HC Deb 29 July 1924 vol 176 cc1977-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £113,031, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."—[Note: £60,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. AMERY

The particular subject to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee is that of the representation of the Dominions in the foreign policy of the British Empire. I do not propose to revert again to the particular ease of the representation of the Dominions at Lausanne. It was very fully discussed the other day. But I should like to take, as my starting point, the very important statement of policy which the Prime Minister made on that occasion. He said, on that occasion, that he stood by the Resolution of the last Imperial Conference with regard to the negotiation and ratification of Treaties, and added that that Resolution so far as I am concerned, must be put into operation. The leading sentence of that resolution is as follows: Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure to any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that, if any such Government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are intimately involved of participating in the negotiations. The Prime Minister very rightly added that that Resolution by no means covers the whole ground and requires to be supplemented and interpreted, and he added that, in his opinion, the time has come when we have to consider, in view of the present circumstances, what machinery is required to be created. He went on to say that he thought that, without much delay, if they were going to enter into any further negotiations that would commit either the honour or the resources of the. Empire, these Resolutions should be made the subject of a very careful inquiry by constitutional representatives of the Dominions as well as ourselves—representatives of the Dominions, constitutional authorities, men who have had experience of government and experience of constitutional working, sitting with us a sort of specialised sub-committee or committees of the Imperial Conference that will explore with the authorities here—with all our experience of the difficulties of conducting foreign affairs—to see if we cannot make some of these provisions a little more definite than they are, so as to remove all misunderstanding's. He finally added: Before anything is done of a definite character I shall communicate these ideas to the Home in a more definite form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June. 1924; col. 1650, Vol. 174.] A little later, on 10th July, the Colonial Secretary was asked how far the negotiations in this matter had gone and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that communications were proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments as to the possibility of improving the present system of consultation on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. He added that the correspondence, however, has not reached a stage where any detailed statement could usefully he made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1924; col. 2492, Vol. 175.] My primary object in rising is to inquire from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is now possible to add anything to that reply either as to the arrangements for the special meetings or as to the line of policy which His Majesty's Government will adopt at these meetings, because the House will shortly adjourn, and it may be that those meetings will take place before the House meets again. It is, therefore, not in any mood of criticism, but rather of question that I have risen to bring this matter before the Committee. If I add anything at all it will be more in the way of suggestion and elucidation of the general principles, which, I believe, in the opinion of every section of the House, ought to guide us than to attempt to lay down anything approaching a clear-cut policy on this question. The Resolution to which the Prime Minister referred did not, of course, contain anything new. It was in substance the same as the Resolution, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember, at the 1917 Conference, which laid down "the right of the Dominions as autonomous nations of the Imperial Commonwealth to have an adequate voice in foreign policy" and went on to indicate "the need for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern." That Resolution, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will agree, represents a clear constitutional policy, both Sir Robert. Borden and General Smuts played an important part in framing. It is the view that has been consistently taken by the Dominions ever since. I have this afternoon been refreshing my memory of the recent debates in the Dominion Parliaments. I noticed in a recent debate, I think on 6th June, that the-Prime Minister of Canada described the nececssity which he saw for "consultation and co-operation between the Dominions and the Mother Country as equal units within the Empire.' The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Meighen, said very much the same thing. I may quote a sentence from him. He said he believed it made for world peace that they should exert their united force towards such world policies as made for the peace of all. They could not hold the future on the basis of autonomy alone. I quote one sentence from Mr. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, who, referring to the fact that the Dominions were plunged into a great war without consultation, said they were "determined not to remain in a position in which they might be involved in another war without full knowledge of the circumstances that brought it on." He added that the Empire was "one and indivisible," and, in the event of hostilities arising, as the result of misguided British foreign policy, the Dominions could not, in fact, stand aside. It was clear from his speech that there is only one possible solution, and it is that the Dominions while maintaining their full equality of status with the Mother Country should work in complete unity with us as regards the conduct of foreign policy.

