was attended by acts of violence and spoilation directed particularly against the property of British and United States nationals. Its successes finally brought it to the Chinese section of Shanghai and the gates of the foreign city where it was warned to withhold its hand. At Shanghai, differences broke out between the "Red" or Bolshevised leaders and the more moderate elements in the Cantonese army. An endeavour to proceed against the Pekingese government of Wellington Koo in the north, embarked upon early in April, 1927, proved temporarily abortive, but at the beginning of June had become formidable, leaving the fate of the ancient Manchu capital in doubt and foreign powers preparing to protect their interests at Tien-Tsin and Peking as they had at Shanghai. At the latter city, matters had become tranquillized more or less, by May 1st, though Great Britain decided to retain its police force on the Chinese Coast in preparation for further outbreaks. The Pekingese Government, which blamed Russian interference for the attempt to overthrow it, at last took steps to expel the Russian governmental agents from the territory under its control, and Great Britain took the lead in a change of policy, whereby it was decided not to exact reprisals for the Nanking outrages. The reason for this step was the desire not to embarrass any leaders on either side who might be disposed to establish fair relations with foreign powers, and establish stable government in China. On several occasions during the crucial period between Jan. 1st and May 1st., Sir Austen Chamberlain announced Britain's willingness to submit to a revision of the Chinese treaties affecting customs and concessions so soon as China was able to show a stable government with which outside powers could deal on an equitable basis.

Canada's Attitude. Meantime the situation in China had been the subject of some comment in Canada. The main statement by the Prime Minister with regard to the question was made by Mr. Mackenzie King, during the Session on Feb. 10, 1927, in reply to a question by George Black (Cons., Yukon). Mr. Black asked what Canada had done to protect Canadians in China, what protection was then being afforded them and at whose expense, and whether Canada was contributing to that expense. The Premier's reply was as follows:

This question relates to the situation in China and I will therefore read to the House the reply which I propose to make to it. The reply will perhaps serve to answer other questions on the order paper and what it might otherwise be necessary to say in reference to one of the motions of which notice has been given.

The protection of life and property, in any country, whether of nationals or of aliens, is primarily the duty of the government of that country. Of late, civil war in China, now of several years' duration, has increased the difficulty of ensuring that protection, and the evacuation of certain interior areas by foreign residents has been considered an advisable precaution. At the same time it must be recognized that the loss of life by foreigners in these years of disturbance has been extraordinarily small. So far as is known, only one Canadian has been killed; the existence of a political motive in that case, which occurred in June,

1926, was not fully established, and the murderer was shot immediately by Chinese soldiers.

Canada is in full sympathy with the desire of the Chinese people to secure control of their own destiny, having due regard to the safety of the life and property of foreign residents. While there are extremist elements in the situation, it is clear that as regards the responsible leaders and the great majority of the Chinese people, the present nationalist movement is directed, not against the lives or private rights of foreign residents but against the special privileges or the measure of control over Chinese affairs exercised by foreign countries as regards extra-territoriality, customs, concessions and other matters. Canada has not in the past had any part in shaping or maintaining the policy of acquiring such rights or privileges in China, and has had no part in the recent negotiations for their readjustment. The Canadian Government is, however, in full sympathy with the British Foreign Secretary's announced policy of "going as far as possible to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Chinese nation," and believes that this course is both just and best adapted to ensure protection of life and of religious and business interests.

Under these circumstances it is not considered that it would serve any useful purpose to propose despatching Canadian forces to China. If the situation should change the Government will take the earliest opportunity of consulting with Parliament as to the appropriate course to pursue.

Mr. Black returned to the subject on Feb. 17, and endeavoured to get the Prime Minister to give information with regard to Canada's share in the expenses; but Mr. King simply referred him to his previous answer.

On the same day, J. S. Woodsworth, (Lab., Winnipeg N.-C.) asked whether Canada had made any representations to the Assembly or the Council of the League of Nations with regard to the despatch of British troops to China. Mr. King replied that no representations of that kind had been made.

