Great Britain and the Dominions

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS The political development of the United Kingdom is dealt with in other articles (see ENGLISH HISTORY, etc.). The political devel opment of the dominions has proceeded on the same lines. In fact it is best described as a process of assimilation by which British citizens in the oversea territories now occupied by the dominions have acquired in course of time, stage by stage, the same political status as British citizens in the mother-country. The keynote of this process has been equality. It was inequality which at root brought about the secession of the old American colonies. Only on a basis of equality can the existing union between the mother country and the dominions be maintained.

The American Colonies.

The first colonists on the North American coast could not, of course, exercise equal political powers with those enjoyed by the kinsmen they had left at home. Their isolation, the vast distance which, as measured in time of transit, then separated America from England, made it impossible for little groups of pioneer colonists to be represented in the English parliament or to take any part in the wider political affairs of the empire as a whole. But in the conduct of their own local affairs they possessed from the first a certain measure of equality. They were Englishmen, and they retained in their new homes the old established rights and usages of Englishmen and among others the right to representative Government. In each colony, soon after its foundation, a representative assembly was established, on the model of the House of Commons, which enacted legislation for the colony, including taxation to meet the cost of its administration. But the executive was independent of the legislature ; for, whereas in England the principle of responsible Government, i.e., that the executive should be responsible to the legislature, began to be es tablished in the course of the i8th century, the colonial executive, the governor and other officials, was responsible in most colonies only to the Crown or the minister who advised the Crown. Other wise the American colonies were virtually independent in their local concerns, in which the British Government in those days took little interest. Externally, however, they were quite subordinate. Their trade was controlled by a system of navigation acts and other legislation, enacted by the British parliament as part of a "commercial system" applied to the whole empire. Nor, of course, could the colonists take any part in the foreign affairs of the em pire. While the colonies were relatively young and small, this sys tem worked well enough ; and even in the middle of the i8th cen tury, when their population had increased to about two millions, it still endured. Despite occasional friction between executive and legislature, the colonists felt themselves sufficiently free and self governing internally ; and the external restrictions of the trade laws did not seem burdensome because on the whole it was economic ally profitable, and, if need be, it could be, and was, evaded by smuggling. But the system was bound to seem less tolerable as soon as anything occurred to emphasize the inequality of status it involved; and when the British Government attempted to raise money for the cost of maintaining troops in America, partly by direct taxation and partly by stiffening up the administration of the trade laws, the colonists, although the troops were required mainly for their own defence, revolted and the system collapsed.

The Crisis in Canada.

Fifty years after the American Revo lution, British statesmen were confronted with a similar crisis in those colonies in North America which had survived the schism or had been established since. Except for the decision never again to tax the colonies for revenue, the new political system was much the same as the old. The colonies possessed local representative government and nothing more; and in 1837 a period of increasing tension in Upper and Lower Canada, mainly due to the fact that the legislatures had no control over the executives and intensified in Lower Canada by race-antagonism between French and British, culminated in rebellions. They were small, ill-organized, and easily suppressed ; but they were a symptom of grave political disease, and when Lord Durham (q.v.) was sent out to investigate it, he declared in his famous Report that the only cure was to give the colonists the same kind of self-government in all their internal affairs as that enjoyed by Englishmen at home—in other words, responsible as well as representative Government. After some hesitation Durham's advice was adopted. Responsible Govern ment was established in the North American colonies between 1846 and 1849 and in Australia and New Zealand a few years later. It was delayed in South Africa owing to the native problem.

This was the most crucial step in the process of political assimi lation. For, once it had been conceded that the people of a colony had the same right as the people of the mother-country entirely to control their local affairs, both executive and legislative, it was difficult to refuse their claim for a wider measure of equality. Thus Durham's idea that, if internally quite self-governing, the Cana dians would willingly leave the control of external affairs, of which the most important were trade and foreign policy, to the British Government and parliament, soon proved fallacious. In 1859 after a brief controversy, the demand of the province of Canada to be free to set up protective tariffs not only against foreign goods but also against British was conceded. And from that day to this it may be said that the advance of the colonies or dominions towards complete equality has never been resisted.

Unification of the Dominions.

The most important stage in this advance was the change from colonies into dominions, i.e., the unification of contiguous groups of colonies into national en tities. By this means colonies, which in their separate existence had been small and weak, like uncoordinated English counties, at tained a size and strength which made them at least potentially comparable with the mother-country. Unification also made pos sible the steady growth of a distinctive national spirit. As at most other stages, the precedent was set by the oldest group of colonies. In 1867 the four chief North American provinces, on their own initiative but with full consent in Britain, constituted themselves a federation under the title of the "Dominion of Canada"; hence the modern use of the word "Dominion." The other provinces, exist ing or created later, all joined the federation in due course. New foundland has chosen to remain separate. For various local reasons the other groups of colonies were slow to follow Canada's lead. The Commonwealth of Australia was not created till 190o and the Union of South Africa not till 1909. The Dominion of New Zea land, which had never been divided into separate colonies, obtained a unitary constitution in 187o.

Military Defence.

