The New British Commonwealth

LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE A. DREW, President, introduced the speaker.

RIGHT HON. MR. BENN: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: First of all, perhaps, I had better get rid of my dark secret which is this: It is the first time that I have been in Canada or, indeed, across the Atlantic Ocean at all, and if, as is indeed the fact, I felt shy and anxious about this important visit, every shade of anxiety or any shyness or timidity I felt has been brushed aside by the warmth of the welcome kindly accorded to me.

In the anteroom a few minutes ago, it seemed that the entire staff of the British end of the Flying Corps in Italy were gathered together, and I met, for the first time after over fourteen years, many whose friendship I made at the time. It is a matter of deep regret to me that my greatest friend at that time is not with us today, but I venture to think that not only in Canada but throughout the British Empire the name of "Barker" will always have a high place of honour.

They say, my flying friends--I was not much in the Flying Corps myself--but the important people present will bear me out when I say that one of the sayings in the Flying Corps was this: "The dashboard has seven instruments, each one of which gives you a good reason for going home." That saying never held any significance for Barker. If you ask me to say what I thought most of in Barker, if you will forgive a colloquial expression, I would say that he had "guts." Once he started, he never gave up. If it hadn't been for General Mitchell and Colonel Barker, that interesting little experiment to which the Chairman referred-the dropping of spies over behind the enemy lines with black silk parachutes would never have taken place.

I am amazed at my courage in associating on terms of equality with General Mitchell, because, in those days I trembled at his glance. In those days when anyone with a brass hat appeared, well, you know how we felt--and now the world is altogether altered. (Laughter).

Now, Gentlemen; this is Australia Day. It is the thirty-first birthday of the great Dominion of Australia and as a serious topic for the few remarks that I have the honour of addressing to you, I have selected this, namely, the growth of Empire on the political side as I, myself, have seen it in the course of my twenty-six years' experience in the House of Commons. This is not what one might call a philosophical synthesis; it is not high flown theorizing; it is merely what I have seen with my own eyes in the growth of this institution whose potentialities for good in the world are unlimited and which we call "The British Commonwealth."

First, let me remind you how, in the course of a hundred years our conception of the British Empire has utterly changed. I should like to read, if I might, these very fine words, spoken by that great orator, Daniel Webster, who, in speaking of the British Empire said: "It is a power which has dotted over the whole surface of the globe with her possessions and military posts; whose morning drum beat, following the sun and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain--the martial airs of England". That, I venture to think, is one of the finest definitions of the old conception of Empire that has ever been spoken. How changed is our view today! Our theory today is not that of an Empire vested with force. We have an Empire resting on liberty and free associations; a family of free and equal sovereign states. When other people, outside of the British Common wealth, devise Kellogg Pacts or Leagues of Nations, there is no difficulty about us adhering, because those are the principles upon which the British Empire has been founded. The absolute absence of war within the British Commonwealth, the absolute willingness to settle problems which confront us through cooperation and discussion, are an evidence of our adherence to these principles.

I suppose that most of the men here are of an age to have been in the war. What do we think of war? Personally, I don't believe in war for the same reason that the man said that he didn't believe in ghosts. Somebody said to this man, "Do you believe in ghosts?" He said, "No, I have seen too many of them." I have seen too much of war to believe in it.

Of the great development of the two Dominions which have come into being during my own parliamentary experience and of the problems which face us in the future in the East, I should like to take from my notebook the things that I have observed. I do not promise any deep philosophical utterances; they are merely the facts, as indicated by my own experience and as I have seen them close up in the House of Commons.

I should say" first: In the development of the Empire, the Mother Country is well advised to give boldly when demands are made. Second: There is no use in the development of self government, to give it without the gift of real responsibility. Third: I should say that every new self governing state--and I am coming to the new problems in a moment--must be made to understand that freedom within the British Commonwealth means freedom to pursue its own destiny within the Empire, and the theory is not that people can follow some model thrust upon them. They are free to develop their own patriotic interests and standards, inspired by their own Dominion in the larger Federation which we call 'The British Commonwealth'. The fourth is this: A government founded upon the popular will has a degree of authority in maintaining public order, which is the first duty of a government, which no external government, even within the Commonwealth, can possibly possess.

