THOUGHTS OF EMPIRE

Otago Witness, Issue 3455, 1 June 1920, Page 7

THOUGHTS OF EMPIRE

DOMINIONS AND THE MOTHERLAND. IS CANADA DRIFTING FROM THE FAMILY ? At the Overseas Ciub on Saturday night Mr W. Downie Stewart, M.P., gave a striking address on certain aspects of relationship between the dominions and Great Britain. Gathering the threads of his argument together as ho proceeded, Mr Stewart placed his' conclusion before his 'audience in concrete shape. . They were conclusions, moreover, which must cause the citizen who devotes any thought at all to affairs of state to think even more deeply. Mr R. S. Black occupied the chair. Mr Stewart said that there had been very little public discussion in New Zealand of the effect of the Peace Treaty on the selfgoverning dominions, and yet it was not open to question that the treaty and the League of Nations would have far-reaching effects on the destiny of New Zealand as as on the other dominions. The questions that arose affected not merely our relation to Britain, but to the world at large. The great danger was that they should regard these problems as too remote from their daily life to be of any practical concern to them. They regarded them as .matters of high State diplomacy, to bo dealt with by their rulers and statesmen at Imperial conferences and-Defence Councils, but such an attitude was not fair to their representatives who were left in the dark as to what the electors thought, or whether they were thinking at all, on questions which might in the end, prove of more vital importance than even the cost of living, or profiteering, or the housing problem. Let him try first of all to restate very briefly the position they had BEFORE THE WAR. The dominions had achieved self-govern-ment to so complete an extent that they were often described as independent nations. bound to Great Britain only by ties of race and sentiment. They had complete control of ■' their domestic affairs to such an extent that Britain even allowed them to tax imports from Great Britain ,and to regulate immigration from other parts of the Empire. But they fell short of complete independence because they had not "yet •acquired full sovereign rights in their relations with the outside world. They had no control of foreign policy, and' although they had responsible government, they could not decide the most responsible question of all, which was the question of war and peace. In other words, they left to Great Britain the control of their foreign affairs, except' in so far as thev had come to have a consultative voice at the Imperial Conferences held every four years. But as the dominions grew in population and trade, questions inevitably arose in which their interests' brought 'them into direct touch with OUTSIDE and into conflict with the point of view of the British Foreign Office. As time went on. it oame to be seen that the dominions occupied a most anomalous position; they were rapidly developing into nations, and yet they were under no responsibility for foreign affairs. Such steps as they took for naval or land defence were voluntary, and tlie main burden of the cost of defending the Empire remained on the shoulders of Great Britain. The position of New Zealand was well defined some years ago by a writer, who said "Anxiety over external relations only weighs on New Zealand to the extent that she desires. Docs she wish to negotiate for herself, the Home Government does not stand in the way, and is content to exercise a nominal control. Does she, on the contrary, want to leave the business of negotiation to other more experienced hands, the British Government again steps in to tender her the support of its experience and prestige. _ This dominion is in fact a spoilt child which never suffers for its sins, fo r a helping hand is always there to redeem its faults." This happy position of SECURITY WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY could only bo temporary. Those who thought out the real implication of the position, saw that one of two things must happen. Either the dominions muibt continue to develop their sense of nationhood and their determination to manage their external affairs to such an extent 'that they would become in fact as well as in name independent States; or else some adequate 23rovi5ion must be made whereby the dominions would take their share of the responsibility for foreign policy and of defending the Empire. Naturally the dominions repudiated any suggestion that they might be drifting towards a state of independence. Their affection for and loyalty to the Home Country seemed to preclude any possibility of such a result, hut in tb" case of one" dominion at least, and that the greatest of all, there was clear evidence that she was approaching a stage where she would find, perhaps to her surprise, that she had broken from her mooring? and become an independent nation. _ What obscured the situation was the belief thai thn holding of Imperial conferences was n sufficient guarantee that the dominions and their interests would be safeguarded, and give them an adequate voice in the control of foreign affairs. But as Lord Miiner had shown, any such idea was a complete delusion. No process of intermittent consultation could prove adequate in the vast and complicated field of foreign -affairs. Moreover, under any such system, the final decision and' roFponsihility must rest with the British Cabinet, which only represented the British elector. At the time when the war broke out there were then

