THE UNIONIST PARTY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS [To the
Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sra,—I am not sure that I clearly understand the nature of the charge of disloyalty to the League of Nations made against Conservatives and apparently endorsed by your cor- respondent, Mr. McCallum, in your issue of September 10th. I am a Conservative, a Free Trader, and a Pacifist. In most matters I find myself in agreement with Lord Cecil; I welcome any organization having for its object the promotion of social and commercial intercourse, the voluntary co-operation
of peoples for the prevention of epidemic diseases, the judicial settlement of international disputes, and the preservation of peace between nations.
But my loyalty and my allegiance are due to my own country, not to any foreign organization. I do not consider that Englishmen are under any moral or contractual obliga- tion to sacrifice the interests of England or their conception of right and justice to the resolutions of any assembly of foreign politicians. The League, as I see it, was created as a means of averting war, and I do not believe that England will serve the cause of peace by entering into binding engage- ments to go to war.
There is a wide distinction between a treaty of peace and a treaty of alliance, or a pact to use coercion. In a treaty of peace the parties bind themselves to refrain from acts that are injurious or offensive to one another. In an alliance or pact of Powers, or super-State, an engagement is made to use coercion. Each Power binds itself to use its forces and spend its treasures under conditions that cannot be foreseen . and at a time that cannot be foretold. It engages itself to do something that it may not wish to do, and binds its future action in ignorance of the merits of a hypothetical case.
The Treaty of Mutual Assistance and the Geneva Protocol 'sought to bind the British nation, and there are now pro- posals before the Assembly of the League which seek to do the same thing in another way. Many of us think that the cause of peace will not be served by placing the British Fleet and the British Treasury at the disposal of foreign politicians who represent a different civilization and are gifted with a different mentality. We are entitled to our cpinion, more especially as the conduct of certain Governments towards their neighbours, and towards the minorities within their frontiers, justifies a doubt as to their possession of the wisdom, sense of justice, and moral rectitude necessary for the control of British policy.
The sole authority with power to declare England at war is the British Government that for the time being enjoys the confidence of the British nation ; and the sole authority empowered to disburse British money or pledge British credit is the British Parliament.
We Conservatives know nothing of a double allegiance, and if Liberals and Socialists think we are wrong they are entitled to say so. But they should state the issue fairly and frankly. If they propose to deprive the English Parliament and people of full liberty to control British policy, it is right that the electorate should be so informed.
The question of a double allegiance and of foreign control of English policy is an issue on which the British people have already pronounced judgment, and they have not, so far as I know, changed their opinion since they did so centuries ago.
There is, however, another argument used by those who advocate a united Super-State of Europe. It is alleged that if we pledge ourselves to go to war in order to outlaw war we shall never be required to fulfil our pledge. Most of us are familiar with that argument. There are thousands of men now walking the streets of London who awe their solvency to the fact that they declined to back a bill for a friend, though assured that it was a mere formality and they would never be called on to meet their engagements. Caution in this matter is doubly necessary for us. For it is always possible that one of the States of Latin America may call on the -League to-resist the United States in the measures that may be found necessary for the fulfilment of the obligations implied by the Monroe Doctrine.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
