¹ Statesman's Year Book, 1921. Cf. Foster, : “Canada and the United States” in North American Review vol. 216, pp. 1–10, (July 1922).Google Scholar

² Proceedings of the Colonial Conference of 1887, p. VIII.

³ Cf. Hall, : British Commonwealth of Nations. London, 1920. Ch. V.Google Scholar

⁴ Proceedings of the Imperial Conference 1911, p. 440.

⁵ Ibid, p. 70.

⁶ For this and other quotations and for many suggestions 1 am greatly indebted to Sir Robert Borden who allowed me to read the manuscript of his lectures. Sir Arthur Willert of the British Foreign Office, Mr. Loring Christie of the department of external affairs, Canada, and Mr. E. L. Piesse of the prime minister's department, Australia, have also helped me greatly. But in many ways this article is based on personal observation and contacts during the past few years and I am responsible for all statements and interpretations.

⁷ From a speech on April 3, 1917, before the Empire Parliamentary Association (published as a separate pamphlet) and also quoted in The War Cabinet Report (1917), pp. 8–9. Cf. Hall; op. cit. and Keith, : War Government in the Dominions, Oxford, 1921.Google Scholar

⁸ Proceedings of the Imperial War Cabinet, p. 61.

⁹ Cf. Conference of Prime Ministers, etc. Summary of Proceedings and Documents (1921); also (London) Times, April 28, 29, May 3, 7, 23, June 18, 19, and July 8, 1921, for useful comment.

¹⁰ Conference of Prime Ministers, etc., pp. 20–21.

¹¹ Marfleet Lectures at University of Toronto.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Thus the fine pioneer work by the group of men associated with the Round Table has at times been repudiated by many in the dominions. Mr. H. D. Hall in his admirable book, The British Commonwealth of Nations, went to the limit of practice and of opinion in 3920 in his claims for dominion participation and influence in British foreign policy. In 1921 at the time of the conference of prime ministers his series of articles published in the Times, under the title Horizons of Empire, crossed that limit. Later in the Melbourne Argus, during the Washington conference, his communications were probably considerably beyond general opinion in Australia. He was more “Australian” than the Australians. In New Zealand particularly opinion is often more “British” than in England. On this whole matter cf. Eggleston, : “The Problem of the British Commonwealth,” in The Nineteenth Century and After. Vol. 91, pp. 741–55 (May 1922)Google Scholar; “A Programme for the British Commonwealth,” in Round Table (March 1922); and Pollard, : “The Dominions and Foreign Policy,” Proceedings of the Institute of International Affairs, London, 1921.Google Scholar

The last report is that Prime Minister King of Canada is hesitating regarding the appointment of a Canadian minister at Washington. His government is none too stable; and he may decide to send only a Canadian commissioner to be a regular member of the British embassy staff. This might conciliate elements in Canada which are opposed to the plan of separate diplomatic representation. On the other hand many leaders of both the Liberal and Conservative parties are strongly in favor of the appointment of a minister. In Australia Mr. Hughes has recently proposed the appointment of an Australian commissioner for Washington. So far this has not met with great favor. The truth seems to be that the dominions, while anxious to maintain the position gained during the war and in connection with the peace negotiations, are still uncertain as to the best method of doing so.