TWO MAIN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT on this question, ii'irst, those who admitted that the prssont system was full of anomalies and indefensible in theory, but who contended that in practice it worked wall .enough. In their view it was better to "go on as they wore doing, developing the Imperial conferences, and not seeking to tamper with so intricate and _ delicate a piece of machinery as the British Empire. The other - school contended that if the unity of the Empire was to- be made safe and lasting, so.mo body must be created fully representative of all parts, of the Empire, and charged with the responsibility of making a foreign policy which would harmonise, if possible, the needs and aspirations of all the dominions and dependencies. Such a body would also require

to adjust properly the 'burden of defending the Empire and to systematise their defence policy. By this means they would avoid the haphazard method in which, for example, some dominions maintained 1 ' their own navies, and some contributed to th( British navy, without any regard as to how these policies would harmonise when the strain came. Matters stood thus when the groat war came, and later the pence ar.u they might now ask themselves what light they threw on the problem of Imperial unity. Fortunately the causes o± the war were so clear, 'and the existence of the Emoire was so definitely at stake, that _no difficulty was experienced in securing united and whole-hearted actio*. The whole world stood amazed at the triumph of British uolicy towards its dominions and dependencies. But the war had a double effect; it not -only greatly intensified Imperial sentiment, but it also intensified the 'GROWING SENSE OF NATIONALISM in each of the dominions. 'Each dominion was proud of the part it played in the war, and the sense of nationhood became mors strongly developed. A Canadian prided himself more than ever before on being a Canadian, and an Australian as being known as an Australian. As Canada was the do-minion-in which this sense of nationhood had been most strongly developed, he woula quote an extract which would snow how tar this feeling has gone. Sir Charles Sifton, speaking at Montreal in 1915, saict_: Canada must now stand as a nation; it will no longer do for Canada to play the part of a minor. It will no longer do for Canadians to say that they are not fully and absolutely able io transact their own business V\ e shall not bo allowed to do this any longer by the nations of the world. The nations will say: 'lf you can levy armies to make war you can attend to your own business and we shall not bo referred to the head of the Empire. We want y)u to answer our questions directly.'" The British Parliament was startled by the statement of one of the greatest men in Canada, who, in discussing" Canada's services in the war, said: "It is the last time Canada is going to do this and England cannot count in future on the splendid contribution of Canada to our armed forces if she does not take Canada more into her counsel and confidence." Sir George Perlcy said:'''l wish to say that it would bo impossible for me io D-c-t up on a nlatform in the country which I have represented for 10 years, and to argue that Canada should do as she is now doing for all time, whenever war may come, without knowing beforehand and being consulted regarding the questions at issue, which may make such a war necessary." These statements gave serious food for reflection, as Canada was the most populous and powerful of all the dominions, and they could not ignore utterances charged with so clear a meaning. But the position was still more anomalous when they considered _ ■___ THE PEACE TREATY.

the dominion delegates occupied a most curious position. They sat a 3 equals with the British delegates, and yet_ they were also treated as part of the British Imperial Delegation. This was fortunate for them because when occasion required they could invoke the whole weight and prestige of the British Delegation, instead of appearing to represent small and insignificant Powers. Mr Egglestonc, of Melbourne, who was on the Australian staff at Paris, has shown m startling fashion bow puzzling and inconsistent the whole procedure was: "First of all Mr Lloyd George absolutely ignored the dominion* when he made the armistice agreement Then, to the- astonishment of nearly everybody, be secured for the dominions independent, representation. Then he leaves them to manage their case before the conference, and, lastly, when the crucial question of racial equality arises, he places the whole weight of . the British Empire at the disposal of Mr Hughes." The net result has to give the dominions a most equivocal status. k They have

SIGNED OBLIGATIONS of the most far-reaching nature as if they weie independent Powers, without appearing to grasp the real significance of their aoticn. They have guaranteed the frontiers of" many foreign States, and they are pledged 'to defend them if the League of Nation- demands it by force of arms. A writer in 'the Round Table pointed out that none of the dominions really grasped the extent of its obligations, or would hesitate to repudiate them at once if called on to fulfil them. He admitted that if Britain were threatened the dominions would come to her support, but though they had given a, written obligation to Poland, they would not in practice mobilise a single man to defend Poland. Not only so, but they had since signed peace with Austria and with Bulgaria, although they took no part in arranging either of these treaties. The same applies to the peace with Turkey. All these negotiations might have FAR-REACHING EFFECTS ON THE DOMINIONS,