May I suggest, difficult though it be to fulfil those conditions, that it is not impossible. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will agree that there have been periods during which those conditions were absolutely fulfilled. During the Imperial Conferences and War Cabinets in 1917 and 1918, the foreign policy that was carried out by the Foreign Secretary was not the foreign policy of British Government alone but of all the Governments of the Empire, meeting on terms of absolute equality, and arriving at unanimous conclusions. That was of immense importance in shaping the general policy with which we went to Paris. The same thing, of course, took place again at subsequent Imperial Conferences. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important landmarks in the policy of the British Empire were those discussions which took place at the Imperial Conference in 1921 with regard to our relations both with Japan and the United States. It was those discussions which formed the whole basis on which the Washington Conference afterwards proceeded. I think my right hon. Friend behind me will agree that the same was true of the Imperial Conference last autumn. While it was in session there was a united foreign policy for the Empire, and in so far as a foreign policy could be laid down during a few weeks for subsequent months and years, we were able to lay down the outlines of a united Empire policy. If that has been achieved between ourselves at Imperial meetings, it has also been achieved with regard to the outside world. When the Dominions went to Paris we succeeded in achieving the fulfilment of these conditions. The status of the Dominions was recognised, not only among ourselves, but by the outside world, as being Equal to that of other independent nations—a very important concession from the point of view of national pride. They were admitted to the Conference or the same terms as all the other smaller nations represented. They were admitted to the League of Nations as separate independent members.

That was a very important matter, but I suggest to the Committee that, in fact, it was far less important than that real equality which they secured as members of the British Empire delegation which at Paris took the place of the Imperial War Cabinet. While the smaller nations with which they met equally were hanging round the outskirts the Conference, picking up such information as they could, and having their interests considered from time to time, the British Dominions were essentially a part of one of the great deciding Powers. No decision was taken of any importance by the Big Five, or the Big Three, which was not fully discussed with the British Empire Delegation beforehand, and which did not represent the decision of all the nations of the Empire. The same general course was pursued with most satisfactory results at the Washington Conference. The same course has also been pursued at the meetings of the League of Nations. The essential thing, in one way or another, consistent with the effective carrying out of our foreign policy, is that the principle underlying these precedents should be carried right through in the whole action of the Foreign Office.

It may be that, looking back upon what occurred at Lausanne, either the Dominions or ourselves should have taken a more definite line in regard to essential principles at the moment these negotiations were opened. I will not go over this ground again. I should, however, like to say a word about the Conference sitting at this moment. It was a little unfortunate that, in connection with his Conference, it was only at the last moment that a kind of make-shift arrangement was arrived at. I say make-shift arrangement advisedly, for my right hon. Friend in answering a question the other day practically admitted that it was a make-shift arrangement and expressed the hope that it would not be quoted as a precedent. That arrangement is unsatisfactory for the reason that it is an arrangement under which the Dominions sitting on a panel have full representation in rotation and on other occasions are only present as spectators. I am not going to object to the principle of the panel as such. There may be occasions when it will be convenient for the British Empire to be represented on the panel system, but in adopting the panel system for the Dominions only you are violating the principle of equality of status between the nations of the Empire. If one nation, the United Kingdom, is represented there continuously and of right and the Dominions only have partial representation through the panel the principle of equality of status is violated, but if all are represented on the panel system then the essential principle is preserved. By whatever means this problem is to be solved, whether on the basis of the full separate representation of all the Dominions or on other occasions by Empire representatives nominated by and acting for a British Empire delegation, it is essential that foreign Powers should fully recognise the position. In these matters I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that we are not more tender in regard to the susceptibilities of foreign Powers than with regard to the susceptibilities of the Powers which make up the British Empire. Take the case of a Power like Belgium. The great Dominions took their part in the War no less than Belgium did. They suffered casualties equally with Belgium, they made their sacrifices, and they are no less entitled, if they wish it, to be represented than Belgium. We, at any rate, ought to make it clear to the rest of the world that it must take the British Empire as it finds it and that we cannot diminish the status of our own Dominions in order merely to meet the convenience of other Powers.

