British Commonwealth of Nations.

Samoanische Zeitung, Volume 20, Issue 27, 3 July 1920, Page 9

British Commonwealth of Nations.

A PAPER BY MR. H. C TENNENT.

READ AT THE OVERSEAS CLUB.

At the Over Seas Club on Tuesday evening of last week, beiore a large attendance of members, Mr. H. G. Tennent, President, delivered a paper on "The British Commonwealth of Nations." At its conclusion a brief discussion was held. Mr. Tennent at the commencement stated that one of our chief aims to-day was to draw together in bonds of sympathy towards helping to solve the problems of Empire. Most of us have hardly realised yet that the familiar labels of prewar days have become obsolete—l mean the labels "British Empire" or "Britain and her Colonies." But out ot the war has emerged "The British Commonwealth of Nations." One might almost call it a "League of Nations"—comprising as it does #th of the Human Race. And the British Commonwealth of Nations stands to day, amidst crumbling States, amidst the crash of falling crowns, amidst the dust and clamour ot class war, it stands as on a rock, the hope and stay of our Western Civilisation. We dreamed ot a League of Nations, when in place of the bloody arbitrament of war, would be set up a great International Court of Justice. The awakening is bitter. The League of Natious, deserted by the United States of America, who fears to be drawn into the vortex of European politics, weakened by the selfishness of its European members has fallen far short of its high aims, .and is powerless to bring order in EVrbpe out of chaos. The world looks to-day to the British Commonwealth of Nations, and our war weary statesmen in London accept mandate after mandate, till all the Middle East, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Persia, perhaps also Armenia and Turkey, feels the guiding hand of British statesmen. In every capital in Europe the best of our Empire are there doing Britain's unselfish mission, and seeking to bring to Europe, peace. I have said the world looks today to the British Commonwealth of Natious, so also does Britain lean to-day on the British Com mo jmonweaHh of Nations, and Britain burdened by debt and by • her immense responsibilities, would bend and break if it were not tor the help of her colonies. The British Dominions, besides sharing in the expense of the war, are feeding Britain with raw material and food and so Englpnd has come to recognise herself as the senior partner—not the head—in this Commonwealth. The new status of the Dominions was further emphasised wnen it •was decided that each Dominion •was to sign the Peace Treaty in the same way as it it were a separate nation. They are separate nations bound together in the Commonwealth of British Nations. The signing of the Peace Treaty and the Covenant, °i the League of Nations by the . Dominions has •brought into the light an important contrast which, as it will shew the constitutional status of tbe British Commonwealth of Nations, I will now discuss . By signing tbe Covenant, each Dominion has made itselt individually responsible for the-protection of small nations and the sanctity ot agreements. Thus if some nation, say France and Germany, sefeed a portion of, say Belgium or Switzerland, it would be Ihe duty of New Zealand or Australia, whether the matter interested them or pot, to defend Beiginra and Switzerland and punish

the offending country. That is New Zealand's obligation to the League of Nations-a very binding one—and the League of Nations in thf-ory at any rate, has immense powers. Let us now look at the position inside the British Commonwealth ot Nations. You will find no such Covenant, the various Dominions arc bouud together by sentiment, unity of ideals, and a common loyalty to a King, but by no more, very very slender threads. This is the point: we are bouud to obey the Ltague of Natioos, we need kot obey Great Britain. If she were to declare war to morrow, there would be nothing in the way of any Dominion, except their honour, refusing to go to war hut remaining neutral. This seems an extraordinary position, but it is the fact, and it presents to us to-day our greatest problem—generally known as the Problem of the Commonwealth. Let me elucidate it further. I said a moment ago the British Empire was bound together by a common loyalty to the King. Surely, you will say, if we all have to be loyal to the King that is a sufficient link to obtain for us united action, But it is not so and does not solve our Imperial problem, lor the King is a constitutional sovereign and acts on the advice of his Ministers. The fundamental constitutional doctrine that " the King can do no wrong " is an expression of the fact that the King is advised by his Ministers who take responsibility for his acts. But we have already seen that, although Great Britain might be considered the "pre-dominant partner," yet each partner is the equal of the other. The signing of the Peace Treaty by each Dominion recognises the fact that New Zea'and, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and India are the equal in the British Commonwealth of Nations with Great Britain. Therefore, how can the King act on the advice of six Governments unless tbey happen to be unanimous! If all the six Governments had different advice to give, bow could the unfortunate "King act? Prophets tell us that unless some re-arrangement takes place of the machinery, the British Commonwealth of Nations will become dismembered and separate nations. At the present time, Foreign policy is immensely difficult, but extraordinarily important. But as beiore the Dominions have left the conduct ot Foreign Policy to Great Britain, but would the Dominions agree to a decision which might plunge them into another war ? They might not Yet it is immensely desirable, as I have pointed out tor the British Commonwealth of Nations to act as one, to uphold the ideals of true democracy. The British Commonwealth is the hope ol our civilisation. God grant that those slender threads are not broken ; that in the muck and reck of things to day, this commonwealth shall rear its noble fabric, founded as upon a rock, the embodiment ot a common sentiment, common ideals and a common loyalty. How then is this Commonwealth to continue. There are two paths —which to follow is the problem. Present circumstances are driving us down—some say to our ruin. What unity of action the Empire at present is through the Imperial Conference. These take place about every four years. Tbe conference has no executive power, that is, it has no machinery to * carry out directly its resolutions, but it discusses questions affecting the Empire, reciprocal arrangements lor trade, &c , and then the Ministers, Prime Ministers generally, whohave attended the Conference, return to their respective countries to persuade their Parliaments to pass legislation in agreement with the resolution of the Conference. How cumbrous this method is. A change of Government might" occur, say in Australia, and the new Ministry might not agree to the decision