Meantime the colonies were beginning to assume the duties as well as the rights of self-government. Though they still made no claim for a share in the control of foreign policy, they were prepared in the second half of the i9th century to re lieve the mother-country of part at least of the burden of their military and naval defence. In evidence given before a departmen tal committee in London in 1859 it was shown that at that time the colonies were free from almost every obligation of contributing either by personal service or money payment towards their own defence, and that the cost of military expenditure in the colonies in the preceding year had amounted in round figures to £4,000,000. A committee of the House of Commons sat in 1861 to consider the question, and in 1862 it was resolved, without a division, that "colonies exercising the right of self-government ought to under take the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence." The decision was accepted as the basis of im perial policy. The first effect was the gradual withdrawing of imperial troops from the self-governing colonies, together with the encouragement of the development of local military systems by the loan, when desired, of British military experts. In 1868 the Canadian Militia Act gave the organized nucleus of a local army to Canada. In the same year the British troops were withdrawn from New Zealand, leaving the colonial militia to deal with the native war still in progress. In 187o the last British troops were withdrawn from Australia, and in 1871 from Canada (except from the naval stations) ; and in 1873 it was officially announced that British military expenditure in the colonies was almost "wholly for imperial purposes." In 1875 an imperial officer went to Aus tralia to report for the Australian Government upon Australian defence. The appointment in 1879 of a royal commission to con sider the question of imperial defence, which presented its report in 1882, led to a considerable development and reorganization of the system of imperial fortifications. Coaling stations were also selected with reference to the trade routes. The colonial military forces were relatively weak and mainly composed of militia and volunteers until in 1909 defence Acts (amended in 1910 after con sultation with Lord Kitchener) established compulsory military training in Australia and New Zealand. South Africa followed suit in 1912.

Naval Defence.

It was always evident that, whatever land forces might be maintained in the colonies, their security would mainly depend on sea-power; and in 1865 a colonial naval defence act was passed empowering the colonies to provide ships of war and seamen for their own defence and in case of need to place them at the disposal of the British Government for imperial pur poses. After the Colonial Conference of 1887 (see below) it was agreed that the Australasian squadron of the British navy should be increased and that Australia and New Zealand should con tribute £126,000 a year towards the cost. After 1897 Cape Colony, Natal and Newfoundland contributed smaller sums. But in 19o2, while the Australasian and South African contributions were in creased, Canada declared that she preferred to create a local navy of her own rather than contribute to the British treasury. Thence forward the two methods were combined. As a result of the alarm created in 1909 by the growth of the German navy, Australia be gan to build an Australian navy of first-class vessels; New Zealand presented a battleship to the British navy but adopted the "local navy" policy in 1913. Canada began a local navy policy by buying two small cruisers, and in under Sir R. L. Borden, proposed to build three battleships or battle-cruisers to form part of the British navy so long as the situation in Europe was dangerous, but this proposal was rejected by the senate. South Africa con tinued its contribution for the time. In general it may be said that by 1914 the idea of contributions had fallen into disfavour as incompatible with the growing sense of dominion "nationhood," but it was always recognized that the local navies which they pre ferred to build would coalesce with the British navy in time of war.

These developments in military and naval defence had not taken place without close consultation between the British and colonial authorities. The personnel of the Colonial Defence Committee created in i886 was purely British; but it was mainly to discuss imperial defence that the first Colonial Conference was held in 1887. In 1901–o2 the Committee of Imperial Defence was set up, under the British prime minister but with dominion representa tives, and it became the supreme consultative authority on the question. Colonial troops, meanwhile, had begun to take part in imperial wars. Contingents from Canada and New South Wales served on the Sudan expedition of 1885 ; and 30,00o men from Canada and Australasia served in the Boer War of 1899-1902.

The Dominions and Foreign Policy.—It was not, however, till the eve of the World War that the dominions began to concern themselves with the foreign policy of which armies and navies were but the ultimate instruments. Far from the storm centre in Europe and immersed in the tasks of internal development, they were content to leave the issues of war and peace in the hands of the British Foreign Office. Thus, when, in the jubilee year of 1887, a conference of the representatives of the British and colonial Gov ernments was held in London, foreign policy was not discussed, nor at succeeding colonial conferences which were mainly con cerned with defence, tariffs, communications and other minor sub jects. The conference of 1907 marked an advance in the status of the dominions towards equality with the United Kingdom ; for it decided that the conference, which was to be called "Imperial" in future instead of "Colonial," should consist of the prime ministers of the component units, on a footing of equality, the British prime minister taking the chair instead of the colonial secretary as here tofore. It was also decided that the conference should meet every four years; and at the conference of 1911 the dominion prime ministers were for the first time admitted into the secrets of for eign policy. At the same time the question of enabling the domin ions to take their part in the control of foreign policy was raised by Sir J. Ward on behalf of New Zealand. He proposed the estab lishment of an imperial Government and parliament to deal with such matters of common concern as foreign policy—in fact a kind of imperial federation—but the proposal was rejected by the rep resentatives of the other dominions and on behalf of the United Kingdom by H. H. Asquith, who declared that the responsibility for foreign policy could not be shared. There the matter rested till the outbreak of the World War; for, though there was consid erable private discussion in all parts of the empire about the means of co-operation in foreign affairs and the possibilities of feder ation, in which discussion the unofficial "Round Table" organiza tion took a prominent part, the dominion Governments were more concerned with confirming and advancing their separate national status than with devising methods of united action. Thus, in 1912, a significant step was taken to assert the distinct personality of the dominions. Hitherto at international conferences the King had been represented by one delegation only, which might contain dominion representatives, but which acted as a whole ; at the radio telegraphic conference of that year the King was represented by distinct delegations acting under separate full powers, those granted to the dominion representatives empowering them to act for the dominions. This recognition for external purposes of a distinction long familiar in matters of internal sovereignty was fol lowed in the Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea in 1913-14.

