THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1930. EMPIRE AND PARTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20598, 24 June 1930, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1930. EMPIRE AND PARTY.

At first sight, the suggestion that the new Secretary of State for the Dominions should try to raise the Imperial Conference abovo party, either at Homo or overseas, may seem an admirable one. Closer scrutiny, however, discovers that what is practicable in it is not new and that what is new is not practicable. As put forward, it urges that the conference should be marked by full and free discussion, no question being excluded, that the views of all parties should be heard, and that the various Parliamentary Oppositions should be represented, in order to make the conference an unprejudiced Council of State for the whole Empire. For the plea that there should be free discussion there is now little need. When there assembled the first Colonial Conference, in ISB7---"the parent of a long progeniture." as Lord Salisbury hopefully described it —the overseas representatives, in spite of a few faint protests, were modestly content to accept inferior status. They appeared, to one observer, as though they were representatives of outlying provinces come to London to confer with their Metropolitan. The subjects discussed were limited; there was care, for example, to exclude from the agenda "what is known as political federation." So ran the phrasing of 'the official despatch calling the conference, which Was announced officially as being necessarily "purely consultative." But even that conference, for all its apparent easualness as an experiment made possible by the presence of so many colonial representatives at Queen Victoria's jubilee, took itself very seriously and talked of many things.- All thought of inferiority on the part of overseas members was killed outright at the last conference, in 1926, when there was definitely enunciated the doctrine of "equality of status." What now exists is a round table, and it is a, trifle superfluous to urge Mr. Thomas to inaugurate a new order of free discussion.

The Imperial Conference had its origin in the rise of what may for convenience be styled colonial nationalism, and ( in normal times must remain true to the idea in its very n?me of conference. It must still be consultative, though not necessarily "purelyconsultative." A different position was naturally taken by the Imperial War Cabinet, which, though not a cabinet in the strict sense of the term, had executive powers given it by an emergency. In ordinary circumstances, there will be freedom of consultaand yet those present cannot do anything effective, even in consul tation, without a sense of responsibility. The very fact that the assembly is made up of representatives of distinct and virtually inde pendent bodies, necessitates this. They meet to express and collate, not their own personal opinions, but the considered opinions of the 1m perial constituencies they represent. To act otherwise would be out of harmony with the genesis of the con ference in colonial nationalism. With the strictly colonial membership now cut off and given its own conference, whereas formerly the Colonial Secretary had practically in his own hands such business relating to them as came , within the purview of the Imperial Conference, the whole of the present members are there to speak for self-governing units of the British commonwealth. A recognition of the full and logical implication of this fact precludes acceptance of the suggestion that others than accredited representatives of Governments should have right of speech. To suggest that this is to subordinate Empire to party is groundless. No representative is there as a party man, though he is there because his party happens at the time to be in office in his own country. He attends to hear and to speak for his terrrtox-ial unit. There may be diverse opinions in his territory about Imperial policy, but the system of responsible and representative government obtaining in British countries provides a workable way for registering the dominant opinion, and this opinion the representatives, as spokesmen for their respective Governments, are fully entitled and able to express. Opinion in any particular territory on Imperial affairs is either unanimous or divided. If unanimous, there would be no need to send others than representatives of Governments; if divided, and expressed controversially in the conference by heads of parties, there would be an end to its possibility of doing business. The suggestion of diverse spokesmen means airing in London, before the representatives of all the other countries of the Empire, differences that ought to be settled in the several Parliaments. It is to these Parliaments, not to the Secretary for the Dominions?-' that the appeal for placing Empire above party should be addressed. In them the fullest and freest discussion can take place. It usually docs, and as a rule party is subordinated to Empire when Imperial issues are at stake. Should there be a party unprepared to do this, and it be the dominant party, then for its spokesman to be sent to the conference, to express alienation from the Empire and refusal to co-operate, would be absurd. If such a disloyal party be not dominant, it has no show of right to send a spokesman. The simple fact, forgotten by the maker of the suggestion that Parliamentary Oppositions should be represented, is that the conference is really one of responsible Governments. Take away the responsibility of the representatives, and the conference might just as well not be held. The suggestion of a multi-party delegation, empowered to express diverse opinions, if not to enter into divergent compacts, really cuts at the root of the institution.