2.0 A.M.

Whatever the position with regard to conferences, I should like to say that it is not conferences that matter so much as the period in between them. The Prime Minister said the other day, with regard to Lausanne, that it was only the sixth or seventh chapter of a long history. That is equally true of the present Conference. The question of reparations, has been discussed practically without intermission ever since the Treaty of Versailles. It is equally true of all other problems of foreign policy, that you cannot give effective representation to the Dominions at Imperial or foreign Conferences unless they can secure some effective say continuously during the intervals between those great landmarks at which are registered the decisions of the Powers. There are one or two general principles that occur to me as calculated at least, in the long run, to lead to a real solution of the problem. That solution can best be found, I suggest, in somehow or other enabling the principle of the British Empire delegation, which has worked so well at so many Conferences, to be made permanent in order to secure for the Dominions a continuous say in foreign policy. Short of that, I believe it would be a great help if each of them had its own special agent, or a special representative to find out what the situation is and to convey it to their own Governments under their direct instruction. I have seen, from the point of view of the Colonial Office, how inevitably colourless are the general circulars in which facts are conveyed to the Dominions how belated they often are, and how sensitive the Dominions are of criticising these despatches. If the Dominions had their own men they could rebuke them for sending inadequate messages, or for sending them too late; they could tell them to go to the Foreign Office again and again in order to get information, and in that way each Dominion would be able to have a much more effective say. There is another suggestion which has been made, I see, in the Australian Parliament, and which Mr. Bruce has spoken of with great favour. It is the suggestion of substituting for the present secretariat between conferences some sort of inter-Dominion secretariat, not dependent on any British department, but like the Imperial War Graves Commission responsible to all the Governments.

The really important thing, however, is that the Foreign Office should itself take the initiative in transforming the habits and usages dating from the time when it had the sole direction of foreign policy and adapting them to the new conditions. It may be extremely inconvenient, no doubt, at times but it is well worth trying if we thereby secure a united Empire policy. I do not think I can put that better than did Lord Parmoor when, speaking in another place, he said it was "unthinkable that the Government of this country should pledge itself to any measure to which the Dominions were opposed. As long as we all worked together as one great people for the good of mankind and the peace of the world, it would be impossible for us to think of adopting any policy of which our Dominions did not approve." That is an admirable principle which should guide the foreign policy of the Empire. We believe that the Empire is an indivisible entity; it consists of nations separate yet equal and of Governments completely independent of each other. But they are all Governments of one Imperial Crown, and the nations which go to make up the Empire, the men and women of the nations, are all subjects of the King, and as such are fellow-citizens. They must be equal citizens. There cannot be different degrees of citizenship within the Empire. if we all admit this—and surely we do—then it cannot be tolerated that we should continue, for a moment longer than can be helped, a state of affairs under which citizens of one part of the Empire, speaking through the Parliament and the Foreign Office of that particular part of the Empire, should exercise an almost exclusive control over matters which effect the vital interests, and it may be even the existence, of other parts of the Empire. I hope I have not trespassed too long on the patience of the Committee in raising this very important subject, which is one wholly outside party controversy, and I hope we may succeed in eliciting a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman, both as to what he has been able to achieve and as to the line which he hopes to take.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has raised this very important question, and I am glad that the Committee are in a position to examine it without their judgment being prejudiced or complicated by association with any criticism upon either the Government of the day or the late Government. I was under the unfortunate necessity of raising it once before in conjunction with what appeared to be a criticism of the late Government, but the fact that this has nothing whatever to do with criticising anyone does not alter my opinion in the least. I am still of the same opinion. I am very glad that the question has been raised, because I think it is a question of the most vital moment to the unity, the strength, and the continued existence of the Empire. I do not want to put it too high, but anyone who has taken the trouble to acquaint himself with some of the disintegrating elements which may exist in parts of the Empire knows perfectly well that this is a matter of such moment that any mishandling of it may produce very disastrous results upon the Empire's unity.