The Empire in War.

The World War came so swiftly, on Aug. 4, 1914, that it was impossible to consult the dominions, but all the dominion Governments promised aid, placing under the Admiralty their naval forces, comprising the Australian fleet and the small forces of Canada and New Zealand. Similarly, the troops raised by the dominions for oversea service were voluntarily placed under British command, though in the last year of the war the Canadian Expeditionary Force had some independence.

In the earlier period of the war the Governments were too busy to hold the Imperial Conference due under its constitution to meet in 1915 ; but, on the resignation of Asquith in 1916 and the advent to office of D. Lloyd George, the determination to secure greater efficiency in the conduct of the war and the more complete mobilizing of the strength of the empire led to the summoning of representatives of the dominions and of India—not a member of the conference under the constitution of 1907—for discussions with the British Government. Meetings in 1917 and 1918 took a double form ; on the one hand the immediate issues affecting the war and the conditions on which peace might be made were debated at sessions of the Imperial War Cabinet, while matters of secondary importance were dealt with by the Imperial War Con ference.

The Imperial War Cabinet, closely connected with the British cabinet, was a cabinet of quite new character, a "cabinet of gov ernments" as Sir R. L. Borden described it. There was no prime minister on whom it depended; each dominion, India and United Kingdom were represented by independent delegates, the British prime minister presiding merely as Primus inter pares. There was no joint responsibility, and the cabinet could only pass resolutions, not take decisions. It remained for the several cabinets to decide what effect to give to the resolutions, to which the dominion repre sentatives agreed only on the understanding that they must be approved by their colleagues and parliaments. On the other hand the meetings afforded a valuable opportunity for the dominion and Indian representatives to express their views, and thus, in some measure, to share in the supreme direction of the forces of the empire, though final responsibility necessarily rested with the British Government in view of the preponderant share of the bur den of the war borne by British resources. It was recognized that the new departure was essentially due to war conditions, but it was agreed, in 1917, that the constitutional relations of the empire should be reconsidered at a conference to be summoned after peace was achieved. In the discussion on this question the federal idea was again repudiated; and it was resolved, on Sir R. L. Bor den's motion, that any new system must maintain "all existing powers of self-government" enjoyed by the dominions and recog nize them "as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth." The Peace Conference.—The second meeting of the Imperial War Cabinet held in 1918 was followed shortly by the final defeat of the German forces, and the body was reconvened to consider the terms of peace, being transformed finally into the British Empire delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919. The unity which had hitherto marked the representation of the empire was now difficult to maintain; it had been contemplated by the British Government that the empire should speak at the Peace Conference through a single delegation. It was, however, felt by the dominions that they must have the same measure of recognition as the minor powers taking part in the conference. A compromise was, accord ingly, reached. Under this, in addition to the British empire dele gation on which the dominions might be represented from time to time on the panel system, there were recognized delegations from Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India, New foundland being omitted in view of her small population. The delegations were accorded the right of being heard on matters specially affecting them on the same footing as the minor belliger ent Powers, but importance really attached to the influence which the dominion representatives had in deciding, in the discussions within the British empire delegation, what attitude should be adopted by that body, or, when matters were left to the heads of the delegations of the five Great Powers, by Lloyd George.

The form in which the Treaty of Versailles was concluded marked a further confirmation of "Dominion Status" (as it was now called) on Sir R. L. Borden's principle of "equal nationhood." Thus the dominion delegates received their full powers to negotiate and sign separately from the Crown on the separate advice of their respective Governments; and, while the British delegates signed the treaty for the British empire generally, the dominion delegates signed each for his own dominion. Similarly, the dominions insisted that the ratification of the treaty should not be carried out until approval of it had been expressed by their parliaments, and, after demur on the ground of delay, this demand was conceded by the British Government. The same procedure was adopted in the international negotiations on sea-power in the Pacific at Washing ton in 1921. A similar British delegation attended the conference, and the treaty was signed and ratified separately like the Treaty of Versailles.

Membership of the League of Nations.

StilI more impor tant was the decision taken at the request of the dominions to secure them an independent position in the League of Nations as created by the Treaty of Versailles. This was done by including in the list of original members the British empire, followed imme diately by the dominions and India, ignoring the United Kingdom altogether. The effect was to confer on the dominions and India for all purposes of the League of Nations an international status apart from the British empire, which was to be represented at Assembly meetings by delegates appointed by the British Govern ment. It was ruled, too, that the dominions were eligible for elec tion to the Council of the League to fill the places left open to election, despite the fact that the British empire as such had a permanent place on the Council. At the Seventh Assembly (1927) Canada was elected to the Council.