which the defeated Prime Minister wishes to bring about in conformity with the resolution ha agreed to at the Imperial Conierence. Thus there would not be unanimity; there would be disagreement and the whole Imperial labric would totter. There are also the various High Commissioners in London; there is the Colonial Office ; and the Governor Generals 'abroad. Consultation is by- cable, misunderstandings arise, decisions by all the Governments could only be arrived at with great difficulty, and, when arrived at, might not be unanimous. That is, the present Constitutional relation of the British Commonwealth ot Nations is tounded on consultation. Concerted action can only be brought about by the devious, slow and uncertain method of consultation such as I have described. So much for our present path, which you can see is full of pitfalls ; now for the other path. I will quote from the Round Table (Page 455 No. 27) Speaking about the Imperial Conferences and our present consultative methods it says—"But we believe that sooner or later it will prove inadequate to our needs The system has often been tried before. It was tried between England and Scotland, between Great Britain and Ireland,, and in a more completely co operative form, between the revolted American Colonies, and' between the colonies now united into the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union ot South Africa, and iu each case it eventually failed Sooner or later, we believe, it will also fail in the case of the British Commonwealth, not through any want ot goodwill or through any reluctance to make it work, but because it ofteuds against the cardinal principle upon which a Commonwealth is based. The loose constitutional fabric known as the British Empire, over which the King reigns, must, in the long run, either dissolve into an alliance of independent sovereign States, each thinking first and foremost of itself, or it must become a Cotuinouwealth ot nations in which each nation, while jealously preserving its own autonomy, yet recoguises that its first duty is to promote the well being of the whole. It cannot halt indefinitely between the two. And if it is to be a Commonwealth founded on democracy, aud not an Empire resting upon authority, its citizens must be able to act as one people, through a Parliament representative ot them all, responsible to them all, and able to make laws binding on them all, within that constitutional sphere wbichjincludes their common affairs. We cannot repeat too often that the reconstitution of the Empire as a Commonwealth does not involve any infringement ot the lawful autonomy of the nations withra it, any "standardisation" of civilisation or any suppression of national individuality.' Interference with national freedom would be as inconsistent with the principle upon which a Commonwealth is based as interference with the liberty of the individual would be. Nor is there any limit to the number of strongly individual nations a Commonwealth of Nations could include. But to be such a Commonwealth it must have a represeutative assembly, sovereign within its own sphere, at its bead." This all sounds very convincing, Mr Tennent continued, but the fact remains, the Dominions don't like it. General Smuts was the leader amongst the Colonial Statesmen to combat this view. why ? Because above all the Dom« inlons wish to preserve their sacred automony ..They are afraid to entrust their destinies to a new Imperial Parliament They tear it will lead to what is generally designated ''lmperialism," that this Central Parliament will become so powerful that It will centre all power and authority in London aud produce a prototype of the Great

Roman Empire—where all power was concentrated in Rome Drawing to the conclusion of his paper, Mr. Tennent dealt shortly on the fine justification lor the granting of free parliam- nts by pointing to what bad been done in South Africa. The names ot Rhode*, Botha and Smnts—three of South Africa's greatest statesmen—were dealt on. Cecil Rhodes, the speaker said, was probably the inspirer of the Over-Seas Clnb. Discussion then followed. Mr. Fortune said that Mr. Tennent had referred to the tie betweeu/the Mother Country and her Dominions as a slender thread. He was ol opinion that rather than a slender thread it was more like a rope. The Rev. Frank Joseland said he had been greatly interested in the paper He trusted the time was not far distant when not only,a Commonwealth of British Nations would come about, bnt a Commonwealth of all the Nations—including those with whom we were recently at war. Other members spoke briefly, at the conclusion of which Mr. Tennent responded. A vote of thanks to the President closed the meeiing.