Imperialism, New Style

Before the 100th anniversary meeting of Toronto's Board of Trade, lanky Lord Halifax touched off a political explosion that rocked all Canada.

Britain's Ambassador to Washington proposed a revolutionary change in the British Commonwealth of Nations: that the Dominions assume equal responsibility with Great Britain in the making of a common foreign policy.

Said he: "Not Great Britain only, but the British Commonwealth and Empire, must be the fourth power in that group upon which . . . the peace of the world will henceforth depend."

As South Africa's Jan Christiaan Smuts had been before him (TIME, Dec. 13), Halifax was concerned lest Britain be dwarfed by Russia and the U.S. in the postwar world.

Words Without Warning. Halifax's audience liked it. Ontario's Premier George Drew, an imperialist of the old school, led Toronto businessmen to their feet, applauding. Said he: "A great speech that may well change the thinking of our people."

But what happened in Toronto aroused no echo in Ottawa. There Lord Halifax's words broke without warning on the East Block, where Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and his experts on External Affairs frame Canadian policies.

They had seen the speech before Lord Halifax delivered it only because a friendly newspaperman brought it over for comment. And on that first copy they could not fail to note that Lord Halifax's single mention of Canada's first minister was a blunt "Mr. Mackenzie King."

To the East Block the speech looked like a kite deliberately flown to test the political winds in Canada before the meeting of the Commonwealth's Prime Ministers in London scheduled soon, when Empire policies will finally be threshed out. The provocation for direct reply was great: some of the Prime Minister's supporters talked angrily of an "imperialist ramp" (i.e., "Swindle").

The First Answer. The French Canadian press, in bitter nationalist editorials, al most unanimously rejected the Halifax plan as a step back to colonialism.

Socialist C.C.F. Leader Major James Coldwell emphatically agreed. Said he: "The genius of the British Commonwealth is its recognition of basic unity in diversity. Lord Halifax proposes that we abandon this historic principle. Such rigidity would destroy the Commonwealth. . . ."

Returning members of Parliament buzzed with speculation: Had Lord Halifax inadvertently given Mr. King the issue he needs to reunite suspicious, isolationist Quebec behind his Liberal Party?

For a United Front. On Monday, when Parliament got down to business, moderate Opposition Leader Gordon Craydon of the Progressive-Conservative Party tried to water the briskly blazing political fires. His equivocal view: "Common sense indicates that every effort must be made to secure a united front in a united Canada in a greater and more powerful British Commonwealth. . . ."

Polite but Firm. Well-meaning Mr. Craydon's pussyfooting words were wasted. When the Prime Minister rose to give the definitive answer for his Government, he was neither hesitant nor embarrassed about roundly rebuking Lord Halifax for an ill-advised speech.

Said Mackenzie King: The British Ambassador did not speak for the British Government.

Behind the speeches of His Lordship and of Smuts before him, said Mr. King, lurks the menace of a future world conflict. The Prime Minister's view of the future: the basis of world security is wider than that of "matching the manpower and resources of dominant powers."

Coldly, firmly, Mr. King polished the matter off: "With what is implied I am unable to agree. . . ."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.