The dominion representatives, instructed by their several Gov ernments, are free of course to speak and vote at Geneva as they please; and on minor questions British and dominion representa tives have sometimes taken different sides. But on major questions general agreement has been maintained by previous consultation. Inevitably, however, the attitude of the distant dominions towards affairs in Europe is not quite the same as that of Britain. Thus the obligations of the Covenant are regarded, in one vital matter, rather differently by Britain and by the dominions and India. As a European Power Britain accepted as necessary the implications of the guaranty of the territory and independence of members contained in Article in. Canada, however, only acquiesced in it originally under protest, and later pressed, though unsuccessfully, for the formal modification of the article; similarly the Geneva Protocol of 1924 proved unacceptable to the dominions and India, and except in New Zealand considerable reluctance was shown to accept obligations under the Locarno Pact of Oct. 16, 1925, which exempted the dominions and India from obligation unless express ly accepted by their Governments. On the other hand, the domin ions and India showed interest in the carrying out of the Labour clauses of the Treaty of Peace under which their distinct individ uality was expressly recognized.

The recognition of the dominions as distinct entities conceded in the Treaty of Versailles and admitted in the negotiation and signature of the other treaties with ex-enemy Powers, led to the claim by Canada for the right of separate diplomatic representa tion where that was desirable in her own interests, and primarily in the United States. The claim was conceded, subject to the willingness of the United States Government, to permit such repre sentation, and to the declaration that it was not the intention of either the British or the Canadian Government to diminish in any degree the diplomatic unity of the empire. The assent of the United States was at first doubtful, as one of the objections there urged against the constitution of the League of Nations was that it ac corded separate votes to different parts of the empire, but ulti mately the necessary approval was accorded. The Canadian Gov ernment did not take advantage of the concession till 1926, when a Canadian minister at Washington was appointed. Meantime, since the privilege was automatically extended to all the dominions, the Government of the Irish Free State had appointed an Irish minis ter at Washington in 1924. It is understood that such ministers will only deal with matters affecting the interests of their domin ions and will act in close harmony with the British ambassador. In 1928 the Canadian Government announced its intention of making further appointments at Paris and Tokyo.

The Conference of 1921.

The sense of "nationhood" which had been greatly stimulated by the World War, was satisfied in most of the dominions by these acknowledgments of their separate status; and in foreign affairs they were content with the existing system of regular conferences and constant communication during the intervening periods. Thus nothing came of the resolution of 1917 in favour of holding a constitutional conference after the war. A conference met in 1921, only to declare itself satisfied that no reconstruction of imperial relations was desirable. The great majority of the people in the dominions were satisfied that an organization which had weathered the war would be adequate for the future. The value of the plan of conferences, on the other hand, was strikingly confirmed at this meeting, for it was found possible to adjust the discordant views of the dominions and Great Britain regarding the renewal of the Japanese alliance by adopting the policy which culminated in the Washington Con ference and the treaties of 1922.

Later in 1922, however, a distinct discrepancy of feeling be tween the nations of the commonwealth was manifested when Lloyd George asked the dominions to support his Chanak policy. Australia and New Zealand, interested in anything which might affect the security of the Mediterranean sea-route, acquiesced ; but Canada and South Africa took the view that, as they had not been effectively consulted on the policy which led to the situation, they could not be expected blindly to pledge themselves to military support. The settlement of the immediate issues removed the difficulty for the moment ; but further questions were raised in March 1923, in connection with the signature of a treaty between Canada and the United States regarding the halibut fisheries. Hitherto, in accordance with the rule laid down by Lord Ripon in 1895 and Sir E. Grey in i907, any political treaty involving a dominion had been signed not only by a dominion but also by a British representative. Canada now contended that, as the treaty affected Canada only, it should be signed by her representative alone ; and after some discussion this contention was accepted. The Irish Treaty.—Meanwhile, the aspect of the British em pire as an informal alliance of autonomous states had been empha sized by the conclusion of the treaty of 1921 between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State. The status of a dominion was by that measure formally granted and the instrument was styled a treaty, although concluded by the British Government merely with representatives of forces in armed rebellion against the Crown. The British Government held that, despite the name, the treaty was not one in the sense of international law, since it did not confer independence but merely dominion status. It therefore maintained the view, contrary to that of the Irish Free State, that the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the registration of treaties did not apply. The new State was admitted in 1923, with the assent of the empire, to membership of the League of Nations. The adoption of a special flag and the enact ment of a distinct Irish citizenship marked the assertion of auton omy. Canada in 1921 had similarly defined Canadian nationals; the definition, however, was necessary to distinguish between Brit ish subjects in general and Canadian British subjects in particular in considering their eligibility for nomination by Canada to stand as candidates for election to the Permanent Court of International Justice. In South Africa in 1927, after bitter party controversy, a compromise was reached, providing for a special South African flag but also recognizing the Union Jack as denoting South Africa's membership in the empire.

Conference of 1923.

