THERE seems to be no end to the odd notions of our duty to France which some people entertain. The Morning Post used to suggest that the mildest criticism of M. Poincaré was lèse majesté, and now “Wayfarer” in the New Statesman has discovered that our diplomatic representation at the Vatican is a stumbling-block in the way of the new French Radical Prime Minister. He holds that diplomatically we ought to be in line with democratic France, by which he means its anti-clericalism, to the power of which he attributes much of the landslide at the recent French elections. It may be true, as he says, that the existence of our mission at the Vatican is a weapon in the hands of the clerical Nationalist party. It is also true, no doubt, that the existence of the monarchy in this country and its immense success provides an argument for French Royalists. To argue that we should eliminate anything in our political or constitutional system whose counterpart does not happen to square with the particular views of predominant politicians in a friendly country sounds more like opéra bouffe than real life. Moreover, it will be well both for France and Great Britain if M. Herriot learns that the British people have no sort of sympathy with the priest-baiting, to which, unhappily, he has pledged his Government.