COMMONWEALTH SOCIETIES ARE THE MAIN ORGANISATIONS FULFILLING THEIR PURPOSE?

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31091, 21 June 1966, Page 14

COMMONWEALTH SOCIETIES ARE THE MAIN ORGANISATIONS FULFILLING THEIR PURPOSE?

(By ths Commonwealth correspondent of "Ths Times ) . (Reprinted from "Ths Timet") LONDON, June 10. Tomorrow the Joint Commonwealth Societies Council sponsoring a Commonwealth Day service at St. Martin-in-the-Fields which the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend. Henceforth this service will be held on the Queen’s birthday, instead of on Queen Victoria s birthday, May 24, formerly observed as “Empire Day”. COMMONWEALTH SOCIETIES (latest available figures)

• Includes 25.000 members of the Canadian Imperial Order Daughters of Empire. ** Separate societies. t Excludes E.S.U. of the U.S.A.

The council says the change marks the transition from the old Empire to the new Commonwealth. Such a belated recognition seems to prompt the question whether the societies themselves are quite up to date. But this year representatives of the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Islamic faiths will participate. This ecumenical change recognises that the Commonwealth—and indeed Britain —is not only multiracial but includes the major creeds of mankind. For a decade and more, in fact, the societies have been adjusting themselves to the needs of the new, ex-imperial, multi-racial Commonwealth. There are four of these bodies, all with roots in the Empire. The senior one is the Royal Commonwealth Society, founded as the Royal Colonial Institute in 1868. The Victoria League was founded in the year of Queen Victoria’s death, the apogee of imperialism. The Royal Overseas League and the EnglishSpeaking Union, with differing inspirations, were founded by Sir Evelyn Wrench in 1910 and 1918 respectively. The four cooperate for limited purposes (like Commonwealth Day) in the Joint Council. A Single Society? They have so much In common that the question of combining their resources to meet contemporary needs as a single, or possibly federal, society has been raised. So far the societies have rejected it, preferring, like the political Commonwealth itself, to retain their sovereignties while recognising a community of endeavour. Yet some rationalisation of the societies’ efforts cannot be ruled out if a case is ever to be made for subsidising them with public funds. And there is a case for it.

These four bodies are preeminently those that do the big job governments cannot do—promoting individual contacts in the Commonwealth

family. Hospitality is the heart and soul of them all. All four maintain club premises and facilities for their members. It is not too much to say that all else springs from this club organisation. It marks them off from almost all the multitude of newer societies and institutes that provide for Commonwealth needs and interests. The “big four” all provide a base for meeting friends or business associates, for eating and drinking, for information and help, for staging social functions; and all provide bedroom accommodation (the Victoria League also runs student hostels). From this foundation spring all the activities in which, whether for instruction or for entertainment, people meet people—be these activities conferences, lectures, films, television shows, debates, cultural tours, classes, dances, dramatics, recitals, concerts, fetes or sport. All four societies organise social and educational programmes which are a substantial addition to Britain's tourist attractions. Many Specialities Their specialties are many, and can here only be briefly mentioned. The Royal Commonwealth Society is considered a learned body, whose activities spring from its fine library. The Royal Overseas League deals with immigration and travel, especially of the young, and organises a Commonwealth music festival. The English speaking Union brings together Commonwealth and American people and helps teachers and students of English throughout the world. The Victoria League specialises In getting visitors into British homes—over 700 Commonwealth people have weekends in British homes annually; over 20,000 receive other forms of home hospitality. But because it is Impossible to present the four societies' work for Commonwealth “inter-personal” relations in summary form, it is hard to measure the performance against the need. T 1 s need is additionally met, of course, by a network of other societies ranging from the learned (like Chatham House or the Institute of Race Relations) to hundreds of social clubs and hostels up and down the land. But there is plenty more to be done on the "inter-personal” side.

All the societies declare that they are fully multiracial in thought and deed, and try hard to attract members from the “emergent Commonwealth.” They also all say they are well aware of the special needs of youth, and provide for these. These claims are sincere. Yet the impression the societies give is that their members are still predominantly white, and predominantly middle-aged. An aura of white domlniondom clings to them. (How many American Negroes, one wonders, value the E.S.U.’s facilities? And the societies' branches in the emergent Commonwealth are relatively few. Of the Establishment There are reasons. It takes time to build the bridges. It also takes two to make a marriage. In the white dominions, sentiment

for Britain is stronger, the assurance of being well received greater, money for travel more plentiful, the readiness to organise locally more lively. English-speaking South Africa still plays its part here. On the other hand, Africans see little sense in doing things voluntarily (except perhaps within a tribe), though African, Aslan and British ideas of “voluntary service" do differ and might be worth research. Certainly Aslans or West Indians expect their money's worth from a subscription. The vast majority of nonwhite visitors to Britain use other routes into British “milieux.” At the same time, there is a case for bodies which maintain precious links with the old Commonwealth—which can and do feel neglected. The societies have a serious, even slightly evangelical air; they are of the establishment. Their ability to be rendezvous for the young is thereby limited. Young people will snatch at any help, as is right—but just giving does not warm them to people or places they feel are not “with it." The mass of young people go their own way, and little of Commonwealth sentiment rubs on them. This should worry the societies, if not other people. Yet the Commonwealth today supremely poses two problems that the societies seem uniquely poised to help solve. The first is how to underpin, or substitute, with personal bonds and a sense of cultural citizenship, the disintegrating political and official structure of the Commonwealth association. The Commonwealth now means shared experience by its citizens, or nothing. Its prime need is to create and develop medns of communication in thought and emotion. The second, and allied, problem is to Improve what for a better word we call race relations. (The societies have made little contribution to easing the massive Commonwealth settlement in postwar Britain.) Left to Volunteers What other country, with such a heritage in all the continents, with such a unique field for making new friends, clients and customers, would leave so much to voluntary subscription? A fund of good will remains to be tapped. Conversely, the need to prevent inter-racial misunderstanding at a time when non-white peoples are becoming better educated and reading history and economics in a “what’s in it for us” frame of mind, was never greater. For bitterness can actually grow with travel, migration, education and a rising standard of living. It would surely be worthwhile asking these societies to consider together what more they could do if they had bigger resources. It would be possible, if they produce a case for endowment, to ask them to consider closer association. As a start, to throw in a suggestion, why should it not be possible for them to run a grouped membership scheme, so that a single subscription would give a prospective member access to all their facilities—a sort of club of Commonwealth clubs? The legal difficulties of union are doubtless great, and centralisation for its own sake is pointless. But these bodies still do not have the impact exponents of the Commonwealth idea would wish. If they fail, they will expose the last frailty of the institution Itself.

Membership Annual Income Member* Urancbe* Subscrlptlen* Otter ■•urcei Royal Commonwealth f Home 11,000 9 £ 56,000 £ 3,500 Society I Abroad 20,000 30 32.934 Victoria League f Home 10,500 74 9,856 I Abroad 49,000* 2,500 Royal Overseas League (Home 1 Abroad 24,000 25,000 24 36 95,000 English-Speaking J Home 22,400 44 66,000 24,000 Union (Abroad \ 18,600t 27