The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY. JULY 5, 1917. CABINET AND EMPIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 159, 5 July 1917, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

THURSDAY. JULY 5, 1917. CABINET AND EMPIRE.

For the cause that lacks assistant*, For Ihe rrrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that ice. can do.

While the great war is in progress most people are naturally content to follow its military and naval phases without considering seriously its constitutional and political effects. This may I account for the comparative lack of mii terest aroused in Britain and the Empire by one of the mr-t momentous changes that our Imperial history records—the I inclusion of representatives of the Domijnions in the "War Cabinet." It is true that a good deal of comment has been devoted to the matter in the public Press, and Mr. Massey and sir Joseph Ward since their return have justly referred to it as an epoch-makine- event which is certain to exercise a potent influence upon the course of Imperial progress for the future. But there are so far few indications that any large number of people have grasped the essential truth about the "War Cabinet"—that while it stands for a definite attempt to share the responsibilities of Imperial policy and Government with the Dominions, it is at the same time a clear assertion of that principle of centralised control which is maintained enthusiastically by many sincere and earnest Imperialists at llomr, but which is. in our opinion, entirely repugnant to public Rentiment throughout all Britain's selfgoverning dependencies. We are by no .means desirous of minimising tbe importance of this new departure when we say that the clearest possible distinction must be drawn between the meeting of a "War Cabinet," including colonial representatives, and the meeting of an Imperial Conference in the sense in which the phrase is generally used. The difference, of course, is that in the Imperial Conference, as Mr. Richard J ebb has pointed out, ''each of the constituent Governments retain.-' its individual responsibility, and cannot be bound by the decision of the President or even by the j

i vote of the majority"; while as members of a Caianet, whether in peace or war. ! the repr_e_tatrves of the Dominions, as when they attended meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence, could only follow the lead of the heads of the British Government, and must thus find their independence compromised without being able to exercise any sort of control , over the direction of Imperial policy. It is this vitally important distinction that has always made Imperial confer- I erces acceptable to the supporters of : ; colonial autonomy; while on the other : hand, the Cabinet, and not the j' Conference, is the ideal of those '■'. who wish to see the control of i 1 Imperial affairs in general still cen- U tralised. in Britain. If we miss this i< point we fail entirely to understand the . t history of the Imperial Conference jl movement, which has throughout in- l volved a constant struggle between the | rival principles of centralisation and "• local autonomy. This is one aspect of , c the Imperial problem which especially ! needs to be stated clearly and emphati- r caily, because the advocates of centra- '[ lised Imperialism are particularly active ■' just now. The form of government proposed for the Empire by Mr. Curtis and the "' Round Table," which has attracted a great deal of attention during the past , two years, implies the practical sub- 11 ordination of the Dominions to Britain \ ' in all matters of foreign policy, and this i i= perhaps, for the time inevitable. Hut i it would also mean that some of the in- , l dependent authority which the Domin- " ions now exercise over the conduct of i e their own affairs—more espeeaallv a? \ r regards the vital right of self-taxation— | would he surrendered to Britain; and | : thia, we believe, is a contingency which l a the Dominions are by no means prepared j I to consider. "We are well aware that it | ! Ls no easy task to adjust the relative I r.ghts and duties of the self-governing I 1 colonies and the Mother Land on an j r eouitable basis. But the difficulties of I 1 the problem must not induce us to accept any makeshift solution merely ' ' because it sounds plausible or claims to "] be logical. To understand the true in- -' v.ardness of the "Round Table" plan ]'. for a new Imperial constitution we must L appreciate the fact that it represents t tlie idea of centralisation which has been l struggling against the colonial concep- | ' tion of local self government ever since , c the colonies secured erven the most lim- *• :ted form of autonomy. The prejudice j ir. favour of centralisation has been : "

illustrated in recent years by the temporary inclusion of colonial representatives first in the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1911, again in the War Cabinet of 1917; and we cannot afford to lose sight of tbe fact that this very limited share in the management of Imperial affairs represents precisely the kind of ocntroi which we would enjoy if ever ■the " Round Table " scheme came within the range of practical politics.

As we have explained on other | occasions, our objection to sucli schemes is not simply theoretical. The trouble is. I that, having been founded on certain _ abstract assumptions and argued out on | strict logical lines, they do not allow , sufficiently for the facts of actual life. and they are therefore certain, sooner or later, to come into conflict with . antagonistic forces, which can neither be •~ ignored nor overcome. And, so far, it certainly seems that the promoters of - this comprehensive and radical pian for the reconstitiuion of the Empire on a basis of centrali.-c.l control have not yet 1 fully realised the difficulties they have: to face. We can hardly imagine that men who were closely in touch with: colonial public opinion could conceive the possibility of inducing the Dominions to j surrender their unrestricted right of self-taxation on any pretext, whatever.! But Mr. Curtis and his followers appear! to be dominated absolutely by their own aggressively logical arguments, and in-j ferences: and abstract, reasoning, when it takes the "high priori road,'" is apt to conduct us into curiously impracticable i-ii.tiations. A striking illustration of these difficulties was supplied recenth s by Mr. Curtis himself during his sojourn )in India last year. In a circular letter wliich Mr. Curtis wrote privately lor his friends, and which was published with- . out his consent or knowledge, the policy of the '"Round Table" was applied to , ludia; and the writer suggested that' . "our new and reformed Imperial Govern-' , ment must control India and Central Africa in their domestic affairs and in , their external affairs."' Mr. Curtis thou! ( proceeded to answer how India would' . regard these proposals; and following, his assumptions, as usual, to their' . rigidly logical conclusion, he went on toI say that if such a course were necessaj-yj it must be carried out, even if "we cannot effect the changes advocated , without provoking in India an agitation which, as I judge, might lead to bloodshed. Let us face that," concludes Mr. Curtis, "if it is right, with all the at-l tendant risks." It can easily be; imagined how such a suggestion would inflame public indignation in India,' where Nationalist feeling is extremely; active, and where the exclusive policy j now followed by the self-governing! Dominions is bitterly resented. But we I do not need to consider the consequences] of Mr. Curtis' unfortunate "faux pas"! just now. Its importance, in our eves, is tharf, it indicates with painful clearne-s' the mental detachment of a certain type of Imperialist, and his inability to realise the hostility and resentment windi his policy may provoke outside the charmed circle of centralised officialdom. Tbe moral obviously is that, just as the problems of India are not to be solved during a few weeks' residence in that vast and complex country, so the problems of the Empire are not to be settled winbout a much clearer appreeia- i tion and comprehension of the colonial point of view than Mr. Curtis and the j "Round Tabic" have yet displayet 1 i