The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, JANUARY’ 8, 1921. THE IMPERIAL COMMONWEALTH.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18071, 8 January 1921, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." SATURDAY, JANUARY’ 8, 1921. THE IMPERIAL COMMONWEALTH.

A recently published work, “The British Commonwealth of Nations,” provides an interesting contribution to a subject which is attracting widespread attention. It is all the more Interesting because the author is a colonial, a young Australian, who, after a distinguished course at the University of Sydney, went some years ago to Oxford, and there devoted himself particularly to tie study of Imperial relationships. In the work in which his conclusions are etabodied, Mr. Hall points out that the history of the Empire falls into three clearly marked phases. The first ended with the American Revolution, when the old system broke down, and when a new principle was recognised, although its practical application was gradual. The second began with the grant of a limited responsible government to Canada, which was followed by similar concessions to other colonies, and by the growth of a strong sentiment of national self-consciousness in the various dominions. The British Commonwealth has now reached the third of the three great turning points in its development. It resolves itself into “the problem created by the transformation of this limited responsible government into the unlimited responsible government, the equality of nationhood and statehood, now claimed, and practically secured, by the Dominions.” Among the facts of this problem are tlje constitutional implications

of the separate signature of the , Peace Treaty by delegates from the Dominions, their separate membership of the League, and the separate diplomatic representation of Canada 1 by an ambassador at Washington. This problem had not been unforse’en, although the war ha-s raised it in a somewhat different form than had been anticipated, has given it greater prominence, and has brought it into the immediate field of practical politics. A decade or so ago Mr. Lionel Curtis inaugurated an Em-pire-wide movement for Investigation and discussion, the aim of which was to define the Imperial issue and to offer substantial proposals for the better organisation of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The theory propounded by its spokesmen was that the Empire was approaching the parting of the ways. The nebulous unscientific framework of the Empire had worked in the past, but the days of its usefulness were numbered. The existing system was satisfactory neither for the Dominions nor for Britain. The former for all their size and importance were without any voice in Imperial policy; the latter had alone, in effect, to shoulder the responsibility of defence and foreign affairs. This could not continue indefinitely; one of two things must happen. If the Empire drifts on in the old way, eventual disruption is inevitable. The only alternative is the adoption of some form of closer association such as Imperial Federation, which in the last resort involves the creation of an Imperial super-state. Mr. Hall, however, does not accept the Round Table theory. He agrees that the present system is unsatisfactory, but he will not agree that the only alternatives are disruption or Imperial Federation; he believes that there is a third, a middle road, namely, the free co-operation of autonomous States, which holds out the best promise for the future. He admits that even on this middle road we have now reached a point where further progress is impossible unless we can clear away certain great obstacles, but he thinks that this can be done by clear and constructive thought. What is the precise status of the dominions? Can it be so defined as to reconcile equality of nationhood and the formal unity of the Empire. What is the exact nature of the relationship of members of the British States to one another? When these questions have been answered, our second task, namely, to plan the machinery of co-operation required by the group to satisfy their common needs and desires, will be less difficult; and, finally, we must define the relations between the British group of States and the wider League of Nations. Mr. Hall rejects Imperial Federation as a solution, on the ground that it is wanted only by a small minority in the Empire. The objections to it differ widely in character. Labour in Australia and elsewhere regards it as an insidious device to enslave the demoi cracies of the dominions to British I i plutocracy; others fear that it would impose a heavy financial burden on the dominions; others that it would embroil them in old-world disputes in which they were but remotely interested; others, again, that it would be inconsistent with the fulfilment of their national as-’ pirations. General Smuts will have none of it; Mr. Hughes, in fact, is convinced that nowhere outside the big cities, is there any solid body of opinion in favour of it. The famous resolution of the Imperial War Conference in 1917 showed quite unequivocably that the accredited representatives of the dominions would not even contemplate such a step. Since 1917 “this defeat has been followed by blow after blow at the idea of Imperial Federation, so that at the present day this idea is further from realisation than at any time in its history.’’ Having discarded Imperial Federation as a possibility, Mr. Hall returns to a consideration of the problem. Various Ministers, British and dominion, liave stated it, but perhaps General Smuts has put it in the most explicit form. In the debate on the Peace Treaty in the Union Parliament he asserted the “absolute equality” of South Africa among the nations of the world; he also, in the same debate, when General Hertzog asked, "Has South Africa any right to secede from the Empire,” said: “My reply is absolutely and decisively ‘No.’ ” There then is the dilemma. How can the formal unity of the Empire be reconciled with the absolute equality of the dominions with the United Kingdom and the other States of the world? General Smuts again has supplied the answer. In 1917 he startled public opinion in England by offering what was perhaps the most glowing tribute yet paid to the value of the hereditary kingship as a means of keeping the Empire together. “He placed the Crown side by side with the Imperial 1 Conference as one of the two most , potent bonds of union. ‘You cannot,’ he said, ‘make a republic of ; the British Commonwealth of Nations, because if you have to elect a President, not only in these islands, : but all over the British Empire, who . will be ruler and representative of . all these peoples, you are facing an i insoluble problem.’ ’’ The signifii cance of these words was not fully . grasped in 1917, but we have since come to realise the supreme and in- . creasing importance of the Constitu- ■ tional place which the Crown now : occupies in the British Commoni wealth of Nations. “It is in the light

of these facts,” continues Mr. Hall, “that we must regard the recent visits of the Prince of Wales to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. These visits were simply a sign of the personal recognition by the British Monarchy of the new constitutional fact that the Crown no longer touches the Dominions indirectly through its viceroys, but has now entered into a new and direct personal relationship with them as the formal instrument of their foreign policies.”