The tendency for mass meetings to assume competency to deal with foreign policy is discernible in many countries to-day. That does not make the practice any more comfortable. In England fervent demands for the boycott of Japanese goods were made from various public platforms, but they promptly received an appropriate cold douche from the matter-of-fact disclaimers of official spokesmen and, it will be remembered, Sir Geoffrey Clarke, as President of the Federa tion of British Chambers of Commerce, administered a timely rebuke which was particularly authoritative. Sir Stafford Cripps has taken the issue under his wing and embellished his advocacy with some curious elaborations of the disclosures in regard to the heroin traffic in Hopei without condescending to show whether he was aware of some of the elementary facts of the opium traffic in other parts of China, Sir Stafford has lately returned to the front bench of His Majesty's Opposition but even that does not give him much representative status. Indeed it is a reminder of his failure to carve out a special leadership for himself in the abortive Socialist League. Differences of opinion between Great Britain and Japan there must be over the crisis now developed in China, It is better, however, for those differences to be soberly treated by diplomatic and other accepted channels for the conduct of controversy than by partisan orators desiring to display their ascendancy over excited gatherings the members of which have little opportunity for forming a calm judgment on the points at issue. Despite the eminence of at least two of the principals of the mass meeting in the Hibiya Park Hall at Tokyo, the same observations seem to be pertinent in reflection on the demand which the meeting was induced to endorse for expressing antagonism to Anglo-Japanese relationships. The root idea of the resolutions passed singled out Great Britain as the active opponent of Japanese aspirations.—The penalty suggested was, quaintly enough, the rejection of any form of British sympathy or cultural ce-operation.
It were fair perhaps to regard this meeting tas a counterblast to certain ill-considered tirades which have emanated from British platforms in recent weeks. In that sense it is difficult to object. Yet, the picture of the pot calling the kettle black is never very satisfying and in international contacts it is apt to develop awkward and dangerous ebullitions from which both countries might wish to be protected. Japanese statesmen have so consistently demurred to what the describe as anti-Japanese activities that their sympathy may be almost taken for granted, when it is suggested that restraint in controversy with a friendly nation may be fruitfully commended for general observance. It is particularly unfortunate that the Japanese press which is so vigilant in detecting anti-Japanese obsession should be induced to encourage the view that Japan is being confronted by an antagonism solely inspired by Great Britain. Throughout the Sino-Japanese crisis and, especially before it reached its climax, the efforts of British statesmanship have been exerted for the purpose of assisting China and Japan to come to agreement without recourse to a conflict which was recognized as disastrous for both sides and, incidentally, for third parties with important interests in the Far East. This journal itself in making its own humble contribution to that end went far in emphasizing the dangers of permitting sharp differences of outlook to exacerbate relations between the two neighbours. It did not conceal its distaste for certain aspects of Japanese policy, but it endeavoured to put on record the difficulties which Japanese statesmen had encountered in their dealings with China,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.