The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL, 22, 1911. AN IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1108, 22 April 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL, 22, 1911. AN IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

Some interesting and important cable messages received this week serve to emphasise what has been called the "miraculous" character of the British Empire. The Empire is, indeed, a continuous tour de force, beset by, but almost unaffected by, logical difficulties of a tremendous kind. On the one hand is the Mother Country bearing practically the full weight of maintaining the integrity of the whole vast structure and absolutely the full burden of the diplomacy in front of her guns; on the other hand arc the Dominions, protected by, and almost wholly dependent for their continued existence upon, a parent kingdom that leaves them full national freedom and heats with them .almost as with equal nations. This has been the situation for a sufficient number of years to permit the development of all the forces of estrangement and friction that such an arrangement would_ appear to involve, and yet there is no friction and no estrangement. For there is also in the situation a force that is actually immense—for nobody can set limits to its power—and that must therefore overpower any smaller sources of action. _ This is the force of a common kinship and common racial ideals and- aspirations. At present it would seem that ovents are moving towards a test of the correctness of this conception of the Imperial situation, but until this week it was not apparent that mischief would have its share in the mild ferment preparcd_ for the Imperial Conference. Mischief is a strong word to use, but we cannot modify such a description of the remarkable policy that the London Times has enunciated- in a loading article. From the reasonable, enough deduction, from the practical necessities of the Dominions, that real security requires a mutual understanding between "the five nations," the Times jumps to the gravely dangerous theory that it is "impossible to continue a system whereby foreign policy is a sealed book to all but one partner." Its argument, as summarised in the cable message, proceeds: It was necessary that the British Government should givo a frank explanation of British policy and suggest an arrangement whereby an understanding would be maintained while the Conference was not in session. This was the real problem behind- New Zealand's proposals. Foreign policy had hitherto been continuous whether the Conservatives or Liberals were in office. It was necessary that tho policy sliould be strengthened by becoming Imperial and securing the conscious and continuous support of the Governments of the Overseas Dominions. Wc doubt whether very many practical statesmen or very many thoughtful people in any part of the Empire will approve so unwise a plan. If the Governments of the Dominions were taken into the confidence of the Foreign Office, the confidence would necessarily stop there. These Governments would be unable to make any use of- their knowledge as Governments; they could only offer opinions, which in most cases would be entirely valueless, to the Foreign Office. What would be gained we wholly fail to see. It need hardly be added that not a word of what wc have written should be taken to apply against what we hold is the very important principle, that in matters of foreign policy directly and chiefly affecting the Dominions there should always be as full consultation as possible. A phase of the central question raised in the Times article has been discussed in the House of Commons on a motion that the Government should arrange for the international situation to be discussed at the Imperial Conference. This produced a statement on behalf of the Government that it was always the Government's intention to take the Prime Ministers into consultation on matters of great Imperial concern, but nothing was said to indicate that the British authorities contemplate either arranging such a discussion or giving any opinion upon the proposal that an Imperial Council should be established. It may bo confidently expected that the weight of Opinion at the Conference will be against anything that tends towards a fundamental change in the existing disposition of. the Empire's Goveminent. So soon as it is asserted'

that the Dominions must have a share in the actual control of theEmpire's affairs, the principle must be admitted that that control must be paid for to the last farthing. This point is well dealt with by the Manchester Guardian. After referring to the "confusion of thought" in Sin Joscph Ward's proposal for an "Imperial Council of State," the Guardian observes: Does not this proposal slur over the great difficulty in all thcio projects of Imperial Councils—namely, the equitable distribution of the burdens of Empire? Indian affairs, for examnlc, from time to time may have great interest for the colonies, but how far would it be just that they should have a voice in their direction so long as the burden of defending India rests on the United Kingdom alone? To the extent to which (lie colonies aspire to partnership in the direction of Imperial affairs they should logically take over a corresnonding degree of responsibility, military," naval, and financial. The Dominions well understand tho principles of responsible self-govern-ment. The same nrincinle of responsibility applies to Imperial affairs. Tho old name of "colonies" was a symbol of the fact that the resnonsibilitv for Imperial policy rested with Eng'lnnd. If they are to cease to bo "colonies" strictly, and become "dominions"—partners in Impsrial affairs—they ought logically to he partners in the responsibilities and the liabilities too. The Empire has so far got on very well without any formal appeal to logic, but of course there must have been some great principle of logic and truth silently and invisibly at work like the roots of the growing tree. There is no reason why the logic should not be sought out and stated, but those who insist upon logic—and it is to logic that they apneal who say that the foreign policy of the Empire should not be a sealed book to all but one "partner"—must not complain if logic is pressed against them in their turn. To our mind there is nothing at all illogical in the present situation, nothing undesirable in the fundamental relations between the Governments of the Empire. Think of tho Empire as a, Pcntuph Entente— an alliance of live nations—and all the big perplexities will disappear. Such a conception of the Empire leaves quite logical the continued treatment of -foreign policy as the foreign policy of the United Kingdom, to be dealt with by tlic Government of that kingdom; it also leaves the way open for the Dominions to have their own foreign policies if they require them. Most of the current difficulties, and dangers, have arisen from the persistence of the idea of Federation—an.idea that should bo root-cd out as soon as possible."