As my right hon. Friend has said, the War of 1914 has made a very great difference. Up to that date the Dominions had only, I think, on one occasion given any substantial assistance to the Empire in any of its great complications. That was during the South African War. But the sacrifices they made between 1914 and 1918 were greater—the sacrifices made by two of the Dominions were greater than the sacrifices made by this country in any war since the Napoleonic Wars. If you take the cost in human life, in casualties, and even in expenditure, you will find that the sacrifices made by Canada and by Australia were greater than the sacrifices we made either in the Boer War or in the Russian War in 1854. That, therefore, alters the whole situation. When you get the Dominions putting a million men into the field, when you realise that those million men were probably the decisive factor in what happened, when you put the question to yourself, "What would have happened if they had not been there?" and the answer fills you with dread, then you say to yourself that it is quite impossible that you should not comply, not merely with the letter but with the spirit of the demand of the Dominions that henceforth they should be consulted as to the foreign policy which commits them to these enormous sacrifices.

What was done in 1917, 1918 and 1919, when they were called practically into the Cabinet, into the Council of the Empire, when they sat on equal terms, when they were just like Members of the British Cabinet, when they sat on its Committees, when they presided over some of its Committees—that was a very great constitutional change. It was a greater constitutional change than we quite apprehended, so much so that it has been difficult to get the Departments quite to accept the full meaning of that change, and they are always going—not deliberately; I am not criticising them—they are instinctively, from tradition, from the habit of generations, constantly falling back upon the old attitude of this country. They have not quite realised that a new chapter in the British Constitution was written by the War of 1914–18, and certainly a new chapter in the Constitution of the British Empire. It has been put on a totally different footing. The Dominions were consulted, not by despatches, but by the gathering of their leaders to the Central Council Chamber of Empire.

I do not want to go back to Lausanne, because, as far as I am concerned, I have had my say on the subject, and I would rather not criticise what has recently happened. I think it is a little unfortunate, but the time has not come for discussing that. I do think, however, that it is very important, when one considers some of the difficulties that our well-wishers in the Dominions have in always carrying the whole of their public opinion along with them on Imperial issues, that we should be exceedingly careful not to give the slightest offence, that we should be exceedingly cautious not to give any handle to those who are ready to make mischief in different parts of the Empire. It is difficult to discuss these matters without saying something that might have a mischievous effect, but the Committee will realise that the kith-and-kin argument does not cover millions of very loyal subjects of the King, even in the Dominions. They have been loyal, and I have no doubt at all that they would stand by the Flag and the Empire whenever it was in peril, but there are people who may make appeals to them in a hostile sense, and it is important that we should avoid any occasion that will give strength to hostile appeals to sentiment which is fermenting sometimes in different parts of the Empire. Therefore, we ought to do everything in our power to get all classes, all races, all languages, all religions inside the Empire and federate them, and make them feel that it is just as much their Empire as if is our Empire.

That is of the most vital importance, and one can see the importance of it when one reads between the lines of some of the discussions which have taken place in the Canadian Parliament in the course of the present year. Some of the incidents have been unpleasant, and I am certainly not criticising the Prime Minister of Canada. He has very great difficulties, and he has had to hear that sentiment in mind. My right hon. Friend suggests some kind of machinery, but I am not sure that it is a question of machinery. He referred to a very important discussion that took place in the Imperial Conference in 1921. I am not quite sure whether it has been published or not, but I think I am right in saying that, although in 1917 there was rather a desire for a machine, for an organisation, for almost a, written Constitution that would make consultation possible, by 1921 the Dominions had unanimously gone back upon that, and I think rightly. Our very best friends were those who opposed it. They felt that it was out of keeping with the spirit of the British Constitution, which has grown from precedent to precedent, which has been built up out of ex- perience, and they were opposed to anything in the nature of a machine for consultation.