In 1923 the Imperial Conference met again, the Irish Free State being represented for the first time. The chief question affecting inter-imperial relations discussed at this meeting was the treaty question. It was agreed that treaties should normally be negotiated and signed, under full powers granted by the King, by representatives of the part or parts of the empire af fected, and that in negotiating any treaty it should be the duty of the Government primarily concerned to secure that any other Gov ernment which was affected should be invited to take part in the negotiations; in the case of international conferences the proce dure adopted at the Paris Conference should be followed. Ratifica tion of treaties thus negotiated should be expressed under the same conditions—that is, on the request of the Government or Govern ments concerned. It was understood that in all such international business Great Britain and the dominions would have due regard to each others' interests and those of the empire as a whole.

The conference also discussed foreign policy. It approved the principle of supporting the League of Nations, and reaffirmed the doctrine laid down in 1921, that each part of the empire should make provision for local defence ; it also approved the view that the naval forces of the empire should be equal to those of any other power, and that suitable bases should be provided, with special reference to the British Government's proposals about Singapore. The absolute autonomy of the dominions was, however, stressed, and no pledges of aid in the maintenance of the navy were offered, the decision resting with the dominion parliaments.

An unfortunate misunderstanding, however, arose out of the conference. Apparently it was held that the discussions there of the terms of peace to be made with Turkey involved the dominion Governments in responsibility for the Treaty of Lausanne when finally agreed upon by the British representatives, who alone took part in the discussions. When, however, Canada was asked to ap prove of the ratification of the treaty she made it clear that while she took no exception to ratification, the responsibility for it, and for the obligations which might be imposed on the empire under its terms, must rest with the British Government only. The doc trine was thus established that the dominions would only accept active obligations when they had taken part in the negotiations and agreed to their results. A further representation from Canada resulted in the admission of this principle by the British Govern ment in connection with the London Reparations Conference of 1924, though lack of time prevented the adoption there of any other than a makeshift arrangement for the special representation of the dominions. The British Government then proposed that the question of more effective consultation on international subjects should form the subject of a special conference, but its fall from office was followed by an intimation that further experience of the working of existing arrangements was desirable, a view acquiesced in by the dominions.

In 1925 the prime minister of the Australian Commonwealth arranged to station in London a liaison officer to keep him fully informed on foreign political questions and the views of the British Government ; but neither this device nor the alternative suggestion of sending a member of the dominion cabinet to act as minister resident in London received general approval in the dominions, largely because such a minister would inevitably cease to be in effective touch with dominion feeling and would be apt to commit his Government to British views, while, if he merely acted as a channel of information, his employment would hardly serve any useful purpose. Consultation, therefore, was conducted, as before, mainly by telegram in dealing with the Geneva Protocol of 1924 and the Locarno Pact of 1925 ; and, since no ad hoc conference could be held nor empire delegation formed, a clause was inserted in the Locarno Treaty exempting the dominions from its obligation unless expressly accepted by them.

The attitude revealed by these consultations was one of reluc tance on the part of the dominions to take an active part in British foreign policy save in so far as it directly concerned their interests. It was admitted that the dominions might be involved in war by British action, which they could not as matters stood effectively control, but it was recognized that it remained for each parliament to decide whether in the event of hostilities it would afford aid, and, if so, in what manner, to Great Britain. The constitu tional position was summed up in Article 49 of the Irish Free State Constitution, which provided that, except in the case of in vasion, the State could not be involved actively in war save with the assent of its own parliament, a doctrine which was also defi nitely approved by Canada and accepted by the other dominions.

Conference of 1926.

The process of assimilation had thus been as far as possible completed. In foreign affairs as in all else the dominions were now equal "in status, though not in stature," with the older and larger Britain. As an illustration of this fact, the Colonial Office in Downing street was divided in 1925 into two departments so as to distinguish between the dominions and the non-self-governing Crown colonies, and a new office of secre tary of State for dominion affairs was created. For the time being this new office was held by the colonial secretary, Mr. Amery, con jointly with his old one. In some quarters, however, and specially among the Nationalist Party in South Africa which now, headed by General Hertzog, came into power in alliance with the Labour Party, it was still supposed that the dominions were in some degree subordinate to Britain. At the conference of 1926, therefore, it was decided to attempt a written definition of inter-imperial rela tions, and a committee, with Lord Balfour as chairman, drew up a report which thus defined the "position and mutual relation" of Great Britain and the dominions : "They are autonomous Com munities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or ex ternal affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. . . . Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever." This report was accepted by the conference and by public opinion in all parts of the empire. General Hertzog declared himself quite content that South Africa should remain within the empire on these terms.

