherever he goes and is much in request as a speaker. But if it be per missible to say so, he occasionally errs on the side of enthusiasm in discussing Anglo-American relations, un intentionally giving an erroneous impression of realities There is happily nothing effusive about Sir Auckland Geddes and in the difficult and delicate developments of the near future this fact should stand him in good stead. The Americans cannot feel, as they are apt to do in the case most British officials, that our Ambassador is trying" to ge at them." All he suggests is that both countries should put their cards on the table" and play openly with one another. This is certainly not asking too much of nations between whom friction is so easily generated, at a time when

e

hat it their co-operation on certain questions would be mutually ng anodadvantageous, but for the childish suspicions that are That aroused in Washington whenever any common undertaking Angles mooted. Many Englishmen get on well with many alking Americans, and vice versa, wherever they are thrówn ces of gogether, though some do not. But the White House and groan Downing Street are continually at cross-purposes, and are nction ikely to remain so whether Republican or Democrat be President. Indeed, we can regard the issue of the present 1, wher Some contest with complete indifference, because the relations of thick Great Britain and the United States will remain unaffected. They are what politicians have made them.

an

nan

e an

eaFrance and

Hear England

in, e

cans

of

che

res

othe

in

fort WE may as well resign ourselves to the fact that our relations with U.S.A. can never be easy. They will always be difficult, because the two communities are fundamentally different and their differences are accentuated by the fact of possessing a common language, which misleads them into imagining that they understand one another. Not only has the American politician to represent a highly sensitive and somewhat excitable democracy, ever ready to take offence where none is intended, but he has to cater for rabid Anglophobes whose hatred of England is historical and congenital. We must make the best we can of the Anglo-American problem, without expecting too much from it. Our Government has a peculiarly difficult task in Washington, and we can make liberal allowances when things go wrong. Very different are our relations with France, as the overwhelming majority of French men and Englishmen only ask that their countries should be friends, not because they always get on extraordinarily well in personal contact, but because it has been borne in upon both, by a prolonged and cruel ordeal, that they are interdependent and mutually indispensable. We acutely realized from August 1914 to November 1918 that any blow to France was a blow to England, and that any French disaster would be a domestic disaster, while the French, on their side, were no less conscious that their existence as a Great Power was bound up with

es

thi