Status Seeking and Tariff Reform, 1921–36

  • Nicholas Mansergh


Two fundamental questions of dominion status remained unresolved after the Imperial Conference 1921. The first, discarded but not disposed of by the Conference, was the necessity or otherwise of redefining British-dominion relations in terms that would bring law into line with conventional practice on a basis of equality, or near-equality. The second, entangled with the first but distinguishable from it, was the international status of the dominions. The answers to both questions were sought and found in the decade 1921–31 against a pattern of imperial relations determined for the most part in distant pre-war years. The nature of that pattern conditioned both the dominion demand for change and the formulae and statutory forms in which it was ultimately effected. The structure of the British imperial system, as it emerged from the first world war, is accordingly the appropriate starting-point for an enquiry into the reasons for, and the manner of its subsequent transformation. There was an imperial, as well as dominion-nationalist, premise to the Commonwealth conclusion.


Prime Minister Foreign Policy British Government Canadian Government Dominion Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. B. Keith, The Constitution, Administration and Laws of the Empire, London, 1924, pp. 21–34, examines the continuing limitations on dominion sovereignty in this period. See also the same author’s The Dominions as Sovereign States, London, 1938, chapter I, for an historical appraisal of developments in their status. There is a brief but cogent unpublished analysis in the Government of India, Home Department Special File No. 94/29 on the Constitutional Growth and International Position of the Dominions, prepared for the information of the viceroy in 1929, which has also been consulted by permission of the Indian National Archives, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Vincent Massey, What’s Past is Prologue, Toronto, 1963, p. 109. Massey was appointed first Canadian minister at Washington by Mackenzie King in 1926.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    R. MacGregor Dawson, William Lyon Mackenzie King 1874–1923, London, 1958, pp. 404–16, contains the most informative account of the incident as seen through the eyes of the prime minister who made it important in Commonwealth history. For a general account see W. K. Hancock, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, vol. 1, pp. 251–2.Google Scholar
  4. 18.
    Philip G. Wigley, Canada and the transition to Commonwealth: British Canadian Relations 1917–1926, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 2–4 and 279–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 19.
    Massey, What’s Past is Prologue, p. 135, and F. H. Soward, Some Aspects of Canadian Foreign Policy in the Last Quarter Century, Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 4th series, vol. iv, section iii (1966), p. 139.Google Scholar
  6. 20.
    L. S. Amery, My Political Life, (2 vols), London, 1955, vol. 2, pp. 335–6.Google Scholar
  7. 23.
    O. Pirow, J. B. M. Hertzog, Cape Town, 1957, p. 105.Google Scholar
  8. 24.
    Harold Nicolson, King George V, London, 1952, pp. 476–7.Google Scholar
  9. 25.
    L. J. R. 95 P.C.C. 114. Reprinted in Frederick Madden, Imperial Constitutional Documents, 1765–1952, Oxford, 1953, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  10. 26.
    On the Irish position see especially CAB. 32/56 E(I.R.-26) 3, and for comment on it E(I.R.-26) 31B, and also M. McInerney, ‘Mr John A. Costello Remembers’ in The Irish Times, 4 September 1967.Google Scholar
  11. On the Irish position see especially CAB. 32/56 E(I.R.-26) 3, and for comment on it E(I.R.-26) 31B, and also M. McInerney, ‘Mr John A. Costello Remembers’ in The Irish Times, 4 September 1967. For Canada see H. Blair Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1924–1932, Toronto, 1963, p. 182, and CAB. 32/56 E(I.R.-26) 6th meeting.Google Scholar
  12. 28.
    CAB. 32/56 E(I.R.-26). See also C. M. van den Heever, General J,. B. M. Hertzog, Johannesburg, 1946, pp. 213–17.Google Scholar
  13. 29.
    T. de V. White, Kevin O’Higgins, London, 1948, p. 221.Google Scholar
  14. 35.
    See Nicholas Mansergh, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs: Problems of External Policy 1931–1939, London, 1952, pp. 73–9, 429–32, for some assessment of this.Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    K. C. Wheare, The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status, (4th ed.), London, 1949, pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
  16. 38.
    There is a detailed analysis of Irish Free State aims together with an exposition of the tactics of their delegations in D. W. Harkness, The Restless Dominion, London, 1969, pp. 80–249.Google Scholar
  17. 46.
    The text of the statute and source material on dominion reactions to it are to be found in Nicholas Mansergh, Documents and Speeches on British Commonwealth Affairs, 1931–1952, (2 vols), London, 1953, vol. 1, secs. 1 and 2 and pp. 53–6, 90–1.Google Scholar
  18. 48.
    C.f., D. W. Harkness, ‘Patrick McGilligan: Man of Commonwealth’, in Hillmer and Wigley (editors), The First British Commonwealth, London, 1980, pp. 117–135.Google Scholar
  19. 54.
    Ian M. Drummond, British Economic Policy and the Empire 1919–1939, London, 1972, passim, — see generally pp. 43–114.Google Scholar
  20. 59.
    J. B. Brebner, North Atlantic Triangle, New Haven, 1945, p. 309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nicholas Mansergh 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Mansergh
    • 1
  1. 1.St John’s CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations