If the reports of the differences within the [British cabinet and the Conservative Party are correct, they are very much to be regretted, lespeciaily at this time, when the critical position Europe would seem to make essential unity Jof thought and action in the government of 30 important a country as Great Britain. The leifferences appear to have arisen over a question fof method rather than ultimate objective, for ait politicians are at one in desiring respect for national commitments and treaties, while adm ting that there is no reason why a doumer signed should be considered to be binding for all time. The younger party among the Conservatives desire more energetic action to call attention to the importance of international {commitments, whereas the older hands seem to: be reconciled to the expediences and to. be willing to accept the fait accompli. The differ-Jence is important. If treaties and pledges are to be nothing more than pieces of paper to bs torn up when convenient, then a decisive blow has been dealt at all international understanding, For who will be bound by a document which Jean be repudiated at any time? Yet. recent Jevents have proved that the tendency to destroy {weaties has found; favour in Europe over the old-fashioned method of bringing them to the conference table and there seeking their revi: sion. There is, however, the fact to be faced that, in certain circumstances, there may be worse evils—such as war—than treaty violation: It is undeniable that there can be no security while there is no weight to international agree Iments. This point is emphasized by the younger [Conservatives. But at the same time there {the point of view which prefers to search for the grievances behind treaty repudiation and other high-handed actions, and, if -possible, to eliminate those grievances, with the object of restoring international confidence in this manner. And who will say that this point of view is the cran one?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.