Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small]

side proclamation of Queen Anne. The medals present glorified likenesses of prominent personages, often in connection with striking events, such as the coronation of William and Mary, the battle of Beachy Head, the battle of La Hogue, the conquest of Ireland, and the signing of the Treaty of Ryswick.

One need not expatiate upon the excellence of Macaulay's writing or the pleasure to be derived from it.

I have spent so many joyous hours with his pages that when in reminiscence now I think of these times past they come into my mind with a character all their own. No literary adventures have brought me more of solace or permanent benefit. I think if one had a friend who had not already perused the 'Essays' or the 'History,' one could wish him no better fortune than leisure and the opportunity to do it; and in case the ‘History' were chosen, I can imagine nothing pleasanter than reading from the illustrated edition which I have attempted here to describe.

[ocr errors]

EDWARD RAYMOND TURNER.

University of Michigan.

POPULAR CONTROL OF FOREIGN POLICY: A

REVIEW OF CURRENT LITERATURE*

Since the outbreak of the European War there has been published a vast amount of literature dealing with, and largely arguing for, a more effective parliamentary control of foreign affairs than is furnished by the present arrangement in England, The question, while recently acute and most generally discussed, was to some extent mooted before the beginning of the present hostilities. Bagehot adverted to it in The English Constitution; the year 1886 saw the matter come to a vote in the House of Commons when a private member moved, “That in the opinion of this House it is not just or expedient to embark in war, contract engagements involving grave responsibilities for the nation, and add territories to the Empire without the knowledge and consent of Parliament." Mr. Gladstone's opposition was not unsympathetic, but the motion was lost by four votes. Since 1886 only desultory attention has been given the question. In 1913, during the debate on the Foreign Office Vote, Sir Edward (now Viscount) Grey declared that his policy had been to avoid “making secret treaties which entail serious obligations on this country''; as for legislative ratification of treaty engagements-that was a

* Ten Years of Secret Diplomacy. By E. D. Morel. London: The National Labour Press. 1915. Pp. xxx, 198.

Democracy and Diplomacy. By Arthur Ponsonby, M. P. London: Methuen & Co. 1915. Pp. xiii, 198.

How Diplomats Make War. By Francis Neilson. New York: B. W. Huebsch. 1916. Pp. xviii, 382.

Towards a Lasting Settlement. By C. R. Buxton, Philip Snowden, G. Lowes Dickinson and others. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1916. Pp. 216.

What is Diplomacy? By Charles W. Hayward. London: Grant Richards, Ltd. 1916. Pp. 256.

The War and Democracy. By Alfred Zimmern and others. London: Macmillan & Co. 1915. Pp. xiv, 390.

The European Anarchy. By G. Lowes Dickinson. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1916. Pp. 144.

The Problem of the Commonwealth. By Lionel Curtis. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada. 1916. Pp. xii, 247.

constitutional point which was not germane to the foreign office vote. At the same time such an experienced diplomatist as Sir Thomas Barclay professed the belief that foreign affairs were being conducted in a manner inconsistent with representative institutions and that British policy should be brought into closer harmony with the national feeling and interests. Finally, the matter was discussed in 1914 before the Select Committee on House of Commons Procedure, but no definite recommendations were made. Interesting extracts from this evidence and from the reports on the treatment of international questions by other governments which were made in 1912 by British diplomatic representatives and published as a Parliamentary Paper are given as an appendix to Mr. Ponsonby's volume.

It was fully realized, furthermore, that the problem of Britannic cohesion, of better empire governance, was intimately connected with this agitation for more popular control of foreign policy; in fact, the first report of those interesting groups of men of all political faiths and in all parts of the Dominions which were formed six years ago to study the Imperial Problem—their organ is a quarterly magazine, The Round Table-attempts to answer the question, “how a British citizen in the Dominions can acquire the same control of foreign policy as one domiciled in the British Isles," and has just been published by Mr. Lionel Curtis as The Problem of the Commonwealth. But apart from this agitation which has been almost entirely directed to the larger problem of colonial participation, such acute political thinkers as John Bright, Bagehot, Viscount Bryce, Professor Sidgwick, and others have long realized that a change must come if Demos was not to be excluded from a field of politics which the present war has indisputably shown to be far more important than those in which the consent of the voter is now asked.