The committee also dealt with some of the forms which no longer corresponded with the facts. To fit the new position of the Irish Free State it recommended that the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" should be dropped from the King's title which should read, "George V., by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." It declared that the governor-general of a dominion occupies the same position in the dominion as the King in Great Britain, that he is not the represent ative or agent of the British Government, and that he should not act as the channel of communication between his Government and the British, but that communications should be in future between Government and Government direct. It further stated that the old customs of "disallowance" or "reservation" of dominion legisla tion by the King on the advice of his British ministers—customs which had fallen into disuse—were no longer constitutional since the King, being advised on dominion matters by dominion Govern ments, could not properly be advised against these governments' views by the British Government. With reference to the survival of those and similar forms in imperial acts of parliament, it was decided to appoint another committee to consider the best means of attaining legislative equality. On the question of the right of appeal from dominion courts to the judicial committee of the Privy Council—a right which was considered in some quarters, specially in the Irish Free State and Canada, as incompatible with equal status—the committee reported that the British Government desired the matter to be settled in accordance with the wishes of the dominions but that, as all parts of the empire were concerned, no change ought to be made without consultation and discussion. Turning to foreign affairs, the committee confirmed and supple mented in detail the agreement of the conference of 1923 on trea ties; declared that the major share of the responsibility for foreign policy as for defence must continue for some time to rest with the British Government, but that no dominion could be committed to active obligations without its own Government's consent; and pointed out "the desirability of developing a system of personal contact, both in London and in the dominion capitals, to supple ment the present system of inter-communication." (In 1927 an official was appointed as agent and intermediary for the British Government in New Zealand; and in 1928 in Canada and South Africa.) The report as a whole might have seemed to be more concerned with denying inequality than with affirming unity, if it had not contained a passage which stressed the importance to the empire of free co-operation among members. The Conference met again in London in 193o ; and in 1932 the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa resulted in eleven trade agreements.

The Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, gave effect to the resolutions of previous Conferences and to the "Balfour Declara tion" (see above). It terminated the sovereignty, even nominal and formal, of the Imperial parliament over the Dominions.

These two small units of the empire stand in a class by them selves, with a status between that of a dominion and that of a Crown colony. Under the old Crown colony regime the desire of the Maltese for self-government led to persistent agitation and even to the suggestion that Malta should be annexed to Italy; but in 1921 the position was stabilized by the grant of a measure of self-government akin to that introduced in India by the Act of 1919 (see below) . Full responsible Government with an elected assembly was conceded for the control of all domestic affairs; but the control of external affairs and defence was "reserved" for the governor and a nominated council. Southern Rhodesia till 1923 was administered on Crown colony lines by the British South Africa Company; but in that year, after the financial claims of the company had been met by agreement with the British Govern ment, the colony was annexed to the Crown and responsible Gov ernment instituted. It is not so complete, however, as, e.g., in Newfoundland, since the powers of the legislature are limited touching the interests of the natives and other matters touching purely local questions, and the right of disallowance by the Crown is maintained.

The Indian constitution is fully described elsewhere (see INDIA) . But a brief statement must be made here to explain the status of India as part of the empire. The services rendered by the people of India in the war and the emphasis laid by the Allied and Asso ciated Powers on the principle of self-government made it difficult for the British Government and parliament to reject the demand of Indian politicians for further autonomy. Accordingly the Gov ernment of India Act of 1919, with the declared intention of lead ing up by gradual stages to responsible Government, introduced a constitutional system known as Dyarchy, by which the field of Government in the provinces was divided into "reserved" and "transferred" subjects, the former to be controlled by the governor and a nominated executive council, the latter by the governor act ing with Indian ministers responsible to elected legislative councils. At the same time a mainly elective legislature was created for all British India; but the all-India executive (the governor-general and council), while acting as far as possible in harmony with this legislature, was not to be responsible to it but only to the British Government and parliament. This constitution worked, not with out friction, but not unsuccessfully, till in 1927, in accordance with the intentions of 191q, a commission of M.P.s was set up, with Sir John Simon as chairman, to report on what further political progress, if any, could be made. More important for the purpose of this article is the external status now accorded to India. Repre sentatives of India were invited, together with the dominion prime ministers, to attend the Imperial War Cabinet and Conference in 1917 and 1918; and like the dominions India became an original member of the League of Nations. Internationally, therefore, India enjoys, in form, the status of a dominion; but, since India is not wholly self-governing and since, in particular, her foreign policy and defence are controlled by an executive not responsible to an Indian legislature, this position is anomalous and represents the potentialities of the future rather than the realities of the pres ent. At the same time the new status enables the Government of India to seek redress for the grievances of Indians domiciled in the dominions by representation at the Imperial Conference or direct ly to dominion Governments instead of through the mediation of the British Government. At the conferences of 1921 and 1923 the representatives of India were satisfied with the assurances of all the dominions except South Africa. The dispute with South Africa, where the difficulties arising from the differential treatment of Indian immigrants had been far more serious than elsewhere, was settled by agreement in 1926 as the result of commissions from South Africa to India and vice versa. In 1927, a distinguished Indian, Sir S. Shastri, was appointed by the Government of India to act as its agent in South Africa and assist in carrying out the agreement. For later history see INDIA.

This vast congeries of many diverse units with varying consti tutions can be grouped in one political class because none of them enjoys full responsible Government and in all of them (except the Bahamas, Barbados and Bermuda, in which independent legis latures have survived from earlier times) the executive, which is responsible only to the secretary of State for the colonies, can control the legislature. In some cases the governor alone has power to legislate sometimes because, as at Gibraltar, the colony is little else than a fortress or naval station, but more often because the population of the colony or protectorate consists almost entirely of politically backward native peoples. In other cases a legislative council or assembly exists, sometimes wholly nominated, sometimes partly elected, but always with a majority of official or nominated members through whom the executive can keep control. Furthermore, the colonial secretary retains the power to control legislation, and especially taxation and expendi ture, either by instructions to the governor or by subsequent disallowance.