Let me take my three examples: I am going to deal with South Africa, with the Free State of Ireland, and a word or two, not much" about a problem with which I was associated for two and one half years; I mean the development of the British Government in India.

My first leader in the British House of Commons was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. He was a bold critics of the policy of the British Government in the South African War. Some thought him far too bold and some thought him far too outspoken. He was much criticized in the early nineties for those utterances. The details of the campaign he continually criticized and his famous remark about "the methods of barbarism" was the one thing which nailed him to the mast, so to speak. I am not defending him. I am merely stating the facts as I see them.

When the War was over, through those men in Great Britain who sympathized with the Dutch point of view, we induced the Dutch Generals, Botha and Smuts and others, to come in, and South Africa signed the articles of the Peace of Vereeniging at Pretoria, which was the foundation of the South African Dominion.

The first important occasion of my experience in the House of Commons was when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in defiance of the opposition and against the wishes of even some of his own followers, gave boldly to South Africa a Constitution in relation to the Dutch who had been battling in the field against the British Empire. I remember very well, the comments of a great Empire builder, Mr. Balfour, who said on that occasion, "It is madness to do any such thing." He went further He named people and he said, "Is it humanly reasonable to suppose (and he named Dutch Generals who were in the field against us) that those men can cherish for the British Empire anything but feelings tempered with, to use a weaker word, 'hostility'?"

The Government went forward with its plan and within eight years those Dutch who had been, in the field against us in South Africa were leading the British armies to victory in the Great War of 1914.

1 shall tell you of my own personal experience in this matter. In Italy we had in our squadron a boy called Tandura. He was a comparatively young fellow, rather timid, not particularly popular. He was a young Dutchman who had volunteered to come to the war and who went to his death voluntarily in the War for the British Empire. He told me that as a lad he had been taken a prisoner by the British troops in the South African War.

Now, I ask you, show me a government in the world that can convert a man who has been a prisoner of war into a volunteer to defend the Empire and I will show you that it is a better form of government.

There was still one step to take and it is interesting to notice that Mr. Balfour, who has been the stern critic of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in his South African policy, was, himself, to be the man to complete the Union in South Africa of the four British colonies. General Smuts was the leader in South African politics. In the program of his party, the Nationalist Party, was the item 'secession', and he came to London in 1916 with his mandate to see that this part of the program--secession was granted by the British Government. He was met in a way which, I think, must have surprised him, for Mr. Balfour, the man who had stood up and denounced Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman for the boldness of his policy in regard to South Africa, expressed himself as being in sympathy with the rights of the Dominion, and made it plain to General Smuts that there was no need to have a secession paragraph in his program. General Smuts announced that he was satisfied and he went back to South Africa, and he struck out the clause with regard to secession from the program of his party.

The result of this free grant of liberty was a triumph for the political system which the political wit of the British race has produced and as we know, even in the later troubles to which I shall refer in a moment, in Ireland it was General Hertzog who came forward, freely advising the President of the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, to act in the interests of the Union of the British Commonwealth.

Now, let me take my second example-Ireland. When I first entered politics, the Irish political situation had passed from the acute stage. My father had voted for Gladstone's earlier Home Rule bill. In my time, 1906, the mere promise of self government for Ireland had converted an extremely insurgent situation into a situation of political alliance and, probably, security and peace. The Irish party which was led by Mr. John Redmond at that time was definitely an insurgent party. The two Nationalist parties in Ireland had amalgamated under his leadership in 1900. This party had no interest in British politics except to secure self government.

John Redmond died in 1918 and the next leader of the Irish party was Michael Collins. When he died in 1922, he was succeeded by the present leader, de Valera.

