DOMINION AND WAR

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 255, 25 September 1935, Page 12

DOMINION AND WAR

SOVEREIGN STATUS. THEORY OF NEUTRALITY. In his new book, “The King’s Grace,” John Buchan, now Lord Tweedsmuir, Governor-General of Canada, discusses in a chapter titled “The Changing Empire” the status of the Dominions as affected by the Statute of Westminster and their relation to the Motherland in time of war.

“In former days,” he writes, “the handling of foreign policy had been in the hands of the British Cabinet, and its decisions had bound the Dominions. Under its auspices treaties had been signed, and by its will war had been declared and peace concluded. “But the new conception of an alliance of sovereign States made this procedure impossible. A Dominion could not pledge itself to war, except with the consent of its own Parliament ; it must have the right to make treaties in the name of the King; it must, if it so desired, have diplomatic representation in foreign capitals. The problem was liow to combine these necessary functions with some unifying principle which would enable the Empire to have a continuous foreign policy, and, in a crisis, to speak to the world with a single voice. OLD METHODS GONE.

“When Mustaplia Kemal’s troops advanced to the Dardanelles in the autumn of 1922 and for a moment Britain seemed to be on the verge of war, Mr Lloyd George appealed to the Empire for aid. The response of the Dominions, half-hearted and resentful, was a warning that the old niotliods had gonb for ever. The ensuing Treaty of Lausanne was formally accepted by Canada, but not any obligations arising from it, and at the Imperial Conference that year it was resolved that ‘no treaty should be negotiated by any Government of the Empire without due consideration of the possible effects in other parts of the Empire.’ “That year, too, Canada arranged a fishery treaty with the United States, the signature of which she insisted must be by the Canadian plenipotentiary under powers issued to him by the King. From 1924 onward various Dominions appointed their separate diplomatic representatives. In the Locarno treaties the Dominions and India were .specially excluded from the British obligations arising thereunder, unless they specifically assumed them. THE BALFOUR DEFINITION. “The Empire was drifting into a constitutional tangle, which it was the business of the Imperial Conference in 1926 to unravel. A formula drafted by Lord Balfour attempted a definition of the relations of Great Britain and the Dominions—‘They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any respect in their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to tlie Crown, and freyly associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.’

“From this certain consequences followed, of which the chief was that the British Government, as Government, had no right of interference in Dominion affairs, and that a GovernorGeneral must represent the King and the King alone, and be appointed on Dominion advice. A committee of lawyers and officials sat in 1929 to work out certain conclusions, and the result was the Statute of Westminster, which became law in 1931. This enactment removed, with a few small exceptions, every shackle from a Dominion’s sovereign power. It left the Crown as the sole legal link holding the alliance together, and it provided, therefore, that any law affecting the Crown should require the assent of every Parliament in the Empire. FINDING A WAY.

“It the scriptural ‘Via, Veritas, Vita,’ be taken as a motto for any great human undertaking, the two last words have been for the Empire interpreted and fulfilled. Front the days of the Elizabethans it has had the Life. It has now by slow stages reached the Truth, a doctrine which permits free growth within a generous framework. Jt remains to find the Way, the machinery of an executive alliance, the means of giving expression to its unity of spirit. ‘•'These means we are still in process of discovering in the various departments of economics, foreign affairs and defence. The conference at Ottawa in

1932 was such an attempt; so were the numerous trade agreements negotiated in the last few years. The pressure of economic problems is forcing the component parts of the Empire into a closer collaboration, and correcting the fissiparous tendency which was inevitable after the dissolution of the older bonds. “A Court of law, I think, would have some difficulty in interpreting the exact. meaning of the Balfour Definition, or in pronouncing upon the full implications of the Statute of Westminster. Can a Dominion remain at peace if Britain is at war? In theory, perhaps, but scarcely in fact for tio Imperial statute would prevent Britaiirs opponent from bombarding the Dominion’s ports if so desired. A Dominion may have power to secede from the Empire, but what then becomes of its relation to the Crown ? What is the right of the constituent provinces of a Dominion against a Dominion Government, rights of which Britain in some cases remains the trustee. What indeed is the true meaning of a Dominion?

UNITY THROUGH THE CROWN. “We have left unexplored certain arcana imperii in the hope that the need for exploration may never arise. That has always been the British way. When we start to write out a constitution we never make a complete job of it. We do not believe that the meaning of an Empire, which is in continuous growth, can be enshrined in any document. So instead of a definition we have been content with spacious generalities. “But one thing has emerged from the debate, the tremendous meaning of the Crown. It is the foundation of the new doctrine, the one principle which gives unity to a vast growth whose destiny is unpredictable. Without it no tie of Sentiment or blood or tradition would bind for long. To the Empire it provides a centre for its long memories and a personality for its devotion. There can he no question but that it has acquired since tlie war a far deeper and more intimate meaning for the Britains overseas.”