In this field of the empire, as elsewhere, the war led to political advance. In the West Indies an elective element was introduced into the legislative councils of Trinidad and the Leeward Islands, and an elective majority was established in the Jamaica council, subject to the governor's power to pass essential legislation by counting only official votes. A commission was appointed in 1927 to consider changes in the constitution of Ceylon. In the West African colonies, the natives of which had served in large num bers and with heavy losses in the African campaigns, mainly as porters, native representatives were included in some of the legis lative councils, partly on an elective basis. In East Africa, more especially in Kenya, the problem is complicated by the fact that the climate of the highlands enables white men to make their homes there, with the result that there is a substantial minority of white settlers. In Kenya the Europeans (mainly British), who numbered 12,529 in 1926, are demanding responsible Government. It is also urged that Kenya should be joined with Uganda, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar in a federal union. In 1927 a com mission was appointed, with Sir Hilton Young as chairman, to examine and report on those and allied questions.

The Mandated Territories.

A further innovation in consti tutional usage was introduced by the creation of the mandatory system (see MANDATE), and the allocation by the principal Allied Powers to the British Government of mandates for Mesopotamia, renamed `Iraq, Palestine, portions of Togoland and the Cam eroons, and German East Africa, renamed Tanganyika Territory; to Australia for German New Guinea; to New Zealand for Western Samoa; to the Union of South Africa for German South West Africa ; and to the British empire for the Island of Nauru. The terms of the mandates approved by the League of Nations authorized the administration of Togoland, the Cameroons, New Guinea, Western Samoa, Nauru and South-West Africa as por tions of the territory of the mandatory power, subject to the observation of certain principles in the interest of the natives and under obligation to report annually to the League, whose permanent commission on mandates was established to deal with such reports; authority was expressly given for the application to such territories of the customs and immigration laws of the mandatory State.

In the case of Tanganyika, Togoland and the Cameroons, fur ther restrictions were imposed, providing for equal treatment of nationals of members of the League. Togoland and the Cameroons were attached for administration to the Gold Coast and Nigeria. Tanganyika was given a constitution of the usual protectorate type. `Iraq, which was at first to have been administered directly by Great Britain, was recognized by treaties of 1922-24 as an independent kingdom, and the obligation undertaken as a man datory power by Great Britain was held by the council of the League to be satisfied by the acceptance of responsibility for the due carrying out of the treaties, which, however, were to lapse if `Iraq should be admitted a member of the League before their expiry by lapse of time in four years. This period, however, was extended to 25 years by the treaty of Jan. 13, 1926, in accordance with the recommendation of the League Council of Dec. 16, 1925, for the settlement of the boundary with Turkey. By a further treaty of Dec. 1927 Great Britain formally recognized `Iraq an independent State, and agreed to support `Iraq for admission to the League of Nations in 1932. It was also decided to negotiate a revision of the existing military and financial agreements. In the case of Palestine the mandate was granted subject to the obliga tion, voluntarily assumed by Great Britain, of furthering the estab lishment of a home for the Jews; efforts to carry this out resulted in strong resistance by the Arab majority, which declined to work the constitution conferred in 1922, with the result that all execu tive and legislative power remains in the hands of the representa tives of the mandatory power.

A League of Nations.

To the student of world-affairs there is no political community more interesting than the British em pire ; for it embraces part of every continent and includes sections of all the major races of mankind, with their diversities of colour, creed and culture. It is, so to speak, a microcosm of the world; and cons'e'quently all the main problems of world society can be found in operation within it. Thus there is no richer field for the study of the problem of nationality. The British empire can be regarded from one aspect as a vast experiment in inter national relations. The peoples of the British Isles, to begin with, were long ago confronted with the task of adjusting the relations between the four nationalities which had been implanted therein as the outcome of early race-migrations. As regards the English, Welsh and Scots, the task was accomplished by the fusion of Wales with England under the Tudors and by the union of Eng land and Scotland in 1707. Time has confirmed the success of this achievement ; for while the smaller nations, the Welsh and the Scots, are harmoniously united in one State with the English, they retain a lively consciousness of their own distinctive national ities. The problem as between the British and the Irish took far longer to solve ; and the solution attained in 1921 after centuries of tragic conflict was not complete, since the Irish of the north east, though quite distinct in nationality from the British, remain apart from the rest of Ireland and still closely associated with Britain. The same kind of international problem has been solved or is in process of solution in two of the dominions. The relations between British and French in Canada were finally adjusted in 1867 by federation which leaves the French-Canadians free to control their own national life in their old home in the Province of Quebec, while they take their part in the wider Canadian nation through the Federal Government and parliament. Some disputes may occur from time to time about language or religion owing to the overflow of French-Canadians into mainly British-Canadian provinces; but it is generally recognized that Canada's destiny is binational and that the dominion is the richer for being able to draw upon two of the greatest languages and cultures of the world. The friction between British and Dutch in South Africa has lasted longer and has been embittered by war; nor was it possible, owing to the local intermixture of the two peoples, to apply the federal solution. None the less, though feeling still runs high at times, as in the flag controversy in 1927, it seems probable that British and Dutch, aided by intermarriage and a sense of common interests, will ultimately settle their differences in a common sentiment for a united South Africa. And, lastly, the dominions and Britain together constitute a unique inter national society. Each is free and independent, but all are will ingly associated under one Crown. It is a league of nations more closely bound together than the League of Geneva by common traditions and sentiments and a preponderance of common blood. The population of the dominions, with their wide unoccupied spaces, will quickly grow more equal to that of Britain and in some cases will eventually surpass it. Whether, with the aid of swifter intercommunication, the union between them will still endure or whether it will break up into wholly separate sovereign states is a question of the greatest importance to the future of the world.