For, under the English Constitution at the present time, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs occupies a position different from that of any other Minister. Unlike most of his colleagues, as Mr. Ponsonby points out, maladministration becomes known but rarely, and then only to those who have followed foreign questions with considerable care. The Cabinet, with each of its twenty members burdened with work in his own

department, is unable to act as an advisory council, and thus the Foreign Secretary has come to have "all but unlimited discretion.” Occasionally, to be sure, he does make speeches in the country, but these pronouncements on foreign policy are not frequent. Furthermore, Mr. Ponsonby objects to the “rarefied atmosphere'' in which the Foreign Secretary works. Candidates for the diplomatic service are obliged to have an income of £400 a year. They are necessarily men whose preliminary education has been of such a character, much of it probably undertaken abroad, that they have had neither time nor opportunity to obtain any extensive knowledge of the democratic social and political movements in their country. In the service, they associate only with those in high official society; etiquette and tact have to be stressed, and the result is that diplomacy becomes a highly specialized game and the players come to look upon countries as mere pawns on the chessboard of international politics. Under such circumstances, guiding principles are easily lost sight of.

Moreover, Parliament is both ignorant and powerless, and has apparently been content to see a diminution in the time devoted to the consideration of foreign questions. “The Foreign Office Vote,” says Mr. Ponsonby, “is the one opportunity [there are occasional discussions on motions for adjournment, the Appropriation Bill, and questions asked by members] for a special debate on our foreign relations. But even this is dependent on the request of the Opposition. In recent years a Session has been known to pass without the Foreign Office Vote being taken at all. The small minority-and it is very small —of members on both sides of the House who are especially interested, and who may from their knowledge foresee difficulties and dangers ahead, is practically powerless if it desires to have a debate. In 1914 a day and a half was devoted to the Vote. The first halfday of four and a half hours would probably have been all that would have been allotted had not the Opposition had to choose the subject for another spare day and selected the Foreign Office Vote for no special reason except, perhaps, as it appeared by the attendance of the debate, that many members had to be away on that day.” Yet, even at these infrequent debates, the discussion

on particular points can be checked by the Foreign Secretary's refusal to disclose information as "not in the public interest." Effective control may be exerted because the House of Commons need not vote money unless there is general approval of administration; but this control in actual practice is more apparent than real, since administrative acts in other departments are fairly well known, while the activities of the foreign service are obscured. The supplies must be voted and the character of the administration taken on faith.

Mr. Ponsonby is one of the few writers who are constructive as well as critical; his programme is fully outlined. He would have the Foreign Office Vote discussed annually as a matter of regular procedure and for two days, with a complete statement from the Foreign Secretary; every treaty and commitment-its specific clauses as well as general content-would have to be ratified by Parliament, whose consent would be necessary for a declaration of war; the people would be taken into the confidence of the Foreign Secretary through periodical pronouncements on foreign affairs, especially when Parliament was not sitting. To make easier the exertion of legislative control he suggests the appointment of a Foreign Affairs Committee in the Commons. The same programme, with perhaps greater stress laid upon the committee feature and upon the necessity for recruiting the foreign office service in a more democratic way, is urged by Mr. Philip Snowden (also a member of Parliament) in his paper on Democracy and Publicity in Foreign Affairs," which is a very able statement of the case against secrecy.

Several writers of the works under review are identified with the Union of Democratic Control, an organization formed a few months after the outbreak of the war for the laudable purpose of securing to "ourselves and the generations that succeed us, a new course of policy which will prevent a similar catastrophe tot his present war ever again befalling our Empire.” One of the four cardinal points insisted upon by the programme of the Union is that no treaty or engagement shall be entered into without the consent of Parliament and that machinery shall be created for ensuring democratic control of foreign policy. The Union has been bitterly criticised on account of pro-German leanings, the

« PreviousContinue »