THE LIMITS OF LIBERTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19416, 26 August 1926, Page 8

THE LIMITS OF LIBERTY.

Challenged to reconcile his open advocacy of South Africa's secession from the Empire with his oath of allegiance as a Minister of the Crown, Mr. Beyers has chosen' a specious line of answer. The right of secession has long been admitted by prominent British statesmen, he says; therefore—his use of this word suggests that he lacks skill in both language and logic—it follows that he is entitled to engage in propaganda for secession. How the state • ments of some British politicians and others can carry so tremendous an inference is not clear. Thai logical difficulty may pass. What is more to the point is that South Africa's place in the Empire, like that of any other Dominion, is de Gned by statute enacted in Britain, not by the ipse dixit of any number of Parliamentarians. It can be altered by statute only, leaving out of account successful armed revolt, which Mr. Beyers apparently does not advocate. Should South Africa express by convincing vote a determination to secede, Britain might, or might not, let this territory "step out of the commonwealth'' without a word. Her action would be a decision in policy, but it would nevertheless call for statutory statement if any drastic change of the constitutional position were involved. Mr. Beyers' contention appears to rest on the British right of free speech. That right, however, is conferred by statute, and can be limited by statute. It is so limited in practice under stress of special circumstances, as in the ban placed upon seditious utterance, particularly in times of national disturbance. It is always restricted by the obligation undertaken in the oath of allegiance, which explicitly imposes loyalty to the Constitution. That oath binds Mr. Beyers as a Minister of the Crown, and if he is bent on fostering secession his only honest and reasonable course is to resign. Until he has done this he remains pledged to uphold the Constitution as by law established. His argument confuses unbridled license with the liberty conferred by statute on British subjects and enioyed by them to an extent unknown elsewhere in the world. This sort of talk is very pernicious, and those who indulge in it are untrue to the basic principles of citizenship, which have to do with, duties quite as much as with rights. To these duties Mr. Beyers has turned a blind eye, as his critics in South Africa and elsewhere are bound to note with emphatic protest and disapproval.