and yet they had taken no share in the negotiations. So also in the League of Nations, they would sit in the body of delegates as high contracting parties. Out of these strange proceedings innumerable problems arose, but they bad aroused almost no discussion in New Zealand. Some time ago the Manchester Guardian said: "Little attention is being paid to the revolution that has taken place in the unwritten constitution of the British Empire. The dominions have signed the Peace Treaty as individual nations. They have their separate votes on the League of Nations Council. It is essential that the new status of the dominion, with all its far-reaching implications, should be firHy considered and regularised in the eye 3 of the world." He (the speaker) had pointed out some of the effects that nr'ght flow from these facts in Parliament last year. Mr Masaey, in replystated that the dominions had signed the treaty " not as independent nations in the ordinary ..sense, but as nations within the Empire, or partners in the Empire." But as the Evening Post had pointed out, this; was no explanation of the difficulty, but merely a restatement of it. It might bo quite true that New Zealand had no intent'on of acting as an indeupendent Power, anrl (here micrht be room for dispute among constitutional lawyers as to what the exact effect of their action was; but they had to remember that foreign Powers might be guided by THEIR-ACTS .AND NOT BY TIIEIP, INTENTIONS. As a further illustration of how confused the whole position was becoming, they would have noticed a cable from Canada last week stating that Canada had appointed a Minister to the United States, who will hold a semi-diplomatic status, and would take full charge of British diplomacy in the United States during the British

Ambassador's absence. It was clear that if this Minister were appointed by Canada to control her foreign relations with America, Canadians would in effect have ceased to bo British subjects, because the appointment of such a Minister was an aot of sovereign power. Now they could not have citizens who owed allegiance to two different States, and if the matter had been left as it stood, Canadian subjects suffering grievances in America would have had to look to the Canadian; Government alone for protection and redress. The British Government realised this difficulty, and so they saw the next day

AN INGENIOUS EXPLANATION by Mrßonar Law, who said that the CanaOum_ iviunster would bo accredited to the President by his Majesty, and that no departure had taken place from the principle of the .diplomatic unity of the British Empj}'eV, 3f realisod dearly enough that for all British subjects the control of their iore-gn relations must rest jn the hands of one Government only. There was no reason, of course, why his" Majcstv should not choose his ambassador to America from Canada or anywhere else in the Empire., but it seemed clear that though this Minister was appointed by the King, the Canadian Government looked on him as their servant and accountable to them. To see what confusion might result, they had only to suppose that South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand also insisted on appointing an ambassador to America, nominally appointed by the King, but really accountable to them. The Kino- could not, act on the conflicting advice that he might receive from all those different Ministers, and the position would grow more and more confused. There was an old maxim that w the King can do no wrong," and this meant that the King only acted on the Responsible advice of his ' Ministers. 4lf his Ministers could not agree, he sent for another group of Ministers who bebl the confidence of the House. So that it was correct to say that he did no wrong, for whatever he did, he did on the advice of a Cabinet which represented the majority for the time being. This very neafc and simple arrangement had worked admirably in England in the past, but in the future, what was to be done if the Government of each dominion claimed the right to advise him or to appoint ambassadors to foreign countries who should advise him? Whereever their _ interests clashed his position would be_ impossible. Now this was not a theoretical difficulty, for

GENERAL SMUTS claimed that whore South African interests were affected the King must act on the advice of the South African Government, however much South African policy might conflict with the larger interests of the Empire. All these questions showed how growingly urgent was the need for some body which could harmonise the interests of the different dominions, and secure common action in matters of foreign affairs, defence, and the like. It was these facts and the problems that flowed from them that rendered of such supreme importance the monarchy and''the prestige that attached to it. Indeed, the monarchy woe the only institution which was holding the Emniro together at present. Sydney Low had pointed out that the

BOND OF EMPIRE' was not the Imperial Parliament, which tile legislatures of the dominions regarded with jealousy, nor the Imperial Cabinet, which they looked upon as only one of the many committees that administered the selfgoverning port&ns of the Empire, but the Throne as represented by the Sovereign. Those who believed in republicanism, and who considered the monarchy as an effete survival from earlier times, were entirely ignorant of its true bearing on the maintenance of the Empire.' Thera was; as Mr Low says, no disposition on the part of the colonies to strengthen their relation with the English Cabinet and Parliament; in fact, the tendency was the other way. "Federation, if its numerous difficulties could be surmounted, might give us a real Imperial Ministry and Council of State. In the meantime, the fact remains that for administrative and political purposes the dominions are all but independent nations, linked to one another and to the other members .of the Empire by the personal union of the Crown. THE IS THE HEAD of the Empire, and there is no other." It was a consideration of these facta which rendered of such immense significance the visit of the Prince of Wales, more especially to Canada. Canadians would indignantly repudiate a suggestion that they were not loyal to the Throne, however _ much they might insist on independent action in managing their own affairs. Foreign observers wore constantly puzzled by the fact that the people pi the dominions, while they had an intense ' repugnance to plutocracy, were ardent in their devotion to the monarchy. Of even greater importance was this fact in connection with dependencies "such as India, where the population had no conception 'of lovalty to a Parliament or to an institution." but only to a person. But the problems he had mentioned earlier in the evening still remained to be solved, and were growing' more urgent every day. Some means could' have to be found for saving the Sovereign from receiving contradictory advice from different Cabinets in different parts of the Empire. There was another direction in which the dominions have been affected by the. Peace Treaty. That treaty, as they were aware, had brought a vast extension to the territory under the control of _ the Empire —in Africa, Egypt. Mesopotamia, Arabia, and other parts of the Near Bast, as"well' as in the islands of the Pacific, This extension was not desired by Britain, and those critics who asserted that she entered the war to gain territory took a very

