UNDER ONE KING.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 131, 19 June 1937, Page 4

UNDER ONE KING.

Mainly in connection with the shajre of the oversea dominions in sha.ping foreign policy and their attitude in case of the Mother Country being involved in war, there was at the recent Imperial Conference a good deal of disqussion as to the relationship of the member nations of the Empire -as declaring a common allegiance to the one king. That the discussions were almost completely indeterminate and left matters in this respect very much as they were does not rob the questoin of all interest. Indeed, it is easy to see that oecasion may arise when the answer to it may be of supreme moment. Just now it may be regarded as of a purely eonstitutional character taking on something of an academic aspect, but constitutional i-ssues have before now brol. in up Empires. i The subject is treated in an interesting way by a.n Australian writer, who says that, briefly stated, the question involved is this : "Is the King, who is now widely held to be the sole remaining link between the various member s of the British Commonwealth, the King of Erigland, the King of Canada, the King of South Africa, and so on, or is the Crown really indivisible?" Going back to the Treaty of Versailles, he points out that there the dominions were formally accordr ed an entirely new status, being reeognised as independent signatories to that fateful doeument. Then, some six years later, with Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State all pressing at an Imperial Conference for some closer definition of their standing, came what is known as the Balfour Report. This embodied a f ormula which the writer quoted characterises as being "notable alike for inasterly clearness of principle and yagueness of detail." It ran as follows : The Doniinions are autonimous commnnities 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 agsociated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Three years or more further on the Statute of Westminster was passed by the British Parliament and ratified by those of the dominions. But in it, while the independepee of the dominions as self-governing entities was fully confirmed, there was no mention made of the divisibility of the Crown, j though some attempt has been made to read an acceptance of .j that doctrine into it. The subject was again mooted in connection with the abdication of King Edward VIII., but in thafc constitutional crisis unanimity was reached without any need arising for a decision on the point. Again, at the Conference just closed South Africa tentatively raised the issue, claiming something in the naiure of separate nationality for each dominion. Again, however, the giving of any specific interpretation on the point has been virtually shelved, the South African Prime Minister, General Hertzog, being in the end and for the present at any rate content to let well alone. The truth is that the constitution of the Empire is so full of thorny prohlems and ohvious incon- • sistencies that any attemp at pecise and exliaustive definition of the relationships of the member nations must necessarily fail. At the same time, there eannot but be some misgiving as todifficulties that might arise in times of international crisis and where decisions have to he quickly taken, such, for instance, as a declaration of war. In such an event, however, no matter whether responsibilities are legally defined or not, the great thing would be as to whetber, at the time, there was or was not a really spontaneous response to the call for a united front. Without that there could be no great reliance placed upon whatev-- aid might be forthcoming. Both Australia and New Zealand, apart from all considerations of kindred sentiment, are very fully conscious that their eontinued existence as independent nations depends upon co-operation in defence with the Old 'Land, and for it they must make such preparation as they may. Nor is it easy to see how any other dominion could stand out and still retain its pla.ee under the British flag. No enemy country is at all ilkely to concern itself very much with refinements of interpretation of the Imperial Constitution. It seems very much better therefore for that constitution to be allowed todevelop, as has that of the United Kingdom itself, along lines from time to time dicta' id by changes such as no prophet can confidently foresee. 1