FUTURE OF THE EMPIRE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22141, 10 July 1937, Page 8

FUTURE OF THE EMPIRE

MR BALDWIN'S LAST SPEECH DANGERS OF DEFINING CONSTITUTION "THE LETTER KILLETH: THE SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE" (FKOil OUB OWST COItRESPONDEHT.) LONDON, May 26. Some of his reflections, his hopes, and his fears for the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations were referred to by Mr Stanley Baldwin. on Empire Day, when he made his last speech as Britain's Prime Minister. He attended the banquet of the combined Empire Societies, and his audience numbered 1200. It was one of the most representative of Empire gatherings ever to assemble in one room. Prime Ministers of the Dominions and representatives of the United Kingdom, the Indian Empire, and the Colonies were present. Mr M. J. Savage and Mr W. Nash (Minister for Finance) represented New Zealand. The regard and respect felt for Mr Baldwin were shown in an unusual manner when he stood up to speak. As one, the huge assembly of guests rose to their feet, cheered him lustily, and with one accord sang "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow," an incident which occurs but rarely at functions of this nature. Smiling, and completely at his ease, Mr Baldwin acknowledged the compliment by saying: "There is no greater act of faith in a great audience than to sing that popular and national air before a speaker makes his speech. 'Laughter.) I thank you very much for it." Greatest Political Experiment Declaring the toast of "The British Commonwealth of Nations" to be a subject almost impossible to deal with in a short space of time, the Prime Minister referred first of all to the settlement of the various parts of the Empire, and proceeded:— "I have only just touched on what comprises the Commonwealth oi the

Empire, whichever you like to call it, but I think we ought to remember that the Commonwealth or the Empire is the greatest political experiment that has yet faeen fried in the world — an experiment the success of which may mean much to mankind; the failure of which may mean disaster.

"And how are we going to make it a success, how are we going to keep together? The Crown. The Crown is the only tangible link we all know; the link which cannot be broken. If it were, which God forbid, would the Commonwealth hold together? The Commonwealth will want statesmanship in the years to come, and I always felt that when the Statute of Westminster became law, and a new era was opened, the need for the highest form of statesmanship throughout the Empire was imperative. What are the difficulties? What will keep us together? Can self-interest keep us together? Can trade keep us together? They may all help, that is true. But trade does not necessarily mean friendship. People have quarrelled over trade in the past; they may well do it agnin.

"We want something more profound than trade, and I believe that in the long run we shall not hold together unless de rer-ognise the common ideals, the common inspiration, the common love of freedom of the individual and of the body politic; the pursuit of peace—that peace which now reigns through that vast area of the world which comprises the Empire.

Loyalty and Sympathy "What qualities do we need? When I say 'we,' I mean all of us—the Dominions, India, the Colonies. I think there are three predominant—loyalty, sympathy, understanding. Loyalty to our best selves, loyalty to the country in which we live, loyalty to each other, loyalty to the Empire, loyalty to the whole Commonwealth. Sympathy and understanding—none of us have precisely the same problems. Let us each have sympathy and understanding, if we can get it, with each other's problems. Then we shall be less liable to criticism, although criticism in a family I know must be taken as something always existing. Being an only child myself, I was myself without that form of criticism. "Then I would say, let us dwell, if we can—this is a great platitude, but, after all, a platitude is only a truth that has been repeated so often that people get either tired or annoyed by it—let us concentrate an points of agreement rather than points of difference. It is very easy to do the latter. You never know what the end of that concentration may be. Let us have faith, faith in what we believe, faith in our future, faith in our own country, and faith in one another. Th«\se things I believe to be essential. "Now I would like, as but an indifferent historical student, to make an observation about our Constitution. I don't suppose that even the person who most dislikes the use of the word

'England' would say that historically England had not been more responsible than any other country for what is now known as the British Constitution, and that Constitution has been evolved through many centuries in this country, and we do know something about it. One of the most interesting features about it historically is that that Constitution was not evolved by logicians. The British Constitution has grown to what it is through the work of men like you and me—just ordinary people who have adapted the government of the country in order to meet the environment of the age in which they lived, and they have always preserved sufficient flexibility to enable that adaptation to be accomplished.

No Definitions "Now that is extremely important, because it seems to me that one of the reasons why our people are alive and flourishing, and have avoided many of the troubles that have fallen to less happy nations, is because we have never been guided by logic in anything we have done. If you will only do as I have done —study the history of the growth of the Constitution from the time of the Civil War until the Hanoverians came to the Throne—you will see what a country can do without the aid of logic, but with the aid of common sense. Therefore, my next point is: Do not let us put any part of our Constitution in a strait waistcoat, because strangulation is the ultimate fate.

"And I would say one more thing—don't let us be too keen on definition. I should like to remind you, if I can remind an audience so educated as this, that it was that attempt to define that split the Christian Church into fragments after' it came into existence, and it has never recovered from that, and therefore I deduce—and I hope that it is a logical thing—fhat if we try to define the Const''ution too much we may split the Empire into fragments, and it will never come together again. Politically, if ever a saying was true it is this: 'The letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life.' What I have said are the results of meditations over 20 years, and I give them free, gratis, and for nothing for what they may be worth. "I would like to say one thing in conclusion, and it is something to do with the continuation of the Empire. I have been at many Imperial Conferences. I have been in London on many occasions when visitors have come to see from all over the world, but I have never known such a feeling of the family in London as at this time of the Coronation. The people have not opened their doors to you this time, but they have opened their hearts, and you have walked right in, and that feeling of family, I believe, is going to go on right through, whatever our beliefs, wherever we go, whatever our history, wherever we are. That may prove to be the most binding force between us—the family under the headship of our King."