I think that is right. The methods ought to be adapted to the conditions of the time. You may, for instance, have a sudden crisis, and it is quite clear that no machine could be brought into operation then. The one great difficulty, of course, is distance, and until you are able by scientific means to shorten the distance and minimise that difficulty, it will always remain. You may have a crisis, as in 1914. There was no time for an Imperial Conference in August, 1914. You have, therefore, to consider the method and adapt it to the conditions of the moment. All that you could have done then was to send cablegrams across, but that is not always possible. It may lead to misunderstanding, because it is very difficult, when you send a cablegram of that kind across, to prevent something from leaking out which may imperil the whole situation here in Europe. That is the difficulty, but the Dominions understand that, and I am sure that what they want to feel is that, when we come to settle the general direction of the policy of the Empire, they shall be called in.

My right hon. Friend referred to the prolonged discussions that we had in 1921 before we decided upon our attitude towards the Japanese Alliance. That, naturally, was a matter of vital interest to certainly three of the Dominions—to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It was discussed at very great length, and the decision we came to was arrived at after very prolonged examination of the whole problem. But, more than that, that was a discussion which took place before the Disarmament Conference in Washington, and the policy of the Empire with regard to naval disarmament was a policy which was decided upon after discussion with the Dominions. That makes a very great difference. Take our attitude towards France. The question of security was discussed; the question of a pact was discussed; all these issues have been discussed. But when you get a question like the Dawes Report, it is very difficult, I realise, to decide upon the best method of discussing a question of that kind; but it is vital that they should be consulted. They have even a pecuniary interest in the decision; but, apart from that, they have the interest that they made great sacrifices to establish that Treaty. They are signatories to the Treaty. The Treaty was arrived at after they had been taken into full consultation. Therefore, they ought to be consulted.

There are many ways in which they could be consulted, and now is not the time for discussing the question of consultation before this Conference. The Conference is sitting. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend that there were rather unfortunate incidents, and what is vital is that they should feel that whatever policy we decide upon is a policy in regard to which we are taking them into our councils in so far as geographical conditions will permit, that they should feel that we are not deciding for them, that the old tradition by which the British Government and the British Foreign Office—or, as they put it, Downing Street—that the old policy of Downing Street deciding for the whole of the Dominions, and committing them to a policy which loyalty demands-that they should support when it is challenged by anyone, is gone, and is gone for ever. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that there is a more important fact for civilisation at the present moment than the British Empire. It is essentially an Empire of liberty, it is an Empire of right, it is an Empire of peace. Those are the three appeals which will rally the Dominions, and that that Empire should be strong, that it should grow in strength, in unity, in power and in might is essential in the highest interests of humanity.

Mr. THOMAS

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that too much importance cannot be attached to this question. I will mention two incidents. When we came into office, we immediately found ourselves at cross purposes with one of our Dominions with regard to the Treaty of Lausanne. The late Government had decided on a certain policy. There we found ourselves immediately with one of our Dominions, not only in private correspondence but openly in Parliament, denouncing what the right hon. Gentleman calls Downing Street methods. We were disturbed at that, and we said at once if possible we must avoid it, not because we are anxious to close anything up which has been done, but the very fact that in the Canadian Parliament the Prime Minister can actually discuss three alternatives, one of them being separation, is certainly disturbing. But it ought to convince all Members in all parties in this House at least that it is a subject which must be tackled not only seriously, but entirely free from party of any sort or kind.

Does not this discussion prove that on the Empire question all parties not only can unite, but are equally devoted, and it is a good thing. Therefore, I come right away to the difficulties. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Dominions gained this particular status during the War. You discussed it in 1917 fully and frankly, because the Dominions said, rightly. "when we are called upon, as we are called upon to-day"—in that case they did it voluntarily—"to come to the aid of the Mother Country, with all the risks, all the sacrifices of blood and treasure that we poured out, we at least not only are entitled to be consulted, but you have no right to commit us unless we are consulted in advance." That surely was the meaning of the 1917 decision. It was followed by the right hon. Gentleman's effort at Versailles to establish, for the first time in international affairs, a definite place and status for our Dominions. Lausanne followed. Then we came in, and found this difficulty. As evidence of our anxiety I cannot do better than quote from a message I sent to the Dominions by the Prime Minister on 23rd June of this year, because I think it not only expresses the Government view, but the view of the House of Commons as a whole.

You will probably have seen from Pres, reports of recent speeches of Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself in Parliament that we are concerned as to adequacy of present system of consultation with other self-governing parts of the Empire on matters of foreign policy and general Imperial interest. We fully accept principle of necessity for effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. We also realise the action to be taken as result of consultation, whether at or between Imperial conferences, must be subject to constitutional requirements of each country. But we feel as result of our experience since taking office that system in practice has two main deficiencies. First, it renders immediate action extremely difficult, more especially between conferences, on occasions when such action is imperatively needed, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy. Secondly, when matters under discussion are subjects of political controversy, economic or otherwise, conclusions reached at and between Imperial Conferences are likely to be reversed through changes of Government. Such a state of affairs leads inevitably to ineffectiveness. It also causes disappointment and doubts are thrown on utility of whole Imperial conference system. He winds up by saying: We should like your views on these suggestions and if you should be able to make any others, they would be welcome We ourselves are quite of an open mind and are merely exploring the situation with a view to finding a solution. There never was a more frank statement from the British Government to the Dominions, because with open hands we say, "Come in and help us find a solution."

Mr. AMERY

The right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee part of that document. I suppose the whole of it will be published.

Mr. THOMAS

Yes. The whole of the correspondence will be published. I quoted it to show that immediately we were brought up against this problem we took the only steps open to us. In the interval we are faced with the conclusions of the Dawes Report. As the right hon. Gentleman said, here you have the real difficulty when you get such a situation as faced us in that Report. To bring the Dominions, to give them the same representation as we determined on at Versailles, meant that they themselves were to have six representatives. Anyone with any knowledge of the European difficulty arising out of the Dawes Report would admit that we could not turn that Conference into a mass meeting. If you were going to be businesslike, you had to make it as small as possible, and the difficulty of that was not only our own difficulty but the difficulty of the other Powers represented. We immediately applied ourselves to the difficulty. We cabled to the Dominions, and said to them: "Here is our difficulty. We want you to have the same representation as at Versailles, but there is a difficulty for this Conference. Will you help us?" During the whole of these negotiations we made it perfectly clear to them that on no consideration would they be committed in any way by any representatives of the British Government without full discussion and agreement. They all accepted it readily with the exception of Canada and the Irish Free State. We may as well be perfectly frank in this matter. The strength of the British Empire is that we can be frank with each other without unpleasantness. Mr. Mackenzie King, speaking for his Government, was frank. He said, "No. I believe that accepting anything less than the principle agreed at Versailles is lowering, our status."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

May I suggest that it would have been possible to carry out the Versailles precedent without in the least interfering with the business of the Conference. I can quite understand that when you come to discuss details you cannot hare a large body, but, then, whenever there was a plenary session where Rumania, Czechslovakia, and Greece were represented, the Dominions were put on the same basis as those countries and were always present, and at the plenary sessions the Dominions might have been represented without interfering in the least with the smaller Commissions that discussed the details of business.

