ROYAL DISPUTE IN 1930 RECALLED

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26814, 20 August 1952, Page 9

ROYAL DISPUTE IN 1930 RECALLED

Appointment Of Sir Isaac Isaacs LONDON, August 18. Details of a dispute between King George V and the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Joseph Scullin) over the latter’s insistence that Sir Isaac Isaacs be appointed Governor-General are disclosed for the first time in Harold Nicotian's official biography of the King. As a result of the ruling of the Imperial Conference in November, 1930, that in appointing a Governor-General the King should act on the advice of the Ministers in the Dominion concerned, the King found himself against his will, formally obliged to approve Sir Isaac Isaacs's appointment. In a minute to the King after the matter was settled, Lord Stamfordham, His Majesty’s private secretary, upon whose advice the King greatly relied, wrote: *lt seems to me this incident was one of the most important political constitutional issues upon which Your Majesty has ever had to dqcide.”

Nicolson comments: “Neither the King nor Lord Stamfordham had any illusions as to the serious nature of the precedent established by the King’s surrender to Mr Scullin?’ Describing the developments which led to Sir Isaac Isaacs’s appointment, Njcolson recalls that before the Imperial Conference of 1926 the customary procedure had been for the United Kingdom Prime Minister, after informal consultations with the Dominion concerned, to submit to the Kin£ the names of candidates for the post of Governor-General. It was contended by General Hertzog in South Africa and Mr Scullin in Australia that the principles accepted by the Imperial Conference of 1926 implied that in future these appointments should /be made solely on the advice of Dominion Cabinets.

King’s View When, therefore, in March, 1930, Lord Stonehaven's term as GovernorGeneral was drawing to a close, Mr Scullin announced that he intended to advise the King to approve Sir Isaac Isaacs’s appointment as successor. "The King saw the Dominions’ Secretary, Lord Passfield, who informed him that such an appointment could not b© approved,” says Nieolson. “His MajeMy pointed out that since the Ministers in the United Kingdom were precluded by the 1926 resolution from advising the Crown in a matter concerning a Dominion, it was for the Sovereign in such circumstances to act on his own initiative. “Lrfjrd Passfleld feared that this would create an impossible situation and involve the Crown in a political controversy. He therefore begged Mr Scullin not to force a decision, but a wait the next Imperial Conference that autumn. With some reluctance, Mr Scullin agreed. ‘‘ln October, Mr Scullin arrived for the conference. In the interval the news of the proposed appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs unaccountably leaked out, and the King received protests and petitions from his Australian subjects. It was evident that the appointment so ardently desired by Mr Scullin would not be warmly welcomed in the Commonwealth.

On October 30 Mr Ramsay Macdonald begged Mr Scullin not to press the project. The latter replied that he would be unable to return to Australia if the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs was refused. Mr Macdonald feared that if the King insisted on withholding his assent a ‘very dangerous agitation might be started by Mr Scullin’s supporters in Australia. “The same day Mr Scullin had an interview with Lord Stamfordham, who recorded: T explained that the King, did not object to the fact of Mr Scullin s nominee being an Australian, but upon the principle that any local man, whether in politics or not, must have local political predilections, political friends, and political opponents whereas a nominee from England had no local politics? ” The dispute was referred to'the Imperial Conference, which gave its ruling, and the King subsequently received Mr Scullin, and, alter appealing in vain to him to reconsider his recommendation, was obliged formally ment Pr ° Ve saBc saacs ’s appointn- v . “Great Reliictance'* K wrote in his diary that sreat: reluctance 7 ! had ve tbe a PP°“tment. I should trail ’ WaS Very un P°P u!ar “ Aus-

Nieolson says that It was the opinion ?h?; h fu K 1 a ? d . Lor<i Stamfordham that the appointment of local nolis£ Ia " s , to tbe .Posts of GovernorGeneral w>uld impair the association between the Empire and the Mother U 2) ry ’ ttamege the prestige and dignity of these offices, and, above all Co “Pr°mise the neutrality of the Im“fdlate representative of the Crown Needless to say," Lord Stamfordham wrote to Mr Macdonald,'’"the K?n™ ni' w rea ! ses the supreme importance °? .nts action In this question, the decision of which may have far-reaching reactions throughout the Empire, He recognises he was well within his rl ?hts to refuse Mr Soullin's demand with (whgt he is assured would be ! the case) the warm support of the! people of Australia. “But, on the other hand, His Majestv | is well awars how easy it is to light j

i and fan the flame of agitation by an . ill-disposed minority—especially when, as in this case, it was constituted of trades unions. Communists, and Irish. i not of the highest And, as the [ King himself told Mr Scullin, be wmijd < not give him the opportunity Of executing any rfhch msneouvre. Nieolson concludes; The veteran Sir Isaac Isaacs was thus installed tS ; Governor-General. Within a few weeks he was sending th- private letters of immense length describing his own benevolent activities and party difisensions which rendered Federal tics of such interest to an outsida j observer.”