On Feb. 21, H. B. Adshead (Lab., East Calgary) asked whether Canada was consulted before the British Government decided to send troops to China. On behalf of the Premier, Hon. Ernest Lapointe replied that the action of the British Government was taken on its own initiative and without consultation with Canada.

On Mar. 21, Mr. Woodsworth asked whether, in view of the situation prevailing in China, Canada continued to recognize the Peking Government. The Premier replied that the matter was under consideration. On Mar. 24, E. J. Garland (U.F.A., Bow River) inquired as to the number of Canadian nationals in China and the amount of Canadian investments; also whether the Government had considered the advisability of raising the status of the Canadian Commissioner in China to that of consul. The Prime Minister replied that no information was available as to the number of Canadian nationals in China, but that the Chinese Maritimes Customs estimated the number of British subjects in China as about fourteen thousand. The Government had no information as to Canadian investments. The question of the status of the Canadian Commissioner in China was under consideration, said Mr. King.

On Mar. 29, Mr. Woodsworth asked whether the Government had considered urging upon Canadian citizens in China the adadvisability of withdrawing until after the Civil war was over.

The Premier replied that foreign residents had been advised to move from interior points, but that it had not been thought necessary to advise their leaving China altogether.

Russia and the Raid on Arcos House.

Soviet Russia did not appreciably better her relationships with other nations, during 1926, nor did she demonstrate the efficiency either of her socialistic theories at home, or the success of her revolutionary schemes abroad. A Treaty made with Germany did not prove fruitful in the exchange of products, whilst that country's entry into the League of Nations cut directly across Russia's hopes of closer affiliations and consequent advantages, commercial and political. With no other country of consequence did she establish more favourable relations. The United States still refused recognition, whilst British sentiment had been ruffled and antagonized by her persistent and unfriendly propaganda, pursued equally in defiance of international comity and treaty obligations.

Great Britain's relations with Soviet Russia had been more or less strained since the publication of the notorious Zinoviev letter in October, 1924, which had drawn a sharp protest from the then Labour Government under Ramsay MacDonald. The Soviet Government at that time declared the letter a forgery and disclaimed all responsibility for the Communist Internationale. Relations were not improved by the Soviet contributions to and sympathy with the striking coal miners in 1925-26 and Soviet machinations in China and elsewhere. On Feb. 23, 1927, the British Government sent a strong note to Moscow calling attention to the Trade agreement of June 4, 1923, and charging continued. and repeated violations of the undertaking of the Soviet Government. "Not to support with funds, or in any other form, persons or bodies or agencies or institutions whose aim it is to spread discontent or foment rebellion in any part of the British Empire, and to impress upon its officers and officials full and continuous observance of these conditions" and citing, in detail, instances of repeated violations of this agreement. The note ended with the intimation that if this course of action were continued the Trade agreement would be cancelled and even diplomatic relations might be broken off.

The Soviet Government's reply of Feb. 26 was contradictory, ironical, satirical and promised no cessation of propaganda. Though strongly pressed to take decisive action the British Government neither replied to this letter, nor did they break off either trade or diplomatic relations.

On May 12, the Scotland Yard police conducted a raid on Arcos House, the headquarters of the Soviet Trade Delegation in London and took possession of papers and documents therein. The warrant to search had been granted in the regular way on application of the police whose investigations pointed to espionage and hostile propaganda being carried on through the medium and

under cover of the Trade Delegation. On May 13, the Soviet Government lodged a vigorous protest and great excitement reigned both in London and in Moscow. The examination for documents continued and on May 24, Premier Baldwin announced that upon evidence obtained the British Government could do nothing less than break off all trade and diplomatic relations with the Russian Government. He laid before Parliament a portion of the evidence obtained and on May 26 the House of Commons, by a vote of 367 to 118, negatived the Labour amendment for further investigation, and supported the stand taken by the Government. A note in furtherance of this action was delivered on the 27th, and within ten days the Soviet Trade Delegation and representatives were on their way to Moscow to be crossed on the journey by the British Embassy and officials who had been recalled from Russia. While official relations were thus severed, Premier Baldwin made it plain that henceforth Russian subjects would be permitted to trade in Great Britain as freely as the subjects of other nations and on equal terms.