Mr. THOMAS

May I recall to the right hon. Gentleman that agreement had been reached as to the number of these various representatives. What we have done is this: Each Dominion sends its representative. When you talk about continuous consultation, no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it does not always follow that the Dominions themselves agree to their particular representative in London being their representative. That is another difficulty. So do not let us think there is no difficulty. One assumes that the High Commissioners speak for them, whereas, as a matter of fact, in this Conference Canada is represented by a member of her own Senate. What takes place is, that practically every day the whole of the representatives of the Dominions meet the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself at Downing Street. We not only tell each other everything that is going on in all our Commissions, but discuss the whole situation, not as British delegates versus Dominions, but as one united delegation having a common interest, in addition to which, at all the plenary sessions the whole of the representatives of the Dominions are present—at every plenary session from the date it opened.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT

Are they full members?

Mr. THOMAS

Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me. I do not want something to be said abroad in the Dominions which is not absolutely in accordance with exactly what takes place. At every plenary session every representative is present, but at a plenary session there are only four representatives of the Empire, that is two members of the British Government and one representing the Dominions. The others are all present. It is only fair also to say we promised the Dominions, and the Prime Minister read to the conference a clear and definite statement, that this was not to be taken as a precedent or quoted as a precedent for the future, because we desired to make it perfectly clear, not only to the Dominions themselves, but to all foreign Powers, that this system of representation for our Dominions is not satisfactory.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Let me follow what the arrangement is. I understand that each of the Dominions is not represented at the Conference. There are three representatives, and only one is a full delegate of the Dominions.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS

Yes, only one is a full delegate. As my right hon. Friend says, just as in Paris every day, before committing the Dominions to anything there were consultations, so every day here in this Conference there is consultation taking place, and everyone knows as much about the case as the other. That, I repeat, in itself is not satisfactory. That, in itself, is not a solution. That, in itself, is something which must be altered, and we are determined to alter it. That is why we are inviting the Dominions to a Conference, which, we hope, will take place in October of this year. The reason why I cannot lay the Papers at this moment is because the replies are not in. Otherwise, all the evidence tends to show that it will be welcomed, that the Conference will take place, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we want the Conference to take place, so as to explore the whole situation and avoid, if possible, the diffi- culties with which, unfortunately, we have had to deal up to now. I can only say if this discussion helps towards that end, we all welcome it, because this is not censuring anybody, it is not blaming anybody; it is recognising two facts, one of which my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Not only do they deserve well of us, not only are they entitled to this, not only have they made sacrifices, but it is absolutely imperative that their interests must be recognised and looked after.

Secondly, we want, I may say, outsiders to understand that these domestic difference are not going to weaken us. They are inclined to take advantage of these difficulties. They are inclined to gloat over the kind of discussions that took place a few weeks ago over this Conference. We want them all plainly to understand that they are not going to take advantage of these difficulties, because we are going to remedy them in the future. I am quite sure I express the sentiment of the whole Committee when I say we all welcome the discussion, and the frank way in which the question has been approached, and, so far as the Government are concerned, we believe in sending that message to them, and, in meeting them in the Conference, if it takes place, we will not only be representing ourselves, but all sections of this House in a genuine attempt for Imperial unity on a sound basis.

Sir J. MARRIOTT

I think I may so far venture to express the opinion of a good many Members on this side of the House if I say we have heard the statement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend with very great satisfaction. At any rate, I would like to say this, that I can imagine nothing better than the whole temper and tone in which the right hon. Gentleman's speech was couched. I think there may be differences of opinion as to how far the precise necessities of this question have been met by the expedient explained to us by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will probably feel there will be such differences of opinion; in fact, I was going to say he would feel those differences of opinion himself. But if I pass from the details of the arrangement he has laid before the House, to the tone and temper of his speech to-night, I can assure him that I, at any rate, have nothing but the utmost satisfaction. I believe if that temper and tone could be reflected in the reports in the Press to-morrow, his words would be very warmly welcomed, not only throughout the country, but throughout the whole Empire. I think I may say this also. I cannot believe that there could be brought before this House of Commons any subject of greater moment, not merely to the future of this country, but to the future of the world, than the question which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) this evening, and it is a happy circumstance that the question should have been illuminated by the genius, as well as by the unique experience, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).

