CHAP. V] TREATY RELATIONS 1111 
wealth and Japan is the differential tariff imposed by the 
Japanese against places which have no treaty rights. 
It may be argued, of course, that the position is somewhat 
one-sided, inasmuch as Japanese in the Commonwealth, for 
example, have no rights analogous to those of British subjects 
in Japan, but consideration shows that any attempt to avoid 
this result would lead to inextricable difficulties. In view 
of the constant intercourse between Great Britain and 
Australia it would be very difficult to define any basis on 
which an Australian subject could be distinguished from an 
ordinary British subject, and the Colony is penalized suffi- 
ciently for its lack of adherence by the tariff disabilities under 
which it labours in consequence. 
In political matters proper there has been no attempt to 
obtain separate powers of adherence or withdrawal for the 
Dominions, and it is clear that such an attempt would be 
meaningless. It is impossible, as long as the Empire retains 
any unity, for one part to be treated in political questions 
differently from another part, and the separate adherence 
to and withdrawal from treaties is only possible as in com- 
mercial treaties, where a differentiation of treatment could 
be based upon a differentiation of locality. This remains 
true even in the most recent treaties, and in this case also 
the practice of consulting the Colonies has not yet been 
introduced save within somewhat narrow limits. Nor, as 
a matter of fact, have the Colonies put forward any formal 
claim to be given an option as to adherence in the case 
of general political treaties. Recent examples of political 
treaties concluded without consultation with the Colonies 
are the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the former of 
which, in the Convention relating to the laws of war, imposed 
certain obligations on the countries adhering: for example, 
as to free postage and exemption from customs dues for 
prisoners of war, to which effect could not be given without 
Colonial legislation, and the latter of which also required 
certain amendments in legal matters. Similarly in the case 
of the political conventions with Japan ; the treaty with 
France of 1904 for the settlement of outstanding questions ;