THE KING AND HIS WIDE EMPIRE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 100, 22 January 1936, Page 11

THE KING AND HIS WIDE EMPIRE

Relations of the Dominions With Mother Country

Unceasing Work in the Cause of Empire Unity

The reign of King George V was a remarkable contrast to that of his illustrious father. It was the series of memorable visits to the capitals of Europe whose fruitfulness for the cause of international peace that earned for Edward VII his most real distinction as a crowned head and the .title of the Peacemaker. King Edward was beyond doubt a powerful influence in the courts and chancelleries of Europe.

i —> QUALITY with his father, King George V worked unIsrrJf ceasingly in the interests of trO national and International ■ peace. The forces arrayed in Europe, however, burst the barriers in July-August, 1914In the terrible four years that followed the King maintained and strengthened the constitutional position of the Crown as the rallying point of the British Empire in its united effort for freedom and justice, and the sanctity of treaties. It was a testing time from which the Crown emerged more strongly entrenched than ever before in the hearts and minds of the people. The name of King George V will live in history for the part he so nobly played during the Great War, and for the strictly constitutional attitude he adopted in the great Irish crisis which shook the Kingdom in 1914, which unhappily surged up into the rebellion of 1916, and which culminated after the war in the ghastly guerrilla warfare which swept Ireland until peace came by the signing of the treaty setting up the Irish Free State. At this time when the Empire is mourning the dcatn of its well-beloved Sovereign, King George V, it is opportune to consider the stage of constitutional development of the Empire reached during the reign of his late Majesty. Of all the Imperial Conferences that have been held from time to time during the reigns of the last three Sovereigns, none was fraught with greater interest than that of 1926. Its Report on Inter-Im-perial Relations, adopted on November 19, 1926, was. beyond all question, a very remarkable State paper. It was at the same time, “courageous, ingenious, and comprehensive.” As has been well said, the Imperial Conference “frankly and prudently declined the task of attempting to lay down a constitution for the British Empire. It has provided instead, an agreed and authoritative picture of the Empire as it is.” The members of the Committee on In-ter-Imperial Relations, in addition to Lord Balfour, included the Prime Ministers of Canada, the Commonwealth of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland, the VicePresident of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, the Secretary of State for India, as head of the Indian Delegation, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Other Ministers and members of the Imperial Conference attended particular meetings. In its report, the committee said: “We were appointed to investigate all the questions on the Agenda affecting Inter-Imperial relations. Our discussions on these questions have been long and intricate. We found, on examination, that they involved consideration of fundamental principles affecting the relations of. the various parts of the British Empire, inter, se, as well as the relations of each part to foreign countries. For such examination, the time at our disposal has been all too short. Yet, we hope that we may have laid a foundation on which subsequent conferences may build.”

Status of Britain and Dominions. The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lav down a Constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organisation which now exists or has ever yet been tried. There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed ot Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely . associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was

devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual cooperation Such a criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the oversea Dominions during the last fifty years has involved many - complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every selfgoverning member of the Empire is now the. master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever. Depends Upon Positive Ideals. But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its lifeblood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. And though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled. Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-im-perial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery—machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world. This subject also has occupied our attention. The rest of this report will show how we have endeavoured not only to state political theory but to apply it to the Dominions because the position of India in the Empire is already defined by the Government of India /mt, 1919. Existing administrative, legislative and judicial forms, are admittedly not wholly in accord with the position as described in Section II of this Report (Status of Great Britain and the Dominions). This is inevitable, since most of these forms date back to a time well antecedent to the present stage of constitutional development. Our first task then was to examine these forms with special reference to any cases where the want of adaptation of practice to principle caused, or might be thought to cause, inconvenience in the conduct of inter-imperial relations. The Title of His Majesty the King. The title of His Majesty the King is of special importance and concern to all parts of His Majesty’s Dominions. Twice within the last 50 years has the Royal title been altered to suit changed conditions and constitutional developments.

The present title, which is that proclaimed under the Royal Titles Act of 1901, is as follows: — “George V, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.” Some time before the Conference met .it had been recognised that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered state of affairs arising from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion. It had further been ascertained that it would be in accordance with His Majesty’s wishes that any recommendation for change should be submitted to him as the result of discussion at the Conference. We are unanimously of opinion that a slight change is desirable, and we recommend that, subject to His Majesty’s approval, the necessary legislative action should be taken to secure that His Majesty’s title should henceforward read: “George V, by the Grace of God, of Great' Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.” . [This recommendation was given effect to on May 13, 1927.] Position of Governors-Generai. We proceeded to consider whether it was desirable formally to place on record a definition of the position held by the Governor-General as His Majesty s representative in the Dominions. That position, though now generally well recognised, undoubtedly represents a development from an earlier stage when the Governor-General was appointed solely on the advice of His Majesty s Ministers in London and acted also as their repreop [ n j oll j s an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Governor-General of a Dominion is the representative of the Crown, holding in all essential re- ’ spects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the Dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty s Government in Great Britain or of any Department of that Govern-

ment. . It seemed to us to follow that the practice whereby the Governor-General of a Dominion is the formal official channel of communication between His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain and His Governments in the Dominions might be regarded as no longer wholly in accordance with the constitution position of the Governor-General. It was thought that the recognised official channel of communication should be, in future, between Government and Government direct. The representatives of Great Britain readily recognised that the existing procedure might be open to criticism and accepted the proposed change in principle in relation to any of the Dominions which desired it. Details were left for settlement as soon as possible after the Conference had completed its work, but it was recognised by the committee, as an essential feature of any change or development in the channels of communication, that a GovernorGeneral should be supplied with copies of all documents of importance _ and in general should be kept as fully informed as is Ills Majesty the King in Great Britain of Cabinet business and public affairs.