Sir Esme Howard's hint was well received in America and
it was a little perplexing and discouraging—at least at first sight—when the Foreign Office followed up his words with an explanation which looked like a repudiation. The Foreign Office statement was to the effect that there had been " no change " in the situation since Sir Austen Chamberlain said on February 6th that the Government were carefully considering the whole naval question. The ;first necessary step was to communicate a proposed policy to the Dominions and to receive and consider their views, and it was unlikely that the Government would be able " to make any further communication for some time." Thus, the Government's " not for some time " must be set against Sir Esme Howard's " before long-- though the General Election may get in the way." On the whole it seems that there is no difference worth troubling about between Sir Esme Howard's friendly prediction and the explanation of the Foreign Office. But in that case why did the Foreign Office trouble to publish its explanation ? • Sir Austen Chamberlain said in the House of Commons on Wednesday that Sir Esme's statement was correct, but that the Foreign Office wished to prevent misunderstanding of it in America. Alto- gether, it seems to us that the explanation is one more example of Sir Austen Chamberlain's highly scrupulous and conscientious but not always well-timed refining.
* * * *
Previous page