On May 26, the Government of Canada published its decision to follow the lead of the Home Government and so notified the Soviet Trade Delegation in Montreal. In consequence the Delegation immediately left for Moscow, and trade with Canada was in future to be carried on by Russian nationals as by the nationals of other countries.

Honourable

Vincent Massey
Appointed

Canadian Minister
to the

The arrangement made between the Canadian Government and the Mother Country in 1920, looking to the possible appointment by Canada of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington was carried into effect with some modifications during 1926. A Minute of a Meeting of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency, The Governor-General, was passed on Nov. 10, the following excerpt from which shows the purport and scope of the appointment:

United States

It has been considered desirable in view of the increasing range, importance and urgency of questions requiring adjustment between Canada and the United States, that the Dominion of Canada should be represented in Washington by an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed by His Majesty on the advice of his Canadian Ministers, to have charge of Canadian affairs, serving as the ordinary channel of communication between the Canadian and United States Governments and acting upon instructions from the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada and reporting to him.

The Acting Prime Minister further submits that it is not in contemplation to adopt the provision of the agreement effected in 1920 between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Canada whereby the Canadian Minister was to be a Member of the British Embassy and to have charge, in the absence of the ambassador of the Embassy, and of the representation of Imperial, as well as, of Canadian interests.

The Acting Prime Minister accordingly recommends that His Majesty the King be humbly moved to appoint the Honourable Vincent Massey as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington with the special

object of representing in the United States of America the interests of the Dominion of Canada, and to issue the necessary letter of credence.

The Committee concur in the foregoing and submit the same for Your Excellency's approval.

In pursuance of the above Order-in-Council, Hon. Vincent Massey on Nov. 25, 1926, was appointed to the Washington post. Universal approval was expressed upon the selection of Mr. Massey, already prominent in the educational, business and public life of Canada. Born in Toronto, Feb. 20, 1887, a graduate of the University of Toronto, later attending Baliol College, Oxford, where he received the B.A. and M.A. degrees, Mr. Massey had already filled the following positions from 1913 to 1915, a lecturer in Modern History at the University of Toronto and, at the same time, dean of Residence at Victoria College; Chairman of the Board of Syndics of Hart House Theatre (Hart House, University of Toronto, had been built under the direction of Mr. Massey); Associate Secretary of the War Committee of the Federal Cabinet, 1918; General Secretary and later Director of the Government Repatriation Committee, 1918-1919; Secretary and Director of the Massey-Harris Company, 1919-1921-President, 1921-1925; and Minister without Portfolio in the King Cabinet, 1925.

It will be noted that the appointment was made by His Majesty on the advice of His Canadian Ministers; that the Minister was to have charge of Canadian Affairs and to serve as the ordinary channel of communication between the Canadian and United States Governments, and to act upon instructions from the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, to whom he was to report.

It is also to be noted that the provision of the Agreement of 1920 by which the Canadian Minister was to be a Member of the British Embassy and to have charge thereof, in the absence of the Ambassador, had not been, and was not intended to be put into force.

Thus was accentuated a new and vital development in the relations between the British Government and the Overseas Dominions and a new attitude between these Dominions and the nations to which their envoys might be sent. Immediately following this appointment the United States Government courteously responded by accrediting to Canada an ambassadorial representative of high rank, in the person of Hon. William Phillips, former Ambassador to Belgium, who presented his credentials to the Governor-General in Ottawa on June 2nd, and was expected to take up residence and duties on July 1st, 1927.

The Canadian Legation was opened in Washington on Feb. 18, 1927. Laurent Beaudry and Hume Wrong were appointed First Secretaries; M. M. Mahoney, Commercial Secretary; and Thomas A. Stone, Third Secretary. During the Session of 1926-27 an appropriation of $500,000 was voted for the purchase of a residence and office for the Canadian Minister. Suitable quarters were found and the Embassy took up residence in June, 1927.