I think it must be obvious to every Member of this House who has given the least consideration to this problem of Empire partnership, that we have reached in the evolution of the British Commonwealth a stage which is difficult, which is delicate, and which, unless it be handled with the greatest possible tact, may even become critical. May I just remind the Committee, very briefly, how we have reached this stage in what I have called the evolution of the British Commonwealth? In the middle of the last century both parties in this country—there were only two then—had only one object in view in their Colonial policy, and that object was this. The whole of our arrangements were made with a view of preparing the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence. That was the admitted goal of the Manchester School, as it was called, and it was the admitted goal not only of that school, but of all parties in the State. You have only to look at any of the representative works of that period. Look, for example—I am sure the Colonial Secretary has been immersed in the study of the work—at Sir George Cornewall Lewis's "Essay on the Government of Dependencies," published, I think, in 1841. Look at Mr. Arthur Mills's "Colonial Constitutions," hardly a less representative work than that of Sir George Cornewall Lewis. That was published in 1851. Or look at the Memoirs of Sir Frederick Rogers, afterwards Lord Blachford, who for 10 or more years was Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office. Look at any of those works, and you will find that they all represent as the goal of our Colonial policy in the middle years of the last century, the idea that we must train the Colonies for immediate self-government and for eventual independence.

We need not go so far back. I remember that as late as the year 1872, the "Times," in one of its leading articles advised the Canadians—I am quoting from memory, but I think accurately—to take up their freedom, as the days of their apprenticeship were over. I am happy to think that almost from the date of the publication of that article in the "Times" in 1872, there was a very rapid reaction of opinion. I am not going to explore the causes of that reaction, but I would just say that you do not get a great, broad river of sentiment, such as that which flowed in the last. 15 years of the last century, without a very large number of contributory streams. I should weary the Committee if I were to trace those streams to their sources. I am not going to do it, although I would venture very respectfully to advise hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should make that exploration for themselves. It is enough to say that there was in quite the last years of the last century a very strong centripetal movement, which was typified by the operations of the old Imperial Federation League, founded by men like Mr. W. E. Forster, Lord Rosebery and Lord Bryce. That league operated even more powerfully in the Colonies than it did in this country, and the real object of what I have termed that centripetal movement was to amend the state of affairs in regard to the external policy of the Empire. A very large part of the movement towards the greater unity of the Empire, closer relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions, arose from the profound dissatisfaction of the Dominions in regard to the whole conduct of foreign policy.

I very well remember that at the very first Imperial Conference, that of 1887, this question of the foreign policy of the Empire was brought before the Conference by the then Prime Minister of Victoria, the late Sir James Service. The Committee will remember that was the time when our Australian Colonies were beginning to feel very grave apprehensions in regard to the incursion of other European nations into the Pacific, and Sir James Service came to this country in 1887 very largely to protest against the view that the foreign policy of the Empire was to be directed completely and exclusively from Downing Street. The Australian Colonies were at that time very gravely apprehensive of the consequences likely to arise to them from the neglect of the advice which they tendered through Lord Derby, who was then at the Colonial Office, with regard to the acquisition of various islands in the Pacific ocean. What was the burden of the argument which Sir James Service put before that Imperial Conference in 1887? The whole burden of his argument was this: You, the Mother Country, have given to the Dominions absolute and complete autonomy as regards their domestic affairs, but, in reference to external matters, which vitally concern their future—and I remember the words of Sir James Surface, although I am afraid I have not verified them—"we, the Colonies, are still in the position of outside petitioners to the Colonial Office." That was felt to be an intolerable situation. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I have not finished, and I intend to finish, all being well, because I think the points I desire to make are of very great moment, and I wish to make them in the way I think desirable. I say that was felt to be an intolerable situation, and it was the realisation of that situation which led to the periodic consultation with the Dominions in a series of very important Imperial Conferences. I have always looked back to the Imperial Conference of 1911 as the turning point in the history of the foreign relations of the Empire.

It being Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.