The British Commonwealth : Its Place in the Service of

the World. By Sir Edward Grigg, M.P. (Hutchinson. 5s.)

BOOKS OF THE DAY

The British Commonwealth

The Dominions : Partnership or Ritt ? By Arnold Haskell. (Black. 6d.)

SIR EDWARD GRIGG writes expressly as a Conservative, he worked over his book with a Conservative group, and more than once he

addresses his pleas to the Conservative Party by name. This is rather a pity, for there is nothing of party or sectional interest in his argument or his aim, and it would be a disaster, not least from his own point of view, if the Empire were treated (as there was a perilous tendency to treat it between the two wars) as the special concern of one political wing, or if the lines of future Empire development became the subject of party controversy.

One of the reasons for that perilous tendency was the tariff issue. Free trade being incompatible with imperial preference, only the party that supported protection could stand for an imperial tariff policy. After the war the generalised argument, for or against free trade, is unlikely to remain a major political issue, but we are threatened with a split between those who believe that imperial preference is a menace to cordial and profitable economic relations with foreign Powers, especially the United States, and those who hold the contrary ; if this, or the parallel and still more important (though in essence unreal) debate between imperialism and inter- nationalism in defence and political affairs, were to follow party lines it would be an unhappy outlook.

Sir Edward Grigg approaches the problem from the premiss that the Commonwealth cannot remain the equal, in economic matters, of great Unions such as the American and the Russian without enjoying as complete a freedom as they in its internal relations. Hence, he continues, the economic unity of the Common- wealth is imperative in the sense that its nations should be free to order their own economic relations with each other as they think fit, without thereby incurring claims to equal treatment from foreign Powers under the Most Favoured Nation clause or any other inter- national commitment (such, presumably, as the Congo Basin treaties). Sound as this pr:nciple may be, it is only permissive. Mere internal freedom of preferential action is no guarantee of that external unity, in face of the compact economic power of Unions like the United States or the Soviets, which Sir Edward himself postulates. Such unity demands a common economic policy for the Commonwealth and united action by all its members in negotia- tions with foreign countries. As to the means of achieving these he offers no improvement on the Imperial Conference, whose executive weakness is obvious and deliberate.

That omission illustrates the pervading defect of his approach to the major problem of Commonwealth unity, which many people will think pays excessive respect to national sovereignty.

" The terrible consequences of our failure to unite for the mainten- ance of peace have revived the argument . . . that without some form of federation and an Imperial Parliament the Commonwealth of Nations cannot be preserved. In theory the argument is impressive, but the history of the United States has shown that federation is not in itself a preventive of civil war. Nor would it be supported by democratic opinion in any part of the Commonwealth, since Imperial Conference after Conference has shown that centralisation of any kind runs counter to the powerful urge of nationalism from which the young vitality of every Dominion springs. The problem of the Commonwealth is therefore not to be solved by any constitutional change of such a character as to impair the sovereign rights which every Dominion Parliament now enjoys."

Neither prong of this argument by itself justifies the " therefore." Whether opinion in the Commonwealth would rally to a clear call for closer union on a constitutional basis from a Commonwealth leader of power and vision has yet to be seen. Sir Edward Grigg himself states forthrightly the problem to be solved : the United Kingdom cannot discharge its trust for the defence of the Colonial Empire (nor even, be it said, for its own freedom and security and its contribution to the freedom and security of Europe) if it loses

unity with the rest of the Commonwealth; the Dominions, as separate units, cannot but sink to the level of weak and dependent States Yet one reader at least was left with the feeling that the means adduced did not match up to the end to be achieved. Sir Edward proposes the establishment of Empire Regional Councils for the Atlantic, Pacific and African regions respectively, India as well as Burma (and perhaps Ceylon?) being a member of the so-called Pacific region. These Councils, which would be representative of Governments, would be purely consultative, and their small permanent secretariats would have no power to administer policy. An important supplementary proposal is that there should be regular joint sessions of parliamentary delegations (chosen on the Select Committee principle) in the three regions, using the established parliamentary procedure of debate on the Address. So far as it goes, all this is entirely in keeping with the needs of the case and the spirit of the times. But is it enough?

That it is not is suggested by a dilemma inherent in another part of Sir Edward Grigg's own argument. In order to adapt the machinery of governmenc in Whitehall and Westminster to his regional proposals, he suggests that the work of the Colonial Office and the India and Burma Offices be re-divided between a Secretary of State for Africa (with the West Indies) and a Secretary of State for Asia. This change, he believes, would encourage that desirable new habit of mind which thinks of " the two British Empires "- dependent and independent—together and seeks to make them one. At the same time, in order to bring the conduct of foreign policy more intimately into connexion with relations with the Dominions, he suggests combining the offices of Dominions and Foreign Secretary in a single Minister. This would surely emphasise that objectionable dualism between Dominions and the rest of the Empire (the more pernicibus as India and other dependent countries advance to nationhood) which under Sir Edward Grigg's scheme would only be relieved by the vetting up of a Cabinet Committee on Imperial Affairs with the Prime Minister as. chairman and the Dominions-cum-Foreign Secretary as deputy-chairman.

Thus, taken together, Sir Edward Grigg's proposals suggest a basic conflict between the desire to unify, for its common economic, defensive and political purposes, the British Commonwealth as a whole, and the reverence for national sovereignty which must foster a contrary trend. Sir Edward Grigg resists the logic of his own theme. Many will feel that while he has well and truly laid his bricks of fact and mortar of philosophy, he has built a platform of ideas on which the leaders and thinkers of the Commonwealth will set about rearing still more adventurous structures.

Rightly, Sir Edward emphasises the need for better education on imperial subjects in all our schools. This is the main theme of a little pamphlet by Mr. Arnold Haskell, who pleads with the fervour of profound conviction for closer mutual understanding between the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Dominions as the only way to avert the fearful danger of their drifting apart completely.

H. V. HODSON.