Margaret MacMillan, the Provost of Trinity College and Professor of History at the University of Toronto, has earned international acclaim for her elegant, witty and remarkably comprehensive account of the Paris Peace Conference, which was published first in the United Kingdom as The Peacemakers and more recently in New York as Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. As MacMillan has noted in her book and in this year’s O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture, there was an extraordinary assembly of leaders, followers, advisers and observers in Paris for deliberations and negotiations that were intended not only to conclude peace treaties with Germany and other vanquished enemies but also to chart a different course for the post-war world. The range of obsessions, motivations and interests thus assembled in Paris was nearly as diverse and contradictory as the personalities of the participants. Before too long, however, it was obvious to insiders and outsiders that the critical decisions were effectively taken by a few — notably Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau
— while many others worked on the details or simply attempted to influence those who mattered. One of the bit players in this large cast was the brilliant Legal Adviser of Canada’s Department of External Affairs and Secretary to the War Committee of the Cabinet, Loring C. Christie. He had been recruited personally by a fellow Nova Scotian, the Prime Minister (and Secretary of State for External Affairs), Sir Robert Borden. Christie was effectively the leading expert on international affairs in the government of Canada.
As Robert Bothwell has noted, Christie’s views on Canadian participation in imperial and world affairs shifted considerably, largely as a result of his experience during the First World War and afterward at the Paris Peace Conference.
While others wrangled over how best (or most advantageously) to dismember former foes, to extract compensation for damages or to construct new nations, Canada’s representatives were preoccupied with something more mundane, though arguably essential for Canadian political and constitutional development— recognition of Canada’s distinct status in world affairs. As Christie’s own summary makes clear, that was not a foregone conclusion, as other nations suspected a nefarious imperial plot to gain extra seats for the British Empire, with self-governing colonies (whether labelled “Dominions” or not) masquerading as autonomous states. Consequently, his report on the outcome of the negotiations (including the establishment of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization) highlights issues which had little or no impact on the substance of the proceedings which culminated in the Treaty of Versailles and associated accords.
The memorandum reprinted below was earlier published in External Affairs, Vol. XVI, No. 4 (April 1964), 163-72. The formatting has been simplified by the omission of sub-headings and the annexes to which reference is made in the text have been omitted.
Loring C. Christie, “Notes on the Development at the Peace Conference of the Status of Canada as an International Person,” July 1919.
1. The object of these notes is to outline the development at the Paris Peace Conference of the status of Canada as an international – person or entity. The main points in the sketch will be the character of the representation secured by Canada at the Conference, her position as a Signatory of the Treaties concluded there, and her status as a Member of the League of Nations and of the International Labour Organization.
2. Inthe early stages of the war it had been announced in the various Parliaments of the Empire that the Dominions would be fully consulted concerning the terms of peace. (See United Kingdom Parliament, April 14, 1915, 71 H.C.Deb., 5s., col. 16-18; Canadian Parliament, January 31, 1917, Debates, House of Commons, Official Report, Session of 1917, vol. 1, page 300). The sessions of the Imperial War Cabinet, held in the spring of 1917 and the summer of 1918, afforded so far as they went the means for carrying out this understanding. During the negotiations leading up to the armistice there naturally presented itself the specific question of Dominion representation at the Conference of belligerent Powers which it was certain would be held to conclude the terms of peace. This question was first officially raised from Ottawa by telegraphic correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (see Annex A); thereafter it was taken up immediately on the arrival of the Canadian Ministers in London in November, 1918, and the discussion continued there until their departure for Paris early in January,1919.
(a) The discussion took place in the Imperial War Cabinet
and in less formal meetings between English and Dominion Ministers. At the outset the assumption was that only five places could be secured for the British Empire at the peace table (see I[mperial].W[ar].C[abinet] 37, Minute 6). On this assumption various methods of meeting the case of the Dominions were canvassed, consisting mostly of variations on what was known as the panel system, under which the representation of the British Empire in the Peace Conference discussions would “be selected from day to day, according to the subject, from a panel made up of representatives of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. But on consideration it became apparent that this method would not of itself be sufficient in practice to take care of the various political elements in Great Britain that were entitled to or had been promised representation and at the same time to meet the legitimate claims and aspirations of the Dominions in view of the decisive force they had exerted in the actual determination of the issues of the war. Accordingly in the end the Prime Minister of Canada proposed that we should press, not only for a British Empire representation of five involving the panel system, but also for distinctive representation for each Dominion similar to that accorded to the smaller Allied Powers; and this proposal
was accepted by the Imperial War Cabinet.
