37154
160
A
10
it might give rise to misunderstanding, misunderstanding in this respect that it may create the impression that there is a super-State; that the Commonwealth is a super-State and that the individual members of it are, to a certain extent at any rate, in a subordinate position.
66
I explained to the conference that it was necessary, particularly in the case of South Africa, that there should be no misunderstanding with regard to this matter, because in South Africa the Statute of Westminster had been submitted to Parliament for approval and because at that time there had been an important difference of opinion with regard to its interpretation. One school of thought maintained that the Statute of Westminster meant that the rights of the various members of the Commonwealth were tantamount to this that they had the right to secede if they wished to do so; that they had the right to remain neutral in the event of war, and in the event of any member of the Commonwealth being involved in the war; or that the Crown was not divisible; in other words, that one member of the Commonwealth-take South Africa as an example-would regard The King not only as King of South Africa and part of the Constitution of South Africa, but would also regard him as King of England or other member- States of the Commonwealth. There was a difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation. That difference was of a serious and important character. Parliament was called in to take a decision in connection with this matter and at that time Parliament placed this interpretation upon it that there was no super- State either in name or in practice. This was a matter in regard to which there was a serious difference of opinion in South Africa, as far as this interpretation was concerned. We have come a long way since those days. I do not think there is any member in this House to-day, and I do not think there is anyone who is acquainted with the facts, who still maintains that there is a super-State or that we have not got the right to remain neutral or the right to secede. In the meantime that right to secede has been exercised by Ireland and it is now again being exercised by India and no one denies their right to do so. There is no one to-day who adopts that attitude, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised to find at the Prime Ministers' Conference that there was not a single member at that conference who still accepted that erroneous interpretation that was placed upon the Statute of Westminster.
One and all emphasised that there is no super-State, that the Commonwealth cannot be described as a super-State and that those rights to which I have referred are part and parcel of the rights of every individual member of the Commonwealth. I was pleasantly surprised to learn this, but nevertheless, with a view to possible misunderstanding, I deemed it necessary to ask the Conference to put that inter- pretation in black and white. This resolution was then unanimously passed, that where the expression the King is head of the Commonwealth" is used, it must not be interpreted to mean that it alters any of the existing rights of the various members of the Commonwealth, and that The King-although he is indicated as head of the Commonwealth-fulfils no constitutional function as this. I feel that the resolution that was adopted there has once and for all put this matter beyond any doubt and that this position will never be misinterpreted again in the future. I believe that this is the first time that the position has been stated authoritatively."
*
*
"I say that the solidarity of the Commonwealth has been tested and it has stood the test. That has been demonstrated here in the clearest fashion. The question arises why that is so? That phenomenon--and it is a noteworthy and important phenomenon-requires an explanation. The only explanation I can give is that in the first place there are common interests between the various members of the Commonwealth, and it is in that light that they see the position. Furthermore, they have a common or general outlook on life. There are some members who are closer to each other than others, but politically they have a common outlook; even in the case of India which is otherwise perhaps furthest removed from the other members of the Commonwealth, she has decided to model her constitution on the lines of the British constitution and our constitution in this country. In other words, India will be a Republic but she will be a democratic Republic and her method of parliamentary government will largely remain the same as it was before. Moreover, as I have stated here before, India, like the rest ofPthe worldf 366 to-day taking her stand with the fanti Communist countries. She regards communism in Asia or communism which is trying to gain a foothold in India also, as a danger, just as we regard it as a danger.
161
11
was
Well there agemonférests; there is a general, commage 276 of 396 felt that the nations of the Commonwealth were standing together and that if at all possible they want to remain together. But the main reason, in my opinion, why the Commonwealth can remain together, in spite of the changes and develop- ments which have taken place, is that the Commonwealth has shown an ability to adapt itself to changing conditions in a changing world. In other words, what I have said here implies that it respects freedom, not only freedom for all the members jointly but freedom for every member as distinct from the Common- wealth. It has the quality of adaptability. We have seen that during our time in connection with South Africa as well. In our younger days most of us lived. in this country under the domination of an Empire a British Empire. That meant that the executive power was vested in one centre overseas. The remaining countries in the Empire were subject to the will and the domination of that one central authority. But during our lifetime we have also seen the British Empire transformed along peaceful constitutional lines into something else, a community of free independent nations, as far as the Dominions are concerned, linked together by certain bonds, but where the one Dominion, either with regard to its domestic or with regard to its external interests, did not occupy a subordinate position in relation to any other. The British Empire had such a degree of adaptability that it converted itself into something practically new. That same ability to adapt itself to new conditions in a changing world has been revealed again at this conference and in the decision taken there. It has often been said- I believe my hon. friend on the other side of the House has often emphasised it in much stronger language that the British Empire is not an organisation; that there is no such thing as a British Empire except England and her colonies; that the Commonwealth is not an organisation; that it is a living organism and a living organism cannot continue to live unless it has the ability to adapt itself to new circumstances. And the fact that the Commonwealth has again shown that it has the ability to adapt itself and has shown that it is not an organisation but an organism, made it possible for it to exist and to remain in existence in the past; it makes it possible for it to remain in existence to-day. If there had been any rigidity in the basis of the Commonwealth it would have collapsed long ago. This is a matter that must undoubtedly be taken into consideration in expressing an opinion with regard to the important step that was taken in this case. In other words, let me put it this way: Where it has been necessary from time to time in the past to loosen the bonds holding the Commonwealth together, the Commonwealth has always succeeded in rising to the occasion. What does that prove to us? The step that was taken at the Conference goes to show that what is described in the preamble to the Statute of Wesminster, namely, that the Commonwealth is based on a common allegiance, in other words, that all the members must-and in actual fact they do recognise the Crown and form a link with the Crown, is not the only bond holding the Commonwealth together. I go further and say that it is not even the most important bond holding the Commonwealth together. I do not want to detract in any way from the value of the bond, of common allegiance in certain cases. I do not want to detract in any way from the importance of the rôle that The King plays in some member- countries of the Commonwealth; but I do want to say with regard to the Kingship in England where The King is head of the State, where he is continually in touch with his people, where he continually comes into contact with them and is in every respect one of them, that the bond there differs from the bond elsewhere. I also want to concede that the Kingship in the case of some other member- countries of the Commonwealth is a unifying force. I refer more particularly to those members of the Commonwealth with a homogeneous population and a homogeneous population of British descent. I refer more particularly to Australia and New Zealand. I accept the fact that there the Kingship plays an important rôle in promoting unity. But there are other member-countries of the Common- wealth that are in a different position. I take South Africa by way of example. The population of South Africa is not uniform. South Africa has a history which differs completely from the history of other members of the Commonwealth, and in these circumstances the Kingship cannot constitute the same bond of unity. I am not only referring to unity in relation to the world outside, but unity in this country, within our own borders. On the contrary, that link is frequently maintained at the expense of unity amongst your people.
37154Page 276 of 366
C.2