The mere promise of more liberty, produced in 1914 the most remarkable result. I sat in the House of Commons in August, 1914. I saw something happen that I never saw before. I saw chairs brought in" and in a House where rules and regulations are as strict as they are in the British House of Commons, that was indeed an innovation. Chairs were brought in and we sat, awestruck. We heard the speech of Sir Edward Grey. We heard the speeches, as we expected, from the Opposition. Then the Irish Home Rule Leader John Redmond stood up and announced that for his part, his country and his party, were throwing in their lot with the British Government. It was a most remarkable demonstration for a leader of the Nationalist party. And more remarkable still, his brother announced that he proposed to enlist in the army and fight for Britain. And, more remarkable even than that, was this: that when he met his death he was carried to the hospital--Major Willie Redmond, the Irish Nationalist-was carried to the hospital in an Ulster ambulance. So remarkable have been the effects of the policies that have been pursued.

I remember Tom Kettle, one of the most brilliant of the younger Irishmen of those days--a rebel Irishman himself, if ever there was a rebel Irishman. He was a brillant poet, a brilliant writer. He was killed in the War and before he died he wrote a verse, dedicated to his little daughter, who was only two years old. The gist of the verse was this: The claim that the War had on him was that within the Commonwealth, he had liberty to fight for the good and advancement of his own country. The phrase 'Irish patriotism' expressed for him the greater Imperial patriotism.

There is a moral in this: If you do not teach people I think, too, of the East--that they can pursue their interests and ideals within the boundaries of the Commonwealth, these links are no links at all.

I remember very well before the settlement of the question in 1921, the House of Commons went through the solemn task of passing a Government of Ireland Act in 1920. Clause by clause, chapter by chapter, we passed the Act. The fact was that it had no Irish backing. It was never operated because it had no Irish backing. In the Treaty of 1921, all parties co-operated. It was not a party settlement at all. Lloyd George, Churchill, Baldwin-all co-operated, and in a Treaty the status of Ireland was defined as being the status of Canada.

We have problems today. We do not know what the result of the Irish election will be. Personally, I deplore more than I can possibly say, the existence of a tariff war within the boundaries of the British Empire. I deplore it

I will say this: I am perfectly certain that the British Government will be well advised to remember that boldness in giving is the real solvent in problems of this kind and when you prove to any Irish patriot, that Irish or French as he may be, within the Commonwealth he can make his own country great, I think that you are approaching the solution which you can prove over a hundred years for the majority of the political problems within the British Empire.

A word or two about what lies ahead: This solvent, Freedom, has had a marvellous success. Englishmen, even the Scots, within their limits--my wife is Scottish are satisfied with their associations with Great Britain, and we have Dutchmen, Frenchmen, and all nationalities who, today, freely find their place within the British Empire. Can we extend this freedom to Asia today? That is the problem that faces us urgently within the present day. We had the smaller phases of it in Malta, Ceylon and Cypress, but the greatest of all is, of course, India.

In Canada you are far more directly interested than we, at home, in the Japanese problem, and the difficulty there, as it seems to me, is not in a conflict between the Japanese and the Chinese at all, but in the possible leadership of the East, gained by the Japanese, against the West. That seems to me to be the real problem in the Orient. As you look at it, the League of Nations might perhaps be visualized by an Oriental as being too much an Occidental or even a European affair. Does the East play enough part to give the League of Nations a proper balance? And it is there, in my view, that the place of India rightly comes,

India is a link between the East and the West-an interpreter of the West to the East, and of the East to the West. It is a country which, as Lord Zetland, I think I read, said to an audience in Toronto only yesterday, "has under British influence gained something of the British love of liberty, has enjoyed the blessings of a powerful Central Government and in which those who object most to the British connection, uniquely express their objection in the British language". In fact I have been told that a particularly eloquent speaker who was criticizing the British Government at a meeting of the Nationalist Congress was reproved because he wasn't expressing himself in English and others who hadn't the same connection as he, couldn't understand what he was saying. The question, really--and it is an urgent question which faces the British Commonwealth today-is this: Will this bridge bear the strain because there are signs on every hand that something must be done and done quickly?

There is one thing that one can write off at once. You can not hold India by force. It is impossible. First, Great Britain won't do it. Secondly, world opinion wouldn't tolerate it. Thirdly, it is altogether out of keeping with the traditions of our own Commonwealth. We must, if the connection is to be maintained, transform it into a voluntary partnership. After all, why should we complain? We taught the Indians to love liberty, as we understand it. We put the language within their reach the whole British literature of liberty, we put into their hands. Then, we should be the very last to be surprised or disappointed that they should learn the lesson we have taught them.

