WESTMINSTER STATUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 116, 12 November 1931, Page 13

WESTMINSTER STATUTE

SEVERE CRITICISM DANGER TO DOMINIONS United Press Associatia n—By Electric Telegraph—Ccn lyriglit. LONDON, l>oth November. "I believe that other means far more permanent and more secure than anything thus far lin the Empire's history will bind the Empire together before the termination of the National Government's tenure of office," declared Lord Hailsham, Minister of War, at the Royal Empire Society tonight, following an address by Professor J. PI. Morgan, Professor of Constitutional Law at ithe University of London, on the Statute of Westminster. Professor Morgan and Lord Atkin, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and an authority on legal pro&edure, rigorously attacked the Statute*. Lord Stonehaven, ex-Governor-General of Australia, and Mr. Stanley Bruce, ex-Prime Minister of Australia, admitted that they aislikea the Statute 'bvit defended it, while Lord Hailsham, -winding up. the discussion, intimated tha/t the British Government' considered .it its duty to pass the Statute into legislation. Professor Morgan said: "Surely no legislation has been so Olympian since Moses came down from Sinai. '' Opposing the manner in which lawyers had framed the Statute "behind closed doors," ho proceeded to refer to the method of legislation at Weaitminster in which' there had been no Committee stage in the House of Lords. "If things are going to be done thus, surety in the Anglo-Dominion problem cloaer and more representative consultation is more urgent than ever," he sai>d. "I have never read a more devastating criticism of a Bill—in other words, a more careful appreciation of iyts disruptive possibilities—than Mr. J. G. Latham's speech in the Canberra .House of Kepresentatives. His attitude towards the Bill is not more enthusiastic than the disturbed acceptance of a change which Australia neither .initiated nor desired. , Mr. W. M. Hughes (ex-Prime Minister of Australia), who often, but not on this occasion, is a voice crying in the wilderness, haal described the Act as 'extreme fo;lly.' Lord Buekmaster has said sometldrig similar." THE ONLY ANSWER. Professor Morgan said that the only answer made to Lord Buekmaster was Lord.' Passfield's evasive confession: "We cannot help it. This Statute is undoubtedly a very dangerous experiment, but the Government is not responsible. Even the, last Imperial Conference waa not responsible for it." Lord Sankey had used similar language, said Professor Morgan, and the Dominion Governments had used aVmost the same words in submitting tho Bill for approval. Mr. P. Brennan., Australia's Attorney-General, virtually had said: "You've got to take it or leave it.." T}ie speaker agreed with Mr. Hughes that the formula was framed to soothe the susceptibilities of two younger Dominions. "It will probably unsettle more things than it settles, but it may involve a far closer consultation, between the British and Dominion Legislatures than ever before. This will be imperative. It would be possible under the Statute for a Dominion to repeal the Act of Settlement, whereby the Crown is entailed upon a dynasty professing the Protestant faith. ON THE CHOPPING- BLOCK. \ Lord Atkin declared that it was putting the Constitution on the' chopping block, chopping off its limbs, and leaving no Constitution. "I cannot help thinking that those who were Prime Ministers for the time being adopted the formula without seriously considering its legal implications. It is a very serious thing to cut away a central means of action, without providing some practicable executive substitute, especially in times when the whole Empire might have to act in combination." Lord Atkin urged that the Bill should be considered by a joint committee of both Houses. It was not urgent to pass the Statute. Nothing could happen if it was not passed by 31st December. Mr. Bruce: "I deplore the attempt legally to define the Empire's constitutional relations. I am perfectly, certain it cannot be done. If it could it would not work. Earl Balfour's formula on which the Statute is based was not intended to be anything but a formula. The Empire can continue on a basis of willing co-operation or break up just as nicely under the Statute as without." Ma-. Bruce, in conclusion, declared that Australia and others were equally as anxious as the younger Dominicuis for the Balfour formula. He said that even if ; - he disliked the Statute he wasn't alarmed about it. Lord Stonehaven agreed with Mr. Bruce. "I am not alarmed even if I dislike the Statute. Many men' read into the Statute far more than is justified. If no worse things happen to the Empire than the Statute, we can sleep quietly." Lord Hailsham, winding up the discussion, said that if Britain rejected the Statute it would revive old suspicions to a tenfold degree and give rise to an inferiority complex, leading some Dominions to think they were not as freo as we assured them they were. The function was a notable one, those present including ex-Govenors-General, ex-Prime Ministers, members of the House of Lords, members of Parliament, High. Commissioners, and AgentsGeneral.