THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1931. AN IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 21029, 13 November 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1931. AN IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

To keep the Imperial family intact and yet give freedom of action to its mature members is the pioblem raised anew by discussion of the Statute of Westminster. The social analogy may suggest that (he ultimate fate of the Empire i:s to fall asunder, each separate unit having its own home, with the enjoyment of absolute independence. But it is never safe to press analogies to their utmost limits. They are only analogies, after all, and"should be applied with reservations. In this instance, there is wanting the vital feature of a succession of generations, of parents inevitably dying and yielding place to their multiplying children. The British stock in the earth may increase in number and variety, but who will say that the United Kingdom, progenitor of them all, must vanish ? The analogy breaks down. All reasonable opinion about the future takes for granted the persistence of Great Britain, with the fortunes of Greater Britain depending on what may happen within the circle it now covers; and Imperial statecraft—a term embracing all manner of regional contributions to plans for future co-operation—is facing the necessity of keeping the Empire together, while acknowledging the desirability of removing all that may be irksome to its compon- | ent parts. Indeed, that statecraft recognises the need to provide a large measure of freedom within the family—in order to keep it together. The pressing question is concerned with the limits to be set to that freedom—not by the arbitrary will of Great Britain but by the deliberate decision of the whole of Greater Britain in consultation. This principle of consultation has lieen honoured in the development of Imperial Conferences, at which the oversea Dominions have been given increasing rights of expression. The Imperial Conference of 1026, adopting the report of its Balfour Committee, declared "the selfgoverning communities'' of the Empire to be autonomous, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, thouch united by a common allegiance to the Crown. The committee made impressive reference to the historic situation, emphasising the long and progressive development of the British Empire, unlike any other State in the world, toward such an equality of status as the formula expressed. This explanation has become axiomatic in all considerations of constitutional changes in the Empire. These have come as practical solutions of questions raised from time to time by experience, in the spreading of the British nation across the world. The British habit has been to do things needful as necessity arose —this is the real meaning oi the proverbial "muddling through," not so casual as it seems —and to find an explanatory formula afterwards. But there has been long in existence a body of statutory law of Imperial application, and sooner or later there was bound to arise a necessity to square what was written with what was done. This has happened in the instance now under discussion. The 1926 conference was aware nf this necessity, and therefore appointed a, committee to prepare for the succeeding conference a set of recommendations as to legislative steps made inevitable by the epochal declaration of equality of status. In due course these recommendations were considered in 1030, and the Statute of Westminster is one outcome—the most, important and crucial. It was framed to meet the position created by the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, by which the Dominions were prohibited from passing laws that conflicted with the laws of England. So it was agreed that, in order to complete what was done bv the Imperial Conferences, legislation should be framed to make the principle of the Act of 18G5 inapplicable to any Dominion Jaws subsequent to 1026 and to exclude any Act of the British Parliament from application to the Dominions without their express request or consent.

This statute, framed for submission to each of the self-governing units of Hie Empire, the, United Kingdom included, has been rightly •criticised as "a most dangerous experiment,'' and Professor Morgan of London has joined others in emphasising that it has raised difficulties while seeking to avoid them. The particular difficulty is met when the external relations of the several units of the Empire, are considered. By December I of this year, according to the statute, these units are to have "full power io make laws having extraterritorial operation." This apparently gives them, and if may be argued that it actually does give, them, full status as sovereign States. Any of the Dominions, for instance, could act in external affairs against the interest of Great Britain, and claim under this statute an acknowledged right to do so. It would seem, therefore, that a step has been taken towards dismemberment of the Empire. Whether this will prove so depends on the action of the component parts in their use of this statutory liberty. Two things need to be borne in mind. The statute has not added to the, power of secession which cannot be legislatively denied, nor does it impel any unit to act., in any external matter, contrary to the interests of other parts of the. Empire. Save for the purpose of reaching consistency between the declarations of the. Imperial Conferences and the Colonial Laws Validity Act, the statute was unnecessary. Yet, it, may encourage, such assertions of independence as have characterised South Africa and the Irish Free State. So far as NewZealand is concerned, it has been explicitly agreed that particular legislation by its Parliament is essential to any application of the statute here, and with that position the Dominion may well rest content,