Furthermore, you cannot expect India to sit aside unmoved by what is happening in the world. The Japanese Russian war undoubtedly had its effect on the Indian people. It was the first time that an Oriental people had defeated what was regarded as one of the world powers. Then the Great War came in which India gave freely of men and money in defence of the Commonwealth. Then the day came when India took her place as an Oriental Member of the League of Nations. And then, today, India sees around her the growth of self governing institutions. I don't know about the Phillipines. I am not qualified to express an opinion about them, but in Siam we have seen within the last two months, a bloodless change from an autocratic to a democratic form of government. All of these things have produced in India a strong feeling.

I am not an expert in the sense that Lord Zetland is. He has brilliantly governed one of the provinces of India and has the direct touch and experience. But for a period of two and a half years I was at the apex of this administration of government in India" and my daily thought was about it, and" in my opinion, we shall make a very great mistake if we underrate the extent of the nationalist feeling in India.

Let me mention one or two points as I see it. There is church unity: in the south of India they are bringing about a union of the Christian churches and one of the reasons is because we have got to make the Gospel in India something that doesn't appear to be in conflict with the patriotism of the English people themselves. I hope that you won't misunderstand this. A man who has devoted his life to the teaching of Christianity said this: "You must learn that Christianity is something greater and it won't do to wrap the Bible in the Union Jack." Don't misunderstand it. That struck me as coming from a man who had given a life of service to the cause of " Christianity in India. That is one thing.

Then, take the views of the students. They are unanimously on what we call the Indian Nationalist side, or what they call the Indian patriotic side.

Take the case of the women in India-hardly out of their houses in former years-now taking an active public part in the movement of insurgency, picketing in the streets with the men--women who, a few years ago, wouldn't have been seen outside of their own houses. It is a most remarkable demonstration.

A merchant in India told me a most interesting story about this point. You cannot force the sale of British . goods. Everyone agrees with that. Whatever you do, you cannot sit on them and conduct commerce with them. This experience was in Cawnpore. A merchant was selling British goods, and mind you, this man was a loyal British merchant, who was carrying on an immense business in the mills in Cawnpore. He was selling British goods and a woman of caste and education, especially distinguished in that way, came and stood outside of his shop and when the customers would appear, with a little pleading gesture, she would beg them not to go inside and buy British goods. He came out of his shop and said, with much abuse, "You go away. I am conducting business in my own way and T don't want you here." She went away but in half an hour she returned with a half dozen other female members of the family. Within an hour the shop was closed and no more goods were sold. It is a very remarkable story. It was told to me as an example of the force of the Nationalist feeling among the women of India today.

And take the case of Mahatma Gandhi, himself. His influence in India is due to the fact that he is regarded by millions and millions of Indians as the Nationalist voice-not by all-but by millions and millions of Hindus and some Mahommedans. If you want the measure of Gandhi's strength, I don't think that you can take a better example than this recent fast on the question of untouchability. Of all the social institutions in India, the institution of caste is one of the strongest. Here is this slim, slightly-clad Oriental. who, through his fast, produced in a few days, a concession on behalf of the untouchables or depressed classes, as they call them, which years and even decades of social reform or endeavour from the top could never have produced. And they say that the concession is far too great. I am not in a position to criticize. I merely mention this. It shows the power that the man has over the masses and the educated and cultured and distinguished classes of his own country. There you have the outstanding example of the growth of self government. There you have, undoubtedly, the Convincing proof of the urge for self government inside the country.

How far can we apply the principles of which I have been speaking in the case of the Dominions, to this problem? The Indian case is very different from the Irish case. The Irish problem is undoubtedly immense, but there is the fact that there is in Ireland a large number of Irish voters and in Parliament, apart from the Irish party, there is a political element which is very sympathetic to the Irish claim. In the South African case there has been a war. India is unarmed. In the Irish a case there was the flag and the Civil War of 1919 in Ireland had made an unpleasant echo in England. In England" India is regarded as being very distant. England hears comparatively little about her doings.

