THE IMPERIAL TIE

Marlborough Express, Volume LIIII, Issue 82, 8 April 1920, Page 5

THE IMPERIAL TIE

DOMINIONS AND SECESSION

<VIEWS OF GENERAL SMUTS.

[Prebb Asbooutiow.} (Imperial News Service.) (Received April 7, 9.40 p.m.) LONDON, April 6,

The Manchester, Guardian, commenting* on Mr Bonar Law's speech in the "House of Commons in reference to Dominion Home Rule, with special reference to the fact that the South African republicans are now endeavoring to apply the argument ir>. their favor, dwells on, the importance of Ministers thin king; carefully when speaking at the centre of the Empire in order to avoid misinterpretation.

The Guardian contends that General. Smuts is absolutely right in his contention that the Dominions are not entitled to secede from' the Empire, and quotes General Smuts as saying that the relation of the Crown U> the province of the Cape or the Transvaal is precisely the same as its relation to Cornwall or Lancashire. It declares that General Smuts is perfectly sound in maintaining that no portion of a single sovereign State can throw off its allegiance on its ojyn authority without an act of rebellion or revolution. "We could not do it in England, and it cannot lawfully be done in Canada or South Africa."

The paper attributes ,Mr Bonar Law's statement to the fa.ct that we have so much good reason to rely on the goodwill of the Dominions that any attempt to force their .loyalty is unthinkable. "If. some, day a Don'inion wished the formal' tie to be severed, then a friendly though foreign Dominion would . clearly be a greater support to UvS |:hs.n would an unfriendly one held down by force vf: arms. If that is conceivable, then, as Mr Bonar Law says, we should certainly not attempt to force her, but that is not to say that any British Dominion which might give us, as it wore, a month's notice would find that notice accepted."