EMPIRE CONSTITUTION

Hokitika Guardian, 13 November 1931, Page 3

EMPIRE CONSTITUTION

' 'STATUTE OF WESTMINISTER. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) * '•• • t LONDON, November 10. "I believe other means, far more permament and more secure than anything thus far in the Empire’s history, j will bind the Empire together before * the t erm > na tion of . the National Govtenure of office,” declared (Lord Hailsham '(Minister of War) at the Royal Empire Society to-night, following Professor J. H. Morgan, who gave an address on the 'Statute of Westminister. It was a notable function at which other speakers included (Lord Stonehaven, Mr Bruce, Lord Aitken, and those present included ex-Gov-ernors-General, ex-Prime Ministers, (Law Lords, Parliamentarians, High Commissioners, and Agents-General. Professor Morgan and 'Lord Aitken made remarkable utterances. They vigorously attacked the Statute of ■Westminister. Lord Stonehaven and (Mr Bruce disliked, but defended it, while Lord Hailsham, winding up the discussion, intimated that the British (Government considered it was its duty to pass the Statute into legislation.

Professor Morgan said : Surely no legislation has been so Olympian since Moses ca.me down from Sinai. I never read-a more devastating criticism bf the Bill, or in other words a more careful appreciation of its disruptive possibilities than Mr Latham’s speech iu the Canberra House of Representatives. His attitude towards the Bill was not more enthusiastic than 1 a disturbed acceptance of a change which Australia neither initiated nor desired. Mr W. M. Hughes, who often, but not on this occasion, has been a voice crying in the wilderness, had described the Act

as extreme 'folly.'- '-.Lord- -Buckmaster had said something similar.” Professor (Morgan said the only answer that could be made ‘to Lord Buckmaster was Lord Passfield’s evasive confession: ‘‘We cannot help it. This Statute is undoubtedly a most dangerous experiment, but the Government is -not responsible. Even the last Imperial 'Conference was not responsible for it. Lord 'Sankey had used si ini lap language, and Dominion Governments had used almost the same words in submitting the Bill for approval. Mr Brennan virtually said ; “You have got to take it or leave it!” Professor _Xior,gan, opposing the manner whereby the lawyers had framed the Statue behind closed doors,'- proceeded to refer to the method of legislation at Westminister, whereby there was no committee stage in the House of Lords. He said: “If things are going to be done thus, surely in an Anglo-Dominion problem closer and more representative consultation is more urgent than ever. Professor Morgan agreed with Mr (Hughes that the formula was framed to sooth the susceptibilities of two younger Dominions. It would probably unsettle more things than it settled, but might involve far closer consultation between the Anglo-Dominion legislatures than ever 'belore. This would be imperative. It would be possible under the Statute for a Dominion to repeal the Act Settlement, whereby the 'Crown was entailed upon a dynasty professing the Protestant faith.

Lord Aitken declared the Statute was putting the Constitution on the chopping block, cutting off the limbs, and leaving no constitution. He said : “I . cannot help thinking those who were the Prime Ministers tor the time being adopted the formula without seriously considering its legal implications. It is a most serious thing to cut away central means of not : on without providing some practicable.,, executive substitute, especially in times of emergency, when the whole Empire might have to act in combination.” Lord

Aitken-urged- the Statute" should have been Considered by a Joint Committee of both British Houses of Parliament. •It was.not urgent 4 to pass the Statute. Nothing would happen if it were not passed by December 31st. Mr Bruce : I deplore the attempt legally to define the Empire’s constitutional relations. I am perfectly certain it cannot be done. If it could it would not work. Balfour’s formula, whereon the Statutes of Westminister, are based, was not intended to be anything but a formula. The Empire can continue on a basis of willing co-opera-tion, or break up, just as nicely under the Statute as without it. Mr Bruce, in conclusion, declared Australia and others were equally as anxious as the younger Dominions for the Balfour formula. He said that even : f he disliked the 'Statute, he was not alarmed about it.

Lord Stonehaven said he agreed with Mr Bruce. “1 am not alarmed,” he said, “even if I dislike the Statute. Many read into the Statute far more than is justified. If no worse * things happen to the Empire than the 'Statute, we can sleep quietly.”

Lord Hailsham, winding up the discussion, said : “If Britain now rejected the Statute of Westminister, she would •revive the old suspicions in a ten-fold degree. It would give rise to an inferiority complex, thus leading some of the Dominions to think they are not as free as we have assured them.”

LONDON, November 11

“The Times,” commenting on the speeches of Professor Morgan, Lorn Aitken, and others, expresses the opinion that the Statute of Westminister cannot be regarded enthusiastically by any but pedants of Dominion status. 'lt emphasises that the Australian and (New Zealand Premiers only agreed because they were not desirous of opposing the other Dominions and Britain on the matter. “The Times’" says :

“It is already clear that the Statute will create many new constitutional puzzles. Nevertheless, it must be recognised as the culmination of an inevitable and healthy development, and it clears the way for the building up of a new unity basis for free ( and unfettered co-operation.”

BASIS OF UNITY. 'SENTIMENT OR BUSINESS? - 4 LONDON, November 11. The Statute of Westminister implies the-parting of the ways—one wav being that of constitutional freedom and the other way that of entire independence', so 'Major-General Sir Fabian" Ware told 'the Empire Society’s Bristol branch. He urged the adoption of the former way, enabling a real financial and administrative partnership, such as had already proved work; ible in the War Graves Commission, and which could be adopted by the 'Secretariat of the Imperial Conference and the Marketing Board. He, said,:,. ,“J £.-.Mr ,rpioma.s .takgA.,. > that path and succeeds, he will be commemorated in history with Joseph Chamberlain as a builder of the British Commonwealth.'