Page:Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1919).djvu/93

 a member of the War Cabinet (see p. 283)—spoke of the need for 'a common policy in common matters for the Empire. …' Further, 'they could not settle a common foreign policy for the whole of the British Empire without changing that policy very much from what it had been in the past, because the policy would have to be, for one thing, far simpler. In the other parts of the Empire they did not understand diplomatic finesse. If our foreign policy was going to rest not only on the basis of our Cabinet here, but, finally, on the whole of the British Empire, it would have to be a simpler policy, a more intelligible policy, and a policy which would in the end lead to less friction and greater security. No one would dispute the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. They would always look upon the British Government as the senior partner in the concern. But the Imperial policy would always be subject to the principles laid down from time to time at the meetings of the Imperial Conference. Such a policy would, he thought, in the long run be saner and safer for the Empire as a whole. He also thought it would lead to greater publicity. After the great catastrophe which had overtaken Europe, nations in future would want to know more about that foreign policy. He was sure that the after effects of a change like this, although it looked a simple change, were going to be very important, not only for the Commonwealth of nations, but for the world as a whole. People were inclined to forget that the world was growing more democratic, and that public opinion and the forces finding expression in public opinion, were going to be far more powerful than they had been in the past. Where they built up a common patriotism and a common ideal, the instrument of government would not be a thing that mattered so much as the spirit which actuated the whole of government.'—The Times, May 16, 1917. large number of men should ever be qualified, or that they should even seek, with good results, to qualify themselves, for the exercise of an initiative that shall be wise, and for a control that shall be well informed, in the conduct of foreign affairs, where the conditions are of necessity complex and the issues involved are momentous, no student of history and no honest mind will ever admit. Even were it possible, it would not be desirable. In the modern State democracy is and must be indirect, not direct: it loses impulsiveness, and it gains in knowledge, in impressiveness, and in power, through being