THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
,—The correspondence under this heading is rather disheartening. s origin was the story of an English lecturer in the U.S.A. who was ked why Britain did not give Australia its independence—political ependence being obviously intended. When the lecturer replied at Australia had had its independence for many years he was not heved. Then Mr: Connely's first letter is written. In effect he ys how can Australia be independent when anyone walking through e City can see on all sides the offices of the "British Bank " of is, that, and the other Dominion? Mr. Willis had no difficulty showing that there was, in fact, no " British Bank " either of stralia, or of any other Dominion, and that Mr. Connely's belief the contrary was purely imaginary. Then comes Mr. Connely's and letter in your issue of January r6th. Does he show any per regret for having -"imagined " facts in support of his prejudice? e does not. He shifts his ground, and now says the only question wanted to ask was whether the Dominions were " completely ePendent." What does he mean by that expression? Robinson soe on his island (before Friday came) was, I suppose, "completely ependent," but Mr. Connely probably was not thinking of that of position. Any two countries that trade together must have financial transactions between their nationals (not their Governments) and these involve banks, and the facilities which the banks offer. If an Australian-controlled bank has an office in London and a London-controlled bank has an office in Sydney, for the convenience of traders in both countries, this has no bearing on the " complete independence " of either country. Is this country less " completely independent " because French, German, Japanese and American banks have or had offices in the City of London?—Yours faithfully, R. STEWART SANDERS. Green Meadows, West Quantoxhead, Somerset.
Previous page
