PROBLEM OF CONSULTATION IS STILL UNSOLVED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12613, 25 November 1926, Page 7

PROBLEM OF CONSULTATION IS STILL UNSOLVED

(Received November 24, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, November 23.

Already there is a crop of Press discussion on the new status of the King and the Dominions, on which the newspapers are copiously quoting opinions from all parts of the Empire. For instance, the position of the Australian State governors has cropped up. The Australian Press Association gathers that the Federal Government’s viewpoint will probably be that in that connection things remain unchanged, that the States are linked to the Dominions office and that the governors will continue to be channels for communication.

It is remarked that the Conference dealt only with the great self-governing Dominions

and that if similar treatment were accorded to the States it would be opening the way to its continuance down to the smallest Crown Colony.

STATE GOVERNORS REMAIN. The Australian agents-general are keenly discussing the position. One, with a long Ministerial experience, endorses the foregoing viewpoint, that the State Governors are still amenable to Downing street. Another, with wide British and Australian experience, says the conference merely regularised the existing practice with regard to both Federal and State Governors, and did not affect the established principle that all domestic questions are to be settled solely between governors and governments, without reference to Downing street. The same authority also pointed out that it would be a bad day if the Imperial authorities were encouraged to interfere. Sir Dudley De Chair, he pointed out, had literally followed the Imperial precedent. When Mr Asquith proposed to swamp the House of Lords the King said: “Get the authority of the electorate.“ Mr Asquith complied, whereupon the King agreed, and Lords then capitulated. He expressed the opinion if Mr Lang followed Mr Asquith’s precedent of going to the electors on the definite issue, the Governor would inevitably follow the King’s precedent. On the subject of new methods of consultation it can be said that there is no immediate intention of appointing special officers in London and at the seats of the Dominion governments, nor at Washington. It is gath-

ered that there was such a divergence of ideas on the point in the conference that it was left to the discretion of the individual Dominions to adopt any system they chose, with the assurance that Britain was ready to reciprocate. For instance, Australia, whether with the continuance of the liaison officer, or a high commissioner accredited to Downing street, might prefer to continue to communicate direct with Downing street, or might like to have at Canberra an unofficial British representative for the purpose of clearing up matters requiring an explanation upon which the Commonwealth would prefer not to make an inquiry direct. Such a method would have Britain’s acquiescence. With regard to the Canadian and Irish Ministers at Washington, it is not thought that the other Dominions will follow suit, because the expense will be a deterring factor, and the services of the British representative are always available. COMMENT BY MR COATES. Mr Coates, commenting on the InterImperial Relations Committee's report, said: ‘What is most apparent is that in His Majesty reposes more than ever the strongest tie binding the Empire together. The right to communicate direct with His Majesty through the Governors-General may not involve a change in procedure, but it recognises a principle which is the better for definition. It will now be more than ever necessary for British statesmen to keep in close touch with the Dominions. “So far as New Zealand is concerned, proposals are being considered forthwith for improving inter-contact by means of more direct personal communication.” ULSTER PERTURBED LONDON, November 23. Following a meeting of the Ulster Cabinet, Sir James Craig, ilr Hugh M. Pollock, Minister of Finance, anil Mr J. M. Andrews, Minister of Labour, have arrived in London to discuss Ulster's position arising out of the proposals made during the Imperial Conference. There is considerable uneasiness in Government circles at Belfast lest the alteration of the King’s title and the adoption of the word “Ireland’’ instead of “Irish Free State,” many, constitute an interference with the rights accorded to Ulster in the 1920 settlement. The Ministers proi pose to have the position cleared up definitely.