(b) During the first week of December preliminary conversations on the making of peace took place in London between representatives of the British Empire, France and Italy, and the proposal of the Prime Minister of Canada was put forward and accepted in principle. (See I[nter-Allied].C[onversations]. 98 (a), Clause 4 (c); LW.C. 41; LC. 100, Clause
5; LW.C. 48, Minute 5.)
(c) Conversations with President Wilson took place in London.
during the last week of December, but this question was not considered, since at that time the President was opposed to the holding of a formal Inter-Allied Conference. (See LW.C. 47, Minute 1, Page 5.)
3. The Preliminary Peace Conference began at Paris on January 12, 1919, and the question of procedure, including that of representation, was taken up at the outset in the Council of First Delegates or Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, commonly known as the Council of Ten. The United States delegates at once objected to the proposal for distinctive representation for the British Dominions, President Wilson saying that it would not be understood by his people. Mr. Lansing, United States Secretary of State, proposed that there might be five technical delegates of the Dominions, and questioned the title of the Dominions to take part in the discussion of European arrangements (see LC. 104, Minute 1). But after full discussion in the British Empire Delegation, and a strong protest from the Prime Minister of Canada, the United States delegates receded at the next meeting of the Council of Ten and the proposal was carried; so that the larger Dominions were each of them accorded a representation equal to that of the more important small Powers (see B[ritish].E[mpire].D[elegation] 1, Minute 1; LC. 106, Minute
1; B.E.D. 3, Minute 10).
4. The Council of Ten, after reaching this agreement as to Dominion representation, gave additional representation to Belgium and Serbia (see LC. 111, Minute 1). The Canadian Ministers immediately submitted a Memorandum protesting against this decision (see Annex B; W[ar].C[abinet].P[aper]. 24); though it was recognized that it was too late to change it.
5. Accordingly the Rules of the Conference as adopted at the Plenary Session of January 18, 1919, provided for a British Empire representation of five Plenipotentiary Delegates (including Dominion representatives under the panel system), and in addition for two Plenipotentiary Delegates each for Canada, Australia, South Africa and India, and one for New Zealand. Their status was made the same as that of the smaller Powers, or “belligerent Powers with special interests,” as the more important of these were officially described. In addition they were entitled to bring Technical Delegates (see Annex C; Rules of the Conference, Annex II to Protocol No. I of the Preliminary Peace Conference).
As explained elsewhere, the form which the organization and proceedings of the Peace Conference actually took did not entirely accord with the scheme of the Rules adopted at this Plenary Session (see Annex D; Memorandum on the Organization
and Proceedings of the Paris Peace Conference).
6. In the result, through this combination of the panel system for the British Empire Delegation with their own distinctive representation, the Dominions secured a peculiarly effective position.
(a) At the Plenary Sessions there were sometimes three
Canadian Plenipotentiary Delegates — two representing
Canada and one representing the British Empire.
(b) At all times throughout the Conference, the Dominion
Delegates were at the heart of the machine and had access to all the papers recording the proceedings of the Conference. This enabled them effectively to watch and check the proceedings in the interest of their respective Dominions, and placed them in a position distinctly more advantageous than that of the small Powers, who did not receive the confidential papers of the Conference such as the minutes of the Council of Ten and the Council
of Five.
(c) Dominion Ministers were nominated to and acted for
the British Empire on the principal Inter-Allied Commissions of the Peace Conference, which were appointed by the Conference from time to time to consider and report upon special aspects of the conditions of peace (see Annex D). The Canadian Ministers acted as the principal British Empire representatives on these Commissions as follows:
Sir Robert Borden (Vice-President).
Commission on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and Railways — Hon. A.L. Sifton (Vice-President).
Economic Commission — Sir George Foster (Vice- President).
Sub-Commission on Pre War Contracts — Hon. C.J. Doherty (Chairman).
Sir George Foster (with Mr. Sifton and Mr. Doherty as alternates) was also on the panel from which the British Empire representation on the Supreme Economic Council was chosen from time to time.
(d) All the Dominion Prime Ministers took part in the Council
of Ten when the disposition of the German Colonies was
being discussed and decided.
