The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER, 3, 1930 MR. FORBES AND EMPIRE UNITY.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 11327, 3 October 1930, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER, 3, 1930 MR. FORBES AND EMPIRE UNITY.

When the Prime Minister reached London for the Imperial Conference, he touched lightly, in an interview, on the vexatious question as to whether or not a unit of the Empire is of right entitled to secede if it should so desire. “Why should we talk about the matter at all?” he is reported to have remarked. Seemingly, Mr Forbes is under the impression that, if no member of the British family of nations had indicated that it wished to “cut the painter,” the joint was not worth wasting time over. It so happens, however, that the question is a very live one in South Africa. In an important speech at Pretoria prior to departing for London, Premier ITertzog made it plain that it was high time a definite understanding was reached on the subject. He said, inter alia, that he was satisfied that South Africa already was free to remain within the Empire or leave it, just as she liked. In no circumstances, ho remarked, may the right to scecdc from the British Commonwealth be taken from South Africa. “The people of South Africa,” he continued, “will he prepared, to an ever increasing extent, heartily to maintain co-operation with Great Britain and the other Dominions, but co-operation will depend on national independence being recognised. Dr. Malan now makes the claim that South Africa reserves the right to remain) neutral in the case of the Empire becoming engaged in n conflict, Whilst he is in London, General Ilertzog is hound to he closely questioned hv, interviewers as to exactly what is meant by the claim set up on behalf of South Africa. If his statements have any definite meaning at all. it is that if South Africa ho not declared an independent State, she will not he prepared to co-operate at all with the rest of the Empire. Such being the case, Mr. Forbes’s comments on the subject appear rather crude. What must make matters worse is that Mr. Thomas, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, lias expressed the viewpoint, presumably on behalf of the British Labor Government, that “nobody questions in the least the right of any Dominion to snrede from the Empire.” Tf that is a viowpomt generally accepted at Home and we do not believe that that is the ease it most certainly is not a common belief in the Overseas Dominions. Tho new situation that has arisen owes its origin to tho use of the phrase “partners in the Empire” which is taken to imply that a, partner has tho right at any time to withdraw from a partnership. The general impression must he that what has all along; been intended is that the various units of the Empire should be i ogariled as an Empire Federation—a great family of British nations. .Tf the Empire is to he so regarded, it would he unthinkable to allow one or more of its members to secede and drift mereiy into an attitude of friendship. As was pointed out by Sir Thomas A\hite at Ottawa, - a Home Government alone should not profess to have the right to make a decision on behalf of the Empire’ on sncli a momentous question. Fortunately, Mr. Thomas’s declaration has not even the weight of acceptance by a majority of the people of the Homeland for the Labor party is in a minority there.' In the circumstances, it would he well if the matter should ho brought up at the current session of the Imperial Conference, notwithstanding the fact that a decision by that august assembly would not he binding. At all events, a frank discussion on the point might assist in clearing the air. When all is said and done, South Africa, wider its constitution, was not declared an independent State, and General Hertzog should not he encouraged in tho belief that the constitution is merely “a scrap of paper.”