Furthermore, so far as India is concerned, there are difficulties of a very acute kind. There is the whole problem of defence. There is a great boundary on the north which has to be defended. There is the problem ', of federation. There is the amazing proposal-illustrating the immense diversity of the British Empire to federate in one unit, democratic provinces like Bombay or Bengal, together with autocratic states, ruled over " by the Indian Princes and you have the immense complexity of seven hundred states in India-a hundred of major importance. There is the question of Indian credit. India needs more capital. The question is, "Where can she obtain it with self government?" And -the most difficult to tackle of all--the acute clash between the Hindus and the Moslem in India.

The point I would like to make is this: that in India, patriotism in itself is a solvent for these very difficulties and if you would agree with me, that it is a free and willing India that alone can make for the greatness of the British Empire and its unity in the world, then you will agree also, that Indian patriotism and Indian unity is a British interest.

Let me apply these one by one. Take the question of defence. Under the late government, and again under this, we have opened the ranks of the army much more widely to the Indians. There is no lack of candidates for that purpose, nor does the history of India show lack of martial leaders.

So far as money is concerned, it is not inconsistent to expect that India, revelling in new freedom, may open sources of wealth, hitherto hidden.

So far as Confederation is concerned, a remarkable statement was made by the Maharajah of Bikaner--a most remarkable statement for an Indian Prince. Speaking in the presence of representatives of both the untouchables and the Mahommedans at the Round Table Conference, he said, "Mr. Prime Minister, remember this: We are Indians first, and Princes afterwards". And the applause from the Indian ranks that followed that statement showed how remarkable was the growth of Indian patriotism, even among those of princely station.

So far as the communal difference is concerned, it is practically impossible for anyone outside to forecast with any certainty what will happen. Women engaged in the great educational work of India have told me, that so far as Indian society is concerned, they know neither Hindu nor Moslem; so far as the labourers are concerned, neither Hindu nor Moslem is known; so far as the students are concerned, the strife between the two religions is very moderate. How far that goes, I do not know. But I should assert, without fear of contradiction, that an Indian patriotism so warm as to melt together the opposing views of the Hindu and the Moslem religions, would be of great service to the British Commonwealth.

Gentlemen, in India, we will" I think-and I assisted in the preparing of documents which are not yet issued as a result of the meeting of the Round Table Conference-be well advised to remember two things: The burden of the responsibility in India must be shifted to Indian shoulders. The difficulty of an external agency in keeping order in a political crisis, the intolerance of it, drives the British people into a place that can not be justified by British traditions. It is an urgent problem, admitted by all parties, and it is certainly part of the program that the responsibility should be shifted from the two or three thousand British officials to the broader shoulders of the Indian leaders.

The second thing that the government would be well advised to remember is this: that you must devise a Constitution which will enlist the service of the Indian patriots. It is not sufficient, as in the case of the Irish as I mentioned in 1920, to devise a paper constitution. It is necessary to devise something that will convince the patriotic Indian that here is a road to follow to serve his own country. As for the service that we, as members of the British Commonwealth can reasonably expect, I think that the first service is peace. There is no finer thing--I won't put it higher than common sense.

One thing has struck me-I suppose it would strike anyone coming to this country-and that was my entry to the Dominion this morning. I am told that this is a regular peroration of speeches in Canada-you must forgive me if it is. But I have crossed the boundaries of some sixty-three states, always in the day time and one becomes accustomed to seeing a man with a bayonet on one side, the machine guns and batteries and all the habiliment of war. Here, one crosses the frontier between the two greatest powers in the world, and the first thing I heard this morning-I was hardly wide enough awake to know where I was-was a voice saying, "So you come from home?"

And this is not a theory; it is not a fine spun peroration of a sentimentalist, but the reaction of one who sees Canada growing greater and greater and more prosperous and safer behind a boundary which is without a fort, without a gun, or without a shelter-a monument to the common sense of the people of the British Empire. (Applause).