Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:12:27.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Commonwealth of Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

H. Duncan Hall
H. Duncan Hall
Affiliation:
British Embassy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British Commonwealth of Nations is the oldest international organization of states in existence. Its uniqueness lies in its unbroken historical continuity, the loyalty of its members to each other, their solidarity on vital matters of common concern, the fluidity of their machinery for dealing with such matters, and their abhorrence of constitutional contracts within the family of the Commonwealth. These are its features so far as we can see them yet in the perspective of history. This article will discuss some of these features and advance an hypothesis for research on the nature of Commonwealth.

Continuity, with change but without revolution, has been the British political formula for the Commonwealth. The evolution of the Commonwealth was one of the long-range consequences of the American Revolution. In a broad historical sense the Commonwealth is the lesson that Britain drew from that revolution. There have been other examples in history, such as Rome and Spain, of the expansion overseas of a people and of its concepts, language, traditions, and institutions. But only in the case of the Commonwealth has historical continuity been maintained without catastrophic change or revolution. It is true that revolution severed the main branch of the first British Empire. The cause of that revolution was the still unresolved deadlock between executive and legislature which had caused the revolt under Cromwell in the preceding century.

Type
The British Commonwealth: A Symposium
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 1953 , pp. 997 - 1015
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Terminology is a real difficulty. “British” is used in different senses for both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. And “Commonwealth” itself, though a fine old Saxon word, is “untranslatable in any foreign language.” Amery, L. S., My Political Life, 2 vols. (London, 1953), Vol. 2Google Scholar, Ch. 12. On “Members” and “Countries” of the Commonwealth, see Professor K. C. Wheare's article in this symposium.

2 In December, 1952, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand agreed on a formula expressly designed to preserve the historical and legal unity of the Crown: “Elizabeth … of the United Kingdom …. Australia, (Canada) (New Zealand) …. Queen ….” (Italics added.) Mr. Menssies, who pressed this point strongly, has revealed the reason. No part of the Commonwealth save the United Kingdom has an Act of Succession. “Legally the Queen is Queen of Australia because she is Queen of the United Kingdom.” Menzies, R. G., Many Nations: One Crown. Daily Telegraph, 06 1, 1953Google Scholar. On the titles, see Professor Wheare's article in this symposium.

3 How extreme nationalism, rooted in history rather than in cultural differences, could impede the working of the Commonwealth system, has been shown by the case of Eire, which withdrew from the Commonwealth, after creating almost an unbridgeable gulf by official neutrality (not shared by scores of thousands of its citizens), in a war in which the existence of the Commonwealth was at stake. The historical feud with Britain died quickly amongst the Irishmen who by migrating to the Dominions were no longer (in Toynbee's phrase) “condemned by Fate to go on living upon fields sown with dragon's teeth and watered with blood.”

4 These are themes which ProfessorBrady, has illuminated in his Democracy in the Dominions (Toronto, 1952)Google Scholar and his article in this symposium.

5 Lectures on Colonization and Colonies, 1861 ed., Vol. 2, p. 641Google Scholar.

6 A massive demonstration of how the opposites could be reconciled in action, if not in theory, was given by the Prime Ministers during the next two years in the more or less continuous sessions of the Imperial War Cabinet, and the British Empire Delegation in Paris.

7 The Prime Minister of Australia (Mr. Bruce), speaking at the opening of the Conference, said: “It would be disastrous to attempt to lay down something in the nature of a written constitution that is going to govern us in the future. It is quite impossible for an Empire progressing continually, as we are, to have such a document. If we had had it in the past, either it would have been torn up or it would have destroyed the Empire.” (Cmd. 2769, 1927.)

8 Mr. Menzies in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament in 1937.

9 The memorandum was referred to in speeches by General Hertzog and General Smuts in the South African Parliament on March 16, 1927 (Cape Times, March 17); see Hall, Lowell and, The British Commonwealth of Nations (Boston, 1927), pp. 614–15Google Scholar; Van den Heever, C. N., General J. B. M. Hertzog (Johannesburg, 1946), pp. 208–21Google Scholar, and Mansergh, N., Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, 1931–1939 (London, 1952), pp. 10–15Google Scholar.

10 The “new name” was first used officially in December, 1921 in article 3 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Official endorsement by the Commonwealth as a whole dates from the 1926 Imperial Conference.

11 Cmd. 1474, 1921.

12 Amery, L. S., Thoughts on the Constitution, 2nd ed. (London, 1953), p. 128Google Scholar.

13 See Van den Heever, op. cit., who gives texts of the drafts. His account (followed by Mansergh) places all the emphasis on Hertzog's role and none on the most important part played by the Dominions Office. For an authoritative account of the 1926 Conference, see Amery, , My Political Life (cited in note 1), Vol. 2Google Scholar, Ch. 12. Mr. Amery (to whom I am indebted for an advance copy of his chapter and for valuable comments on the present article) reveals that the italics used in the Declaration of 1926 were due to a typographical slip; they caused the sentence to be quoted frequently out of context, thus overemphasizing the negative aspects of the Declaration. Speeches in 1926 referring to the “declaration of constitutional right” include: Hertzog, Cape Times, May 17, December 8, 14; Rand Daily Mail, December 21; and Smuts, in Union Parliament, May 29.

14 Cmd. 2768.

15 Above all the Statute of Westminster on which ProfessorWheare's, Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status, 5th ed. (London, 1953)Google Scholar is the authoritative study.

16 E.g., in the thirties. In 1926 the Canadian Prime Minister did not come to the Conference prepared to raise the issue of status. See Canadian Parliamentary Debates, March 29, 1927, p. 1742, and Amery's chapter (cited in note 1).

17 Harvey, Heather J., Consultation and Cooperation in the Commonwealth (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

18 Cmd. 2768, 1926 and cmd. 1987, 1923.

19 Mr. Bruce in the Australian Parliament, August 3, 1926.

20 Thus in form and substance the parliamentary machinery of the Commonwealth now goes beyond the “Commonwealth Congress” envisaged by General Smuts in 1921. See discussion on an Imperial Assembly in Hall, The British Commonwealth of Nations (London, 1920), pp. 306–15Google Scholar.

21 Burke, Speech on Conciliation with America, 1775.

22 The Times (London), Dec. 14, 1936Google Scholar. For a recent discussion of the significance of tradition see the symposium “Tradition in Culture and Politics”, Part I, Confluence, Vol. 2, pp. 1–65 (09, 1953)Google Scholar.

23 See Jordan, Philip D., Uncle Sam of America (St. Paul, 1953)Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.