LABOR AND EMPIRE

Evening Star, Issue 19043, 11 September 1925, Page 9

LABOR A ND EMPIRE

■ COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE DOMINIONS’ POSITION Representatives of the Labor movements of Australia, Canada, Ireland, India, Rnlestino, South Alrica, and Groat Britain, together with; fraternal delegates from the International, federation of Trade Unions and the Labor and Socialist International, assembled at the House of Commons last month for the opening session ol the British .ommonwealth Labor Conference.

Mr j. Ramsay MacDonald, M. 1., welcomed the delegates. There seemed o be an assumption in this country, ,ic said, that the Tory Party—the party if reaction—were the only party that oared anything about tbo Empire. This was all fudge and humbug. (Hear, aear.) As a matter of fact, the first party that took any keen interest in iio Empire—-he used the expression in the. sense of the co-operative unity of nations and coming nations —was the Labor Party. They saw that the Labor movement in the Empire and die whole development of Imperial life was of the utmost imonanee, and that this development dioukl he studied on the spot by in ell actively engaged in political life in this country. Long before either tho Tories r tho Liberals ever dreamt of doing anything except talking of tho Empire .or political purposes the Labor Party was studying tho Emipro for the purpose of creating a unified movement. Hie more tho Labor Party built up a democratic State, not only in the sense of political liberty, but in tho sense of industrial and economic power—the more their party pursued that policy, die more successful it became. INTIdICOMMONWEALTH RELATIONS. After Mr MacDonald’s address the day was devoted to the consideration of intercommonwealth relations. Tho debate was opened by Mr Tom Johnson, of Ireland, who pointed out that tho time had come when tho constituent countries of tho Empire should consider exactly what should bo their position in the event of Great Britain becoming involved in another war, tho Irish view being that they should not be committed to entering a war against their will. Mr Chaman Lall, of the Indian Legislative Assembly, said that their claim was lor a full measure of soil-determi-nation, and ho pointed out that tho economic exploitation of India by British capitalists was as injurious to the workers in Britain as to those in India, British manufacturers had a thousand million pounds invested in India, and were taking their cotton, steel, and jute machinery oyer there, where they could undercut British labor by employing native workers at six rupees a week. Mr H. W. Sampson, of tho South African Legislative Assembly, uttered a warning against tho danger of attaching too much importance to the question of constitutional relations to Are exclusion of improving social and economic conditions. Mr J. Simpson, of Canada, remarked that the people of that dominion, like those of Ireland, were also very greatly concerned as to what their position would bo in the event of war. They were very eager to have tho position ■lassified, and their responsibilities plain understood. Ho added that there was a growing demand on tho part of the peoples of tho dominions to have more autonomy in all directions, and a wider say in the affairs that affected tho wellbeing of their citizens. Miss M. Hcagncy, of Australia, made it quite clear that the “Unite Ausralia ” policy of the Australian Labor Party was not founded on any feeling of racial superiority, lint arose originally from tho practice of importing black slave labor "that prevailed thirty years ago. So far as the Constitutional relationships were concerned, the Labor Governments that had cxi.sied in Australia during the last fifteen years had found that, they wore con.oiled to a great extent by tho Imperial Government, and it was in the iope of giving the Commonwealth a greater degree of control over its own affairs that a memorial had been presented to Downing street asking lor tho appointment of Australians instead of British ns Governors-Geiieral.

Colonel Wedgewood said that if the British Commonwealth was to endure it would have to bo a commonwealth of free people united by an absolutely free bond. India would have to he made a participating partner in the Commonwealth.

INDIA’S DEMAND FOR FREEDOM. Mr N. M. Joshi, of the Indian Legislative Assembly, emphasised the manner in which Indian economic conditions reacted to the detriment, of economic conditions in other parts of the Umpire. In demanding self-determina-tion for India lie said that lie was not under the delusion that it would improve very much (ho condition of tho masses at once. But with self-govern-ment their task would he easier. Tho forces against them would not he so strong as they were to-day. India wanted freedom as early as possible. It did not want British Imperialism to protect it against itself. Mr W. M ‘Mullen. M.P., of Ireland, issued a similar warning to that of the South African delegate. For years, he said, the Irish peoplo had been so engrossed in the question of Homo Rule that they bad forgotten everything else, lie added that it was significant that Ireland was represented by a united delegation at that conference, and bo hoped that it would not be long before Catholic, and Protcstant_ were walking shoulder to shoulder undivided by the issues that had divided them in the past. This concluded tho debate, and tho further consideration of the question raised by Mr Tom Johnson was remitted to a committee.