(e) The Prime Minister of Canada on several occasions attended
as the British Empire representative on the Council of Five (see Annex D). He also attended the Council of Four (see Annex D) on several occasions to put forward the British Empire case in respect of the clauses on economic questions, on the international control of ports, waterways and
railways, and on submarine cables.
(f) Itis especially significant of the new status that during his
last month in Paris, the Prime Minister of Canada regularly acted as chairman of the meetings of the British Empire Delegation (which was but the Imperial War Cabinet under another name), whenever the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was unable to attend.
7. A further development concerns the signature of the various treaties concluded at the Conference. Hitherto the practice in respect of a political treaty has been to insert an article or reservation providing for the adhesion of the Dominions sometime after its signature and ratification by the Government of the United Kingdom. It was thought that this method would be inappropriate on this occasion in view of the new position that had been secured and of the part played by Dominion representatives at the peace table. Accordingly, the Prime Minister of Canada proposed that the assent of the King as High Contracting Party to the various treaties should in respect of the Dominions be signified by the signature of Dominion plenipotentiaries, and that the preamble and other formal parts of the treaties should be drafted accordingly. This proposal was adopted, in the form of a Memorandum, by all the Dominion Prime Ministers at a meeting summoned by the Prime Minister of Canada, and was put forward on their behalf (see Annex E; W.C.P. 242). The proposal was accepted by the British Empire Delegation and the Conference substantially as made; and the various treaties have been drawn up accordingly; so that the Dominions appear as Signatories, and their concurrence in the treaties, subject to ratification, is thus given in the same manner as that of all the other Powers.
8. This development involved the issuance by the King, as High Contracting Party, of Full Powers to the various Dominion Plenipotentiary Delegates; and in order that the Full Powers issued to the Canadian Plenipotentiaries might be based upon formal action of the Canadian Government an Order in Council was passed on April 10, 1919 (P.C. 800), granting the necessary authority (see Annex F), At the same time the Prime Minister of Canada addressed a communication to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requesting that some appropriate step should be taken to establish the connection between this Order in Council and the issuance of the Full Powers, so that it might formally appear of record that they were issued on the responsibility of the Government of Canada (see Annex G). It happens that under British practice the Letters Patent constituting a Full Power are signed by the King as Head of the State without any countersignature; so that the formal connection between the action of the Canadian Government and the issuance of these full powers by the King can be established without anomaly.
9. The new status of the Dominions is manifested again in the constitution of the League of Nations. Having enjoyed a status at the Peace Conference like that of the “Powers with special interests,” the Dominions took the ground that they should be similarly accepted in the future international relationship contemplated by the League. The League of Nations Commission, while inclined to accept this position in principle, did not at the outset accept all its implications. The first draft of the Covenant of the League made provision for Dominion membership, but it was obscure as to the character of Dominion representation. (See Annex H; Preamble and Articles 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the draft Covenant presented to the Plenary Session of February 14, 1919, by the Commission on the League of Nations.) But the document was professedly tentative; the Dominion case was pressed; and in its final form as amended and incorporated in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, the status of the Dominions as to-membership and representation in the Assembly and Council was recognized as being in all respects the same as that of other Members of the League. They are to become Members as Signatories of the Treaty; and the words of the document make no distinction between them and other Signatory Members. (See Annex J; Preamble and Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Annex of Covenant as incorporated in the Treaty of Peace.) With especial reference to Article 4, the Prime Minister of Canada obtained from President Wilson and Messrs Clemenceau and Lloyd George a signed declaration “that upon the true construction of the first and second paragraphs of that Article, representatives of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire may be selected or named as members of the Council.” (See Annex K.)
10. The constitution of the International Labour Organization affords a still further manifestation of the development. Questions arose here similar to those involved in the constitution of the League — of Nations; for the Labour Organization is analogous to that of the League. Corresponding to the Council of the League there is a Labour Governing Body, consisting of Delegates nominated by a limited number of governments, in addition to employers’ and employees’ Delegates; while corresponding to the Assembly of the League there is the General Labour Conference. The draft Convention presented by the Commission on International Labour Legislation to the Plenary Session of April 11, 1919, while contemplating that Dominion Government Delegates might be sent to the General Conference, definitely excluded them from the Governing Body; for in defining that body it declared that “No High Contracting Party, together with its Dominions and Colonies, whether self-governing or not, shall be entitled to nominate more than one member” (see Annex L; Article 7, Protocol to Article 7, and Article 35 of the draft Convention presented to the Plenary Session of April 1 1, 1919, by the Commission on International Labour Legislation). A resolution having been moved in the same Plenary Session that the Peace Conference approve this draft Convention, the Prime Minister
of Canada immediately moved that the resolution be amended “ by adding the following:
“The Conference authorizes the Drafting Committee to make such amendments as may be necessary to have the Convention conform to the Covenant of the League of Nations in the character of its membership and in the method of adherence.”
