The Status of the Dominions
The Sovereignty of the British Dominions. By Arthur Berriedale Keith, D.C.L., D.Litt. (Macmillan. 18s.)
FEW men are better equipped to write on the Sovereignty of the British Dominions than Professor Arthur Berriedale Keith, the distinguished lawyer who is Lecturer on the Constitution of the British Empire at Edinburgh University, and was formerly Assistant Secretary to the Imperial Conference. He has given us an invaluable book which can be read right through as a fascinating study in the extraordinarily elastic methods of British statesmanship, but which is also a work of reference.
The memorable pronouncement by the Imperial Con- ference of 1926 on the relations of the Dominions with Great Britain has .been variously interpreted._ Some saw in it the creation of a new status of independence for the Dominions ; others considered it to be a- mere gathering-up of existing facts ; while others criticized it as weakening the efficacy of the British Empire for maintaining the peace of the world. Professor Keith is probably right in saying that it was at once a record of facts and a programme for the future. A record of facts, even though it records nothing which is not already familiar, may be of the utmost importance, and for all practical purposes may end an epoch and inaugurate a new one. If a man goes up in a balloon to beat the " height
record " and forgets his instruments, his performance will attract no notice even though he may have ascended higher than any man ever did before. The record is the thing. And so it was with the Imperial Conference of 1926. Lord Balfour and his Committee merely devised a formula, recording all that was indisputable about Imperial relations, and yet that formula has become a charter to which reference is inevitably made in every constitutional discussion affecting the British Empire.
Describing the status of the Dominions, Lord Balfour said :—
" They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." These words were an explanation ; they were not a legal title. South Africa is the only Dominion .which has gone through a process equivalent to that of ratifying the formula. Great Britain has never officially communicated the formula to a foreign country.
It was the persistence of General Hertzog, the Prime Minister of South Africa, which secured the formula. He wanted, of course, to satisfy his Dutch compatriots with a virtual assurance of independence. Reactionaries here would have refused to meet his wishes, but events have proved, as usual, that in a case of this kind the greatest safety is obtained by proceeding trustfully. The Dutch in South Africa would never have been satisfied with any weaker formula. It reed not be pretended that it has settled the relations of Dutch and British in South Africa, but there is a significant fact to be added to what Professor Keith says in his book. Only a few weeks ago, when some ardent local Dutch patriot proposed that the Governor-General should in future be a South African, General Hertzog ridiculed the proposal. The essential thing in a Governor-General, he said, was that he should be detached from all local disputes. And so we may expect the continuation of a line of Governor-Generals, sent from England, such as Lord Buxton and Prince Arthur of Connaught.
Although the words which we have quoted from the pro- nouncement of 1926 are in constant- use, it is generally forgotten that the Committee added a rider. They pointed out that though equality in status was the root-principle governing Imperial relations, the principles of equality and similarity appropriate to status did not universally extend to function. " Here," they said, " we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence we require also flexible machinery—machinery which can from time to time be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world." Flexible indeed ! The Dominions are still at sixes and sevens in the matter of diplomatic representation. The Union of South Africa alone has appointed a Consul in a foreign country. Mr. Hughes, when he was in a position to speak for Australia, objected strongly to the special diplomatic representation of the Dominions. Canada and the Free State, however, have sent diplomatic representatives to Washington. South Africa has a " Minister " in London, though " Minister " is only a more dignified description of High Commissioner," and not a very accurate description either, since international law does not apply between the various parts of the Empire.
There is something delightfully metaphysical in the British working-out of a principle to fit a difficulty. From first to ' last there has been no attempt (and we trust there never will be) to write out a whole Constitution. The philosophy of Heraelitus seems to be reincarnate in the British Empire. Constant change is the way of life ; everything is and is not at the same time ; differences bring harmony and diversity brings unity. Professor Keith definitely joins issue with those —mainly Americans and Continental Europeans—who think that the Empire has been dissolved in a number of States in a personal union. This view would imply that the King receives advice from several sets of Ministers, advice from the Dominions being equal in authority to that of British Ministers. But this is not so ; when advice is tendered to the King from a Dominion he asks the opinion of his own Ministers. The King's decision is the resultant of advice upon advice.
Previous page
