DOMINION STATUS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21531, 31 December 1931, Page 11

DOMINION STATUS

DEFINITION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS '• DUTIES OF IMPERIAL CONFER- . ENCE. . (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, . November ,26. Although the Statute of Westminster has been passed by the House of Commons, professors and others continue, to discuss the constitutional development that the Statute implies. Professor R. Coupland, Beit professor of colonial history at Oxford, points out, in a letter to The Times, that the declaration framed by the Interimperial Relations Committee of the ,Imperial Conference in 1926 was_ on the face of it no more than a definition of a, status which existed at that time and had,- indeed, existed for several years past. The definition, it is true (he says), occasioned some surprise among those, in this country or abroad, who knew little about the dominions or their relations with the United Kingdom; but the strange suspicion that Lord Balfour, the principal author of the definition, had lent his great authority to a secret and far-reaching revolution was quickly dispelled by the statements of Sir Robert Horden and General Smuts, who had both been Prime Ministers of their respective dominions before 1926. The committee’s report, said Sir Robert Borden, “ gave formal recognition to existing practices . . . in no; case, as far as I can see. denoting any advance in status.” It “purported, to express,” said General Smuts, “ in formal language and in deliberate language what was the practice. . . . ■ Do hot let us to-day give any occasion for the idea that some revolutionary change has taken place in the Empire.” In fact, the status of the dominions when the India Act of 1919 was framed was virtually the same in practice as it was in 1926. But, supposing it had been otherwise, what difference would it have made in 1919? The governing factor, surely, then as now, was the Announcement or August 20, 1917, which committed British policy to “the progressive realisation of responsible government to India as an integral part of the British Empire.” Opinions differ as to the method and the time in which this process Of “progressive realisation” should be carried out, but no one can question that it must logically end, sooner or later, in complete responsible government. THE KING’S RESPONSIBILITY. Mr Richard Jebb, a writer on Imperial subjects, returns to the subject of the powers of the King. Professor H. A. Smith previously maintained that his Majesty was now responsible for reconciling conflicting advice tendered to him by different dominions. ‘ This responsibility (say e Mr Jebb) might by agreement be made to devolve upon hie Government collectively,. i.q., the Imperial Conference. It should not be very difficult to formulate,..a . category of measures, legislative . and executive, which by virtue of their importance to the Empire as a whole should only receive the royal assent with the concurrence of the whole.- In practice this would mean that the final advice would still be tendered by tfie British Prime Minister, but in his other capacity as President of the Imperial Conference. . Normally it should suffice if he first consulted the dominion representatives in London, who might, or might not, feel obliged to cable for instructions. _ Only in exceptional cases should -it. be necessary to await the session, or summon. a special meeting, of the conference itself. - -- - THE, INDIAN PROBLEM. The appointment of a GovernorGeneral or Viceroy ,(now the more appropriate term) may be one of the matters which- is might be . well to reserve for advice by the Imperial Conference, having regard to the lessons of the Round Table Conference. . It may .be that the true solution of- the Indian problem lies in the immediate concession of Dominion status—which means simply freedom from external control—without responsible government at the centre. Everything would then depend on the selection of a' Viceroy capable of holding the country together, and within the Empire, by promoting the common sentiment of loyalty to his Majesty’s Throne, and person rather than any exotic theory of ■ democracy. If so, it would greatly strengthen the position of both Viceroy and Sovereign, especially in time of trouble, if the appointment had been made by the Sovereign with the approval of his Governments collectively: AN EXTORTION FROM GREAT BRITAIN. Mr Winston Churchill, also writing to The Times, says that the Imperial Conference of 1926 had transformed the meaning attached to the loose term “Dominion status” in such a way as to abolish all conception of Imperial supremacy, and this vast change wa« subsequently to be prescribed in the rigid language of a statute. It was at this juncture (Mr Churchill adds), when the Statutory ‘ Commission desired to exclude all mention of “Dominion status” from their report, and when “ Dominion status ” itself had been fundamentally altered, that Lord Irwin and the Socialist Government he served went out of their way to make a new declaration reviving the term “ Dominion stated *’ and bringing in into the forefront of the immediate issues of Indian politics. The disastrous consequences were, fiist, that the report of the Statutory Commission was fatally prejudiced before it wai pubHshed; and secondly, that “ Dominion status,” instead of being a vague, remote, and largely ceremonial aspiration, was treated by the Indian political classes as something already in their grasp, not to be esteemed or valued, except ae an admission extorted from Great Britain upon the path to independence. This double disaster has poisoned alike the present and the future. Hopes have been aroused which are not going to be gratified; words and phases nave been used in a new atmosphere upon high, formal, responsible authority which everyone knows do not. accord with the realities of the Indian situation. Ground has been given for reproach, and Parliament is itself involved in profound embarrassment. This is the burden , which, in my judgment, rests upon those who have: directed the recent course of Indi-" affairs.