The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1921. THE STATUS OF THE DOMINIONS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 75, 21 December 1921, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1921. THE STATUS OF THE DOMINIONS

In an interview which appeared in The Dominion yesterday, Mn. Percival Witherby offered some interesting observations on various aspects of Imperial progress, and particularly on the changing relationship between the Mother Country and the Dominions. Mu. Witherby’s ideas and opinions all the better deserve attention since in his travels during the last three years he has been enabled to study directly the course of events and the development of public opinion in several parts of the Empire. Many even of those who have nos '-'joyed the same advantage will no doubt be inclined to agree with him that an element of danger enters into the conditions in which the basis of Imperial policy in Great Britain has become "acquiescence in any demands the Dominions think well to make.” The danger, of course, is that the Dominions, having been freely conceded by the Mother Country a status hardly distinguishable from that of independent nations, may sooner or later find themselves at variance, one with another, or with the Mother Country, on issues—more especially issues of foreign policyon which it is vital to the interests of each one of them that the family of British nations should stand solidly united. This danger is fully apparent to some at least of those who recognise, as docs Mr. Witherby himself, that there can be no such thing as turning back the clock of Imperial progress, and that for weal or woe the only relationship now possible for the Mother Country and the Dominions is that of an association of free nations, each enjoying an unlimited local autonomy and an effective voice in the treatment of affairs of common concern. It is now axiomatic that the Dominions can never revert to their former state of tutelage. The fact is admitted in the Mother Country at least as freely as it is assorted in any Dominion. At the same time, it is, as Mr. Witherby remarks, "idle to assume that unitv can' in the long run be maintained if, unhappily, the foreign policy of any of the Dominions develops on separate or different lines to that of the others or of Great Britain.” In pleading for the growth of sympathy and understanding between the different parts of the Empire. Mr. Witherby lays his hand on the vital condition of the continued unity’ of the Empire and the immeasurable advantages that unity confers. One demand the situation obviously makes is that the inhabitants of all the Dominions should consciously accent and take thoughtful account of the responsibilities inevitably imposed by their new status of all but complete independence. Assertions that the Dominions are now free to do whatever they please ara calculated neither to preserve the unity of the Empire, nor to serve a useful purpose of any kind. The points on which practical thought and statesmanship must concentrate arc the real nature of the Imperial partnership, the advantages it confers and offers, and what precisely would be entailed in weakening this partnership either by positive action or by drifting neglect. If the position and outlook arc examined from this elementary standpoint it speedily becomes apparent that the virtually independent status claimed for the Dominions is at best of but academic value, and that their standing 'as partners in the Empire is of infinitely greater value than any status they have attained, or can ever hope to attain, as separate national entities. Even if the penalties and dangers of isolation were non-existent, it would still be true that no Dominion has anything to gain by making its virtual independence complete, but it is, of course, a greater and more commanding fact that as a member of the Empire partnership each Dominion enjoys a security and unrestricted opportunities of national development it could not hope to retain if it stood alone.

The positive advantages of the Imperial partnership as it hears on national security and also on affairs of trade, finance, productive enterprise in its widest scope, and not least on the movement of population within the Empire, are apt to he taken for granted. It is particularly obvious that these great and far-reaching advantages can only be. retained if its self-govern-ing countries show themselves equal to the measure of voluntary cooperation that is needed to keep the unity of the Empire intact. It is, perhaps, not as clearly recognised as it ought to be that initiative and practical effort aiming at this result must come henceforth from the Dominions rather than the Mother Country. The attitude of Great Britain, as Mr. Witiierby has said, in one, of acquiescence in any demands the Dominions think •well to make, and this plainly means that it rests with the Dominions to make or mar the future of the Empire. If they were guilty of the incredible folly of splitting on vital issues of foreign policy, Britain perforce would admit their right to disagree, but the Empire would fall to pieces. Just as the obligations and burdens of Imperial defence, happily lightened by the outcome of the Washington Conference, arc bound henceforth to be shared in fair proportion between the different countries of thn Empire, the responsibility of maintaining the integrity and unity of the Empire which formerly rested on

Great Britain alone has manifestly become the individual and collective responsibility of the Dominions—a responsibility they can only discharge by constant and undeviating efforts to arrive at uniform agreement with the Mother Country on all vital questions of contact with the rest of the world.