This amendment carried, and as a consequence the Labour Convention was finally amended so that the Dominions were placed on the same footing as other Members of the International Labour Organization, becoming eligible for selection like others to nominate Government Delegates to the Governing Body; though it was only at the last minute, and after the Prime Minister of Canada had carried the matter up to the Council of Four, that the Drafting Committee struck out the objectionable clause quoted above. (See Annex M; Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 35 of the Labour Convention as incorporated in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.)
. The Treaty of Peace was largely drafted in the first instance by Commissions of the Peace Conference; though many Articles were drafted by the Drafting Committee on instructions from the Council of Ten, the Council of Five or the Council of Four. (See Annex D.) In the case of the League of Nations Covenant and the Labour Convention and General Principles there were special Plenary Sessions to consider and adopt the proposals. For the rest, however, the participation of the Powers other than the five Principal Powers was more formal than substantial, except of course in respect of the Articles affecting them specially. It is true that the Conditions of Peace were submitted to and adopted “by the secret Plenary Session of May 6th before their presentation to the Germans; but it was a highly formal proceeding.
“The Dominions, however, were much better placed. As already ‘seen the Dominions were prominently represented on the vari- ‘ous Commissions of the Peace Conference, and at times the Prime Ministers attended the Council of Ten, while in addition the Prime Minister of Canada on a number of occasions took part in the work of the Council of Four and the Council of Five. More than that, every Commission Report, every aspect, every section of the Conditions of Peace was first considered in meetings of the British Empire Delegation (whose personnel was the same as that of the Imperial War Cabinet) before the assent of the British Empire was given. The Dominions’ participation in the making of peace has been substantial indeed.
2. In recalling the successive stages of the advance in status attained — by the Dominions at the Peace Conference it is to be noted that in every instance the initiative was taken by Canada; and whether or not the other Dominions at all times joined in pressing these steps, nevertheless each one in the final result received the full benefit of the advance.
For a good many years Canada has been in a position, should the — occasion warrant it or should she so desire, to affirm herself definitely as an international person or entity. The occasion arose at Paris. We had not in fact been entirely lacking in direct international relationships, but they were of an economic character : and their political or constitutional implications had not been expressly defined. The settlement of the results of the war provided the first occasion on which Canada became conscious that she was directly and vitally concerned in a world political conference. The occasion was met and Canada through her representatives has definitely declared herself as in some degree an international person. Representatives of the Canadian Government sat at the peace table with those of other countries; they presented their Full Powers and they signed in the same way; Canada became a member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization on the same footing as others. In all this the Dominion has appeared directly, in person, not through ‘another: in everything that met the eye, in the method in which – they appeared and entered into relationships, contractual or otherwise, in fact in all their functioning, the Canadian representatives were practically indistinguishable from the other — national representatives present. All this is unmistakable evidence of a new position in the world a defianely assumed.
What this will ultimately mean in its relation to the British Commonwealth lies in the realm of speculation. But as it stands at present the British Commonwealth has clearly become before the world something different from what it was. For our own purposes we had regarded ourselves as made up of distinct political units; but we had not made that clear in our relations with others. Now we have done so; the Dominions have asserted a sovereign status of some sort and have for some purposes entered the Family of Nations. There were at Paris, and will be, anomalies; but the history of international law and custom is itself full of anomalies; it is also not without material guidance i in considering what may be done with such an International Person, or combination of International Persons, however unprecedented,
as the British Commonwealth has now definitely resolved itself “into. (See Annex N: Notes on International Personality and the Right of Legation in Relation to Canada, March 16, 1918.) The development has proceeded in the direction contemplated by the Resolution on the Constitution of the Empire agreed to by
the Imperial War Conference, 1917 (see Annex O); it remains “ for the special Imperial Conference contemplated therein to deal
with whatever further readjustments of the constitutional relationships of the Empire are necessary, and to suggest “effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine”
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 19, No. 4 (2003) — Winter/Spring 2002/2003 // Hiver/Printemps 2002/2003, pp. 19–22. Read the rest of this issue →
