The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1921. A MEMORABLE DISCUSSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10993, 31 August 1921, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1921. A MEMORABLE DISCUSSION

Sir John Findlay’s paper—read by him at a meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute on June 7th last—was remarkable and memorable. It was remarkable for his graceful handling of the great question of the government of the Empire; for bis practical realisation of the key to the problem; for his anticipation, in effect, of the constitutional verdict about to be recorded by the Imperial Conference; and for the very high compliment paid to him by one of the contributors to the subs '- | quent discussion —Sir Gerald Strickland j -—who referred to his paper as “the work of perhaps the greatest constitutional lawyer we have now amongst us.” The paper was memorable for the almost unanimous adoption by the meeting of Sir John’s conclusion that, whatever may be the case in the remote future, which might have to consider the question of a formal written Federal Constitution, the best possible, in fact the only, course at present is to trust to the goodwill and loyalty of all concerned, with the experience already gained and to be added to from time to time, of the value of periodical consultations conducted with complete frankness. The interest aroused at the meeting by the paper wae as evident in the tone of the speakers as by thie almost unanimous agreement with its conclusion. That interest was due partly to the masterliness of the treatment, of tho subject and partly to the charming style of its treatment. When well launched, the paper confronted tho great question of the Eimpires of history which had crumbled from natural causes, quoting Matthew Arnold:

That Empire after Empire at their height Of sway have felt this boding sense come on, ; Have felt their huge " frames not constructed right. And drooped and slowly died upon their throne.

How may this Empire, the greatest the world has ever seen, “and by what means, may it, grow from more to more in unity, power, and justioe; or how, maybe, by certain disintegrating and destructive influences, it may ultimately break up and lose the name of Empire ?’’ That question he answered by a rapid sketch of the history of this Empire. He divided it into two periods—of early colonial and later Imperial. The earlier was distinguished by the ignorance and oaptiousness of the Home statesmen ; by the dependence of tho colon., is, which tinged their undoubted loyalty partly with that tint of gratitude which has been, described as the expectation of favours to come; and by the weakness of the binding bond of central force. The later —the Imperial—on the contrary, is remarkable for the knowledge and appreciation at Home of the Imperial connections abroad; for the loyalty of these connections proved by tho rude test of war to be of tho ideal brand of unselfishness, and marked by. tbo perfect smoothness of the working of all things pertaining to partnership. The conclusion inevitable waß that love would lead the way to permanence and greatness for the whole, and safety for the unity of the parts. A noticeable

feature of the situation is that the Colonial Institute was in the past, as its many meetings recorded, a hotbed of the propaganda of formal Federal Constitutionalism; and that the paper, sweeping aside that theory of Empire, was tho work, not only of one described as a groat Constitutional lawyer, but of one who had stood foremost among the advocates of formalism. To this hotbed, Sir John frankly opened with a confession, saying at the outset that “his address had the novelty of a recantation,” and the hotbed, when it had heard his paper, almost unanimously joined in the recantation. This was before the Imperial Conference. We may thus gauge tThe strength of the Constitutional position now that the Conference has practically established the Imperial relations on the lines of internal goodwill and natural development. As Sir Gerald Strickland said, in complimenting Sir John Findlay, whose former opinions he had personally discussed with him, “the value of the present paper was the spirit of recantation. Lawyers must go out of the business of Empliebuilding. As Sir John had said, while law must be upheld, law in this case must stand down, and Constitutionalism must take its place.” The Empire, he added, “once bad been a question of geography; it had to-day become a question of psychology.” Sir John’s conclusion wae strongly endorsed by the Right Hon. Mr Massey and the Right Hon. Sir Robert Stout. The latter, confining himself to the general issue, said, fittingly, that the governing method which had proved so successful in war, cannot be other than successful in peace time, which is without the strains and stresses that war imposes at every turn. Then we. needed no written Constitution; how could we be said to need it now? The men had gone to the front without such' & thing, and 'the moneys had followed; that settled the question. Instead of appealing to a written statute to maintain our Empire, we must appeal to the spirit of man. The spirit and feeling of brotherhood would, if increased, give us a federation lasting for all time. Compromise would help that increase. As the Englishman jb full of compromise, the mottQ of the British Empire should be, “Come, let us reason together.” Mr Massey did not go so far ae to make sure of the present elastic system for all time, admitting, however, only a remote possibility of the future requiring something more formal. He grounded his speech of approval, as might have been expected of him, chiefly on his experience of the proved extraordinary value of the system of consultation of all units. Plunging boldly into the work of the men who had been actually of the British Cabinet in the war, be touched the supreme point of it, and held it aloft with reference to the meeting when the Germans were thundering at the gates of Amiens, to drive their wedge between the French and British armies; making us guess how muoh they had to do with the settlement of the unity of command which won the war. ' Slight differences he mentioned, with some points of detail, in the scheme of consultation sketched by Sir John Findlay, who had made euggestions about periodical meetings and the establishment of members of colonial Cabinets in London, men speaking the Cabinet mind and in touch by frequent change with • representative . opinions. These differences do not affect the occasion. Enough that Mr | Massey was in cordial accord with the general tone of the paper, and threw the light of his unique experience in its favour, enlightening the meeting of men who, after years of participation in theoretical discussion, were there to hear facts. Mr Napier, of Auckland, was the one dissentient. Speaking for the written federal syetem, he would not twit Sir John with his recantation, but ho did ask what reliance could be placed as a right guide on Sir John, who had recanted from bis old plan? Thereby he demolished his own case, for he made it a question of personality. Sir John had the logic of facts with him, not the prestige of personal leadership, and Mr Napier failed to grasp the difference.