SUPERFICIAL VIEW of the situation. Britain did not want mora territory. Her burden was already sufficiently great, and it was only because no one clso could be found to take up the responsibility that the task was thrown on har. Britain was an old nation, full of wisdom and experience, and young nations like -Germany could not understand the reluctance with which Britain took on each fresh task. But what was most* remarkable was not the enormous area placed under her charge, but the method adopted for admmistering*it. Nothing could better illustrate the wisdom and sagacity of the British statesmen at the Peace Conference- than their steady i*efusal to acquiesce in the desire of Australia and New Zealand to annex ISLANDS IN THE PACIFIC. The British and Americans saw that to agree to thTs would only be to create fresh problems of enormous difficulty Britain

I saw that if annexation were allowed, and great colonies went to States Hke Erance, which maintained an exclusive mercantile I policy, there would be no open door for i trade. To that extent, of course, she was j prompted by self-interest in preventing her I own dominions from annexation. She also I saw very clearly that if annexation were allowed the territories might be used for military purposes. She could not .allow great European Powers to use the_ conquered territory of Germany for building | up great centres of military power in Africa and elsewhere; to do so would intensify her own problem of defence. Moreover, had the dominions been allowed to establish the PRINCIPLE OP ANNEXATION in the smalt islands of the Baciiic, oilier Powers would have insisted on a similar right in Airica and Asia, where a population amounting to millions would havo been involved, and also to Europe, where fresh confiicts of nationality would have arisen. With equal firmness blie turned down the principle of international administration of the German colonies. Her own previous experience of the condominium in the New Hebrides and in the Congo had proved how hopeless this system was. With that practical common sense which marked the conduct of her affairs, she therefore stood for a new sy=cem known as the mandatory system, which was really putting in concrete form the old principle of trusteeship, the spirit of which she had recognised in her administration of India and other great dependencies. There were various classes of mandates drawn up to. suit the state of development reached .by the country to be governed. In the Pacific Islands, Australia, and, New Zealand ware allowed to administer them as parts of their own territory, subject to certain conditions in favour of the native population, and preventing their use for military aggression. The dominions are responsible to the League of Nations for their proper administration. The real value of this system was that it gave 'Britain a reasonable EXCUSE FOR REFUSING JAPAN the right to annex the islands in the Marshall, Caroline, and Ladrone groups, which she had been allowed to occupy during the war. These islands woitld have served as half-way houses to Australia if Japan had been allowed to fortify The islands which Australia and New Zealand had taken control of might not be of much u3C to them fom a commercial point of view, as they had plenty territory of their own to develop, but it prevented them from being u;ed as strategic bases by other Powers. In conclusion the speaker said ho had only touched the fringe of the questions arising out of the Peace Treaty, but sufficient had been said to" indicate how far-reaching the problem was. They had seen that there were forces at work which were tending towards disintegration, and which were only kept in abeyance by the sentiment of attachment to the_ throne. But unless they took warning in time the position migh alter beyond any possibility of return. They in New. Zealand, were so small and dependent on the help of Britain that the problem seemed to- them remote apd unreal. But if Canada, through a sense of her self-sufficiency and safety, were to drift apart they would be vitally affected by the weakening of the Empire. It was said that in the sea there was a large fish which was so short-sighted that it had to be guided on its course by a small pilot fidi, which always accompanies it. Mig u+ they not say in this case that New Zealand could act as the pilot fish to Canada and keep her from following a, course that might prove dangerous. —■(Loud applause.) On the motion of the president of the club (Mr A. E. Ueherwood), seconded by Mr" Eccles. a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Downie Stewart for his address was carried with loud applause. A concert programme was then submitted, to Which the following contributed— Mi«ses V. Ba<r!ey. J. and B. Baird, J. M'Nee. W 7 Smaill, G. Pinfold, and E. Aslin, and Misses Bunsford. Dumsday, and I. and R. Bartli presented a clever comedietta. At an interval in the concert refreshments wore 'handed round.