The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1949. The Commonwealth Conference

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25767, 31 March 1949, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1949. The Commonwealth Conference

The Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, which will open in London on April 21, will seemingly be concerned first and foremost with constitutional questions. That, at least, is the inference to be drawn from Mr Attlee’s brief and not very informative announcement in the House of Commons. Commonwealth defence, which many assumed to be the main business. will after all take a second—which is not to say secondary—place; it may even have to be deferred to a later meeting. But clearly this is the right order of precedence; for Commonwealth defence arrangements must be shaped to the future composition and structure of the Commonwealth. The question of India’s relation to the Commonwealth is the fundamental one before the conference; and it is this question which is now being weighed most anxiously by all thoughtful citizens of the Commonwealth countries. Is the logic of giving India her freedom to be pursued? Or, now that she is a free and self-governing Dominion, is India to be told that she must conform to a pre-existing conception of the Commonwealth and of Commonwealth relations, or else get out? With remarkable unanimity, responsible opinion in Britain has insisted that no effort should be spared to accommodate a republican India—or, indeed, republican Eire—within the Commonwealth. The difficulties are freely admitted and recognised. The conception of the ties that bind the Commonwealth countries would have to be widened. The accepted formal link, which is allegiance to the Crown, will not be acceptable to India or to Eire. The problem is to find some form of connexion that will reconcile republican nations with a group of nations acknowledging a common monarchy and will not reduce, for the latter, the status of the Crown. “ The Times ” has no doubt that the search for a formula will be successful and that a place for republican systems in close association with other members of the Commonwealth will be’found.

“It is consonant with the genius “ of the flexible Commonwealth that “ the institutional Crown might l “ come to have a totally different “ significance in the structure of “ each member’s political system ”, remarked “The Times”. In a re-, view of the 1948 Prime Ministers’ Conference, the “Round Table'’ devoted some attention to the muchdiscussed omission of the word “ British ” from the official reports, and remarked that here there was implicitly recognised, not for the first time, the emergence of a new phase in Commonwealth development, “ most happily described by’ “ His Majesty the King ” when he welcomed the Prime Ministers at Buckingham Palace: Our Commonwealth has always stood for certain principles, fundamental to the good of humanity; it has never countenanced injustice, tyranny, or oppression. The self-governing members of our Commonwealth have always embraced peoples of different upbringing, social background, and religious belief; they have all had this in common, that they were peaceloving democracies in which the ideals of political liberty and personal freedom were jealously and constantly preserved. Whatever outward form our Commonwealth may assume in the future, the principles which inspire it must prevail in the world.

Everything that has emerged from the secret sessions of the 1948 Prime Ministers’ Conference suggests that the relations between Mr Nehru and- the representatives of the other Dominions were cordial, and that there was mutual willingness to compromise in the search for a formula. The “Economist” thought it wise ’that the various alternatives should be thought out and tested upon the public opinion of both India and the other Commonwealth countries. “If India is “ convinced that its lonely position “as the only great Asiatic Power, “ and its long connexion with Brit- “ ish methods of administration and “jurisprudence, give it a perman“ent community of interest with “the Commonwealth, a legal for- “ mula will be found, however “ unfamiliar it may be ”, the “ Eco- “ nomist ” added. Perhaps the solution will be found in such a broadening basis of the Commonwealth as was described in a book published last year by Dr. Nicholas Mansergh, Professor of British Commonwealth Relations at* the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Recalling the dictum of the late Professor Berriedale Keith in 1938 —“lf no place can be found in a “ British Commonwealth for repub- “ lies, then the enduring character “of the Commonwealth may well “be doubted ” —he suggested “ ex-

“ temai association ’ r as an alternative for those States which found in “ Dominion status ” some suggestion of subordination. The foundations of each association would be defined to the extent that seemed desirable in each case, “ thorny “ questions of allegiance and of the “ place of the Crown ” being settled on their merits and by mutual agreement. This, he concluded, suggests a Commonwealth of the future

in which there are both member States and associate States, the distinction between them being one, not of status, but of history, tradition, and cultural background. By such a development the Commonwealth could only be strengthened, for it would mean that political and constitutional realities would once again be brought into harmony. In this great comnjunity there would be a natural place for nations peopled by many races and speaking many tongues, but all, from their vast store of varied experience, contributing to the common good of the whole and thereby to the peace of the world.