EMPIRE AUTONOMY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3672, 29 July 1924, Page 25

EMPIRE AUTONOMY.

SIR JAMES ALLEN’S STATEMENT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, June 17. At the luncheon given to newspaper proprietors by Sir James Allen last week the High Commissioner expressed a considered opinion regarding Imperial Conferences and the relationship of the dominions to foreign policy. The statement was not really a variation of what Sir James had said on previous occasions, but coming as it did at a critical stage in the history of Imperial politics, and being made before an important assembly of journalists it has obtained a greater publicity than it otherwise would have done. The full text of the High Commissioner’s speech, which was forwarded by the last mail to New Zealand, also appears in the Financial Times, and other London newspapers gave fairly full reports. In an editorial comment the Financial Times says: “The growth of the dominions in the future may necessitate important changes in Empire organisation, and one of them will surely be some arrangement under which tile dominions are given a voice in matters of foreign policy vitally affecting their interests. We are persuaded, therefore, that more will be heard of Sir James Allen’s very valuable suggestion.” The Duke of Northumberland (one of the new directors and owners of the Morning Post) was a guest at the luncheon, and in a conversation afterwards he remarked: “I agree with every word Sir James Allen said.” It is perhaps not unnatural, therefore, that the Morning Post should have devoted a leading article to the subject. The article in question is a very strong indictment of the action of the present Cov-

ernment in turning down the Imperial Conference proposals, and it practically prophesies that from now on Imperial Conferences are doomed. The writer of the article points to the Canadian debates, to the election issues in South Africa, as proofs that the dominions are complaining more or less bitterly about the present constitution of the British Empire. "As for Australia and New Zealand, they are concerned with the more substantial and practical grievances of our failure to go on with Singapore and Imperial preference as proposed by the last Imperial Conference.” “All these are signs of a general dissatisfaction,” says the Rost, " and the British Government, also, seems vaguely uneasy about it, as suggested by the Prime Minister’s recent remark: ‘I think the time has come (said Air MacDonald) when we -have to consider, in view of the present circumstances, what machinery is required to create the existence of a United Imperial policy, particularly as regards foreign affairs.” “The faith of the modern political! in ‘machinery’ is really pathetic. Mr MacDonald should be Iremindod that such machinery as we already have, we mean the Imperial Conference, ground out with great labour and at great expense a policy both on consultation in foreign affairs, and on such particular questions as the Singapore base and Imperial preference. That policy was repudiated by only one of the Governments concerned, and that Government the Imperial Government, at whose invitation the conference had been held. If Mr MacDonald objects that his Government was not the same Government, we reply that in such matters it ought to have endorsed the policy of its predecessor. No ‘machinery’ can be of any use without continuity. Needless to say, every Government has ‘the right’ to change, but a sagacious and patriotic Government would consider what it was wise to do as much as what it had the right to do, and it certainly was not right to flout the considered opinions of such a body as the Imperial Conference. “The present Government changed the policy of its predecessor wantonly and for political reasons. When a Government pursues such a course, the most elaborate, costly, and delicately adjusted machinery in the world is useless to remedy the mischief done. And in this case the mischief is very serious. Though many Imnerial Conferences the Prime Ministers of the have gradually elaborated a means of doing things toe-ether. All that remained to be done in order to complete the ‘machinery’ was to arrange for some form of permanent Secretariat to carry over from Conference to Conference.

“As Sir James Allen said in the remarkably plain-spoken speech which he made yesterday, there are two ways of forming such a body, one by means of the High Commissioners already in London and the other by the creation of Ministers specially for the purpose of representing the dominions in the capital of the Empire. But what is the use of discussing such developments when, as Sir James Allene says i ‘The quetion naturally arises, of what value are Imperial Conferences as at present constituted ?’ “That ;= n nuestion for Mr Snowden, who sacrificed everything to political ends, 'ir Ramsay MacDonald, who was responsible for that deplorable business, to consider. Between them they have sickened the dominions of conferring together. For where is the sense of coming from the other end of ihe world and spending weeks of valuable time investigating and settling questions of policy if the Whole work is to be upset because there has been a change of Government The British peoplo have had the greatest opportunity ever given to a nation, and they have thrown it away, not through any lack of machinery, but through lack of wisdom and vision in their elected representatives.” Several provincial newspapers based leading articles on Sir James Allen’s statement. Amorist these was The Western Morning Mews, of Plymouth. Referring 10 the High Commissioner’s suggestion to secure continuity of policy, this journal says : ’’ It is obvious that some arrangement of the kind is necessary if the relations between the constituent nations Of the British Empire are not to be periodically strained to an extent which may ultimately reach breaking point. This may be done by inviting the leaders of Opposition to confer with the Government of the day, or even by giving them seats at the Conference on the understanding that its decisions will be respected all round. It may be objected that this would be a new departure in our governmental arrangements. But the situation itself is unprecedented; the relations between the dominions and the Mother Country have within the last quarter of a century taken on new forms which render the old conventions out of date, and something new must be devised to fit the new circumstances. The precise method to be adopted mav very well be a matter for frank counsel-taking between parties, at home and in the dominions, to be followed up by inter-imperial negotiations which will place the matter for the future upon a safe footing. But we cannot afford to make many more such tactless blunders as have attended the Treaty of Lausanne and the bandlir.tr nf thp decisions of the last Imperial Conference.”