A

League of Races.—Again the British empire is the most fruitful field for the study of the greater and more difficult prob lem which lies behind the problem of international relations—viz., the problem of interracial relations.

It was in the empire, in the first place, that the greatest change recorded in all history in the relations between the white and black races was first made. Until the third quarter of the 18th century slavery was accepted by the bulk of European opinion as a natural and necessary institution. European plantations in the tropical car subtropical areas of North and South America and the West Indies were cultivated by gangs of slaves, which were kidnapped, or purchased for spirits or firearms, by European slave traders, mainly on the west coast of Central Africa, and trans ported under horribly cruel conditions across the Atlantic. In the course of the 18th century this slave trade became the most lucrative of all trades, and the British, as the leading oceanic traders, obtained the largest share of it. Gradually, however, a humanitarian anti-slavery movement, in which the Quakers took a prominent part, developed in England, and, by persistent appeals to the conscience of the British people, it achieved its object in four successive stages. (r) In 1772, mainly owing to the efforts of Granville Sharp, the status of slavery was declared illegal in England, and the 14,000 slaves, which had been brought into the country by colonial planters, were set free. (2) In 1807, as the result of a long campaign, headed by Wilberforce, the British slave trade was abolished by Act of parliament; and in 1814-15 the British representatives at the European peace conferences per suaded the other maritime powers to accept the principle of abolition. But the application of the principle in practice was only secured by the unceasing efforts of British diplomacy and by the vigilance of the British cruisers stationed off the west coast of Africa to intercept slave-smugglers. (3) In 1833, after long and bitter disputes with the West Indian planters, parliament abolished slavery itself in all British colonies. Over 800,000 slaves were freed, and L20,000,000 was paid by the British taxpayers as compensation to their owners. (4) Between 1860 and 1880, as the result of negotiations with the sultan of Zanzibar and of naval blockade, the Arab slave trade from East Africa to Arabia and Persia was as far as possible suppressed. Thus it may be claimed for the British people that, if they took the chief part in maintaining the African slave trade and slavery they also took the chief part in their destruction. Nevertheless, slavery was not completely eradicated in Africa until the loth century. So late as 1927 it was discovered—ironically enough—that although there was no slavery in the British colony of Sierra Leone, a state of domestic slavery was still recognized in the protectorate of Sierra Leone, which had originally been founded as a refuge for liberated African slaves. The discovery of this anomaly aroused great indignation, and on Sept. 22 the legislature of the colony and protectorate of Sierra Leone unanimously endorsed the "Ordi nance to abolish the legal status of Slavery," which accordingly came into force on Jan. 1, 1928, and resulted in the technical liberation of some 117,000 persons.

Slavery once abolished, it was possible for new ideas to develop about the relations of the white and the coloured, the advanced and the backward, races; and in course of time these ideas have taken shape, not only in social or economic or religious matters but also in political organization. Here again the empire is a great laboratory of political experiment. At the top of the scale is the Government of India and the attempt described above to enable the diverse Indian peoples to acquire by experience the capacity to govern themselves and so to take their place along side the dominions in the British commonwealth of nations. The importance of this experiment is manifest; for the position of India within the British empire constitutes a bridge between East and West, and if India can remain contentedly in political associa tion with Britain and the dominions, it will go far to adjust one of the great world-issues of the future—the relations between Europe and Asia. Lower in the scale stands the African question. In the Union of South Africa, in the mandated territory of Tan ganyika, and in the wide belt of British colonies and protectorates that stretches across tropical Africa from the Atlantic to the Indian ocean and from the Zambezi to the Nile, a great congeries of native races, mostly negroes or negro stock, presents an un paralleled field of study to the anthropologist, the sociologist, the political scientist and the missionary. As with Asia, so with Africa. The future relations between Africans and Europeans will largely depend on the result of the experiments now in opera tion in these territories. The character of these experiments varies with local circumstances. In Nigeria, for example, the principle of the "dual mandate," which regards the government as trustee both for the welfare of the natives and for the economic develop ment of their country to meet the needs of the world, can be easily applied because in general the natives themselves own the land and develop its resources. In Kenya, on the other hand, there is more difficulty and dispute, since large areas of the land are owned by Europeans. There are similar differences in politics. In South Africa, the natives of the Cape Province can vote, with an educational and property qualification, alongside with Euro peans, for the Union Parliament. In the Transvaal district and in Basutoland, they have developed their own system of local self-government. In Nigeria native representatives are elected to the legislative council. In Uganda there is an elaborate and old-established quasi-feudal system. In Northern Nigeria there are native States ruled by Muslim emirs. Other examples might be given; but these are enough to show how wide and varied are the race-problems which are being handled within the British empire. The results of them will form no small part of mankind's common stock of political, social and economic experience.