THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1921. THE STATUS OF THE DOMINIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18198, 19 March 1921, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1921. THE STATUS OF THE DOMINIONS.

It is disappointing that the majority of members of Parliament who spoke on the Address-in-Reply thought fit to ignore the' constitutional questions of which the present importance furnishes the explanation of the sitting of the Legislature at this unusual period. The Government certainly put these questions in their true light and in their proper setting when. it committed the Governor-General to the statement, in his Speech at the opening of the session,' that the subjects for discussion at the'lmperial Conference would ir.volve the relations of the self-

governing dominions one with another and also the gelations of the British Commonwealth as a whole with the other nations of the world, to the end “that there may be no question as to the continued cohesion of the Empire itself.” The aim of the discussions at the approaching Conference, as expressed in the sentence which we have quoted, merits the greatest possible emphasis. Especially is this the case when the existence of disruptive elements in the Empire has to be acknowledged, and when, even among those who are staunch Imperialists, there is a good deal of loose thinking on the subject. It is the proud boast of the, dominions that they have lately acquired a now status.—that, together with the United Kingdom, they now form a Commonwealth of free nations. “We are partners in the Empire,” Mr Massey said in the Lower House a few nights ago. The expression may be accepted as indicating with sufficient accuracy the status that is now claimed on behalf of * the dominions if indeed it may not be said to have been actually assigned to the dominions. As Sir John Sinclair observed, however, in the able speech which was delivered by him in the Address-in-Reply debate in the Legislative Council, it has been contended that the inclusion of each of the self-governing dominions among the signatories of the Peace Treaty at Versailles was a recognition of their acquisition of the status of sovereign States. If this bo so, then they are sovereign States life, the sense that each of the Great Powers that signed the Tr'eaty is a sovereign State. It can hardly be seriously suggested that it was • contemplated that what was obviously in-, tended in the first place as a compliment to the British dominions should be construed so literally as it has been. But leading statesmen in more than one of the dominions have slope spoken in terms which imply* that they interpret the proceedings at the Peace Conference as, in fact, conferring upon all the selfgoverning dominions a status equal to that of the United Kingdom both in the domestic relations of the British Empire and in the councils of the world. They are entitled, moreover; to point, in confirmation of their interpretation, to the fact that the mandates .which have been issued to dominions for the administration of former German territory require that annual reports of their stewardship shall be rendered to the League of^/Nations —to an association, that is, of sovereign States. it seems to us to be perfectly clear that nothing but a confusion of ideas can result from the unqualified adherence to a claim that the dominions have acquired the status of free nations. Sir John Sinclair. forcibly pointed out the implications that are contained in the assumption by |he dominions of‘the title of free nations. Among other things, a dominion which is a free nation would have the right to withdraw from its membership of the British Empire. We do; not know that a prominent statesman in another dominion has not already that this right of “self-determination” exists. Again, one of the dominions, claiming to be a free nation, might decide to remain at peace with a foreign Power with which the rest of the Empire was at war.' It may be argued, of course, that the great force of national sentiment, which constitutes an intangible but extremely powerful bond of Empire at the present time, would 'Operate so tremendously as to make either of these possibilities so remote as to be practically unthinkable. Very probably this is so, but the fact that the possibility, extremely remote though it may be, is inherent in the existence of the dominions as free nations at least raises a doubt whether the acquisition by the dominions of their new.status contributes in cny degree whatever to—whether it does not militate against—“the continued coherence b’f the Commonwealth of free nations” which the Governor-General’# Speech at the opening of Parliament describes as the objective of the Imperial Conference. Sir John Sinclair put the matter as, we are sure, the British people throughout the Empire believe it should be put when he said “it was clear that we codld not exist as a commonwealth if each part were given the status of a nation; we must stand l or fall together.” This is the view which Mr Massey holds of what he terms the Empire partnership. It is to be trusted that he will express this view with all the necessary force at the Imperial Conference. His conception of the lines upon which authority should be coordinated throughout the namely, the creation of an Imperial executive the duty of which would be to deal with foreign affairs and with the issues of peace and war —is really of less importance than the maintenance of the principle of the unity of the Empire. The establishment of some new constitutional mechanism, as the Bound Table expresses it, for continuous consultation between the British nations will come in time. It will, however, be more likely to be of a , permanent character if it is so framed as to represent the outcome of the steady evolution of thought upon the subject than if the effort is made to force it upon nations which have got on exceedingly well under the elastic conditions that have marked the relationship between the* United Kingdom and the dominions in the past.