OUR DEPENDENT EMPIRE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21266, 21 February 1931, Page 4

OUR DEPENDENT EMPIRE.

A PLEA FOR DOMINION INFLUENCE.

" New Imperial Ideals; A Plea for the Association of the Dominions In the’ Government of the Dependent Empire." By Robert Stokes, 8.A., Corpus Christl College, Oxford. With an Introduction by the Right Hon. Lord Lloyd, P.C., G.C.5.1., G.C.1.E., D. 5.0., eta With map. London: John Murray. (10s 6d pet.)

Mr Stokes's “New Imperial Ideals was written before the last Imperial Conference took place. The reader can find small satisfaction, therefore, in. comparing what little the conference did achieve with the vision of Mr Stokes of the place in Empire government that it could take. Of the potential value of the conference Mr Stokes is emphatically convinced—it forms, in fact, the basis. of his philosophy of Empire presented in this work—and he is, moreover, definitely convincing. He commences by outlining succinctly, no easy task, the theory of Empire as it exists, and then embarks upon a strong criticism of the accepted theories of interimperial relations.. The main principles of unity, he says, arise out of seven factors:—(l) sentiment; (2) interest; (3) nationality; (4) equality; (5) consultation; (G) co-operation; (7) the avoidance of friction by avoiding institutions. But these ties are, he argues, mainly theoretical. For instance, in dealing with the limitations of interest as a bond of Empire, he looks ahead further than we in dependent New Zealand are prepared to. look: — At present the dominions are united to Great Britain by three important bonds of interest —namely, markets, security, and credit. Great Britain is their great market. In the case of Australia, New Zealand, and the Irish Free State, she takes an overwhelming proportion of their produce. Their whole prosperity is bound up intimately with their position in the British market. This is, of .course, certain to continue in the case of the Free State for reasons of geography, but in the case of every one of the other dominions the British market is bound to be of decreasing importance. It . is, after all, but a corner of Europe, and relatively since the war Europe itself has shrunk immeasurably in importance owing to the growth of population and industry in the • other continents. It wll continue to shrink. Aylready too, the unfortunate present situation of the United Kingdom has had depressing reactions on the dominions. . . . Each such reaction cannot but direct the mind of Dominion producers to the advantages of alternative markets. At any . moment the advantages te> a dominion of a commercial treaty with ' another part of the world may curtail its interest in the British market, and in the absence of an Imperial organ of co-operation, such treaties are liable to be concluded suddenly and without previous interimperial consultation, Further, he says, the Dominions are presntly reliant upon a political and economic situation in Great Britain that may at any time change in a manner that would gravely disturb the market. The Merchandise Marks Act advantages might be withdrawn, or the activities of the Empire Marketing Board might cease, or preferences might be abandoned (that the possibility is not altogether remote the 1930 Imperial Conference showed). “In fact,” he says, “ a single British Budget might conceivably dislocate almost the entire economic life of a dominion." With what, then, would Mr Stokes replace the factors enumerated, which he systematically demonstrates in their weaknesses? His answer is that the construction of Empire tics should be achieved around an Imperial Conference which is more than consultative. The conference would become a permanent institution charged with the conduct of foreign policy as a whole, and with the function of advising the Crown i£ conflicting advice should be tendered by two separate bodies of his Majesty’s advisers. The central structure would be completed by a judicial tribunal for the settlement of interimperial justiciable disputes, and an arbitral committee for the liquidation on a voluntary basis of political differences. Similar theories have been elaborated before, though seldom, if ever, with greater grip of detail and knowledge of the political feeling and sentiments of the people in the dominions, but from this point Mr Stokes breaks, so far as we are aware, new ground. In a survey of the “dependent Empire ” of the Crown colonies, protectorates, mandates, and India he claims that the government of these States should be handed over to the new, and remvigovated Imperial Conference, and that that body should be responsible for the general conduct of policy and the direction of the development of Empire: He considers that, the association of the dominions with Great Britain in the actual act of governing the Empire would he a better basis for Imperial relationships

than the present basis of sentimental ties and common interest, and that so long as the control of the “dependent Empire is vested in the British Parliament alone there is a grave danger of conflictiou of interests and opinions. And generally, he argues, the result of this co-operation would mean more scientific fiscal systems, development of dominion potentialities upon more beneficial lines than by a system somewhat amounting to imitation of English development, and steadier markets, secure from aggression and exploitation. “New Imperial Ideals” is a thoughtful, important hook. It will repay reading by economists and politicians in this country who —the politicians at any rate —seem content to let Great Britain manage the Empire on her own, so long as that small part of it represented by this Dominion is treated with every consideration. It suggests the placing upon our shoulders of a burden of responsibility for which we are not yet fitted, but it is desirable that we should be apprised of the part which we can, and may some day have to play, in the Government of the Empire as a whole. M‘G.