If the reports of the differences within the British cabinet and the Conservative Party are correct, they are very much to be regretted, especially at this time, when the critical position in Europe would seem to make essential unity ôf thought and action in the government of so important a country as Great Britain. The differences appear to have arisen over a question of method rather than ultimate objective, for all politicians are at one in desiring respect for national commitments and treaties, while admitting that there is no reason why a document 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 difference is important. If treaties and pledges are to be nothing more than pieces of paper to be torn up when convenient, then a decisive blow Ihas been dealt at all international understanding. For who will be bound by a document which can be repudiated at any time? Yet recent events have proved that the tendency to destroy treaties has found) favour in Europe over the old-fashioned method of bringing them to the conference table and there seeking their revision, 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 agreements. This point is emphasized by the younger Conservatives. But at the same time there is 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 wrong one?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.