The Unsinkable Commonwealth

MR. GRIFFIN:

Twice in the lifetime of many in this room high hopes have surged throughout the world that war would be abolished and universal peace lave the earth. The "war to end wars" itself ended-in 1918 and ushered in 20 years of disillusionment, destruction and the demise of the League of Nations. It was thought, a generation later in 1945, that the big bombs dropped on Hiroshima were so awful a portent of disaster that war could never be risked again. Since then two major conflicts have taken place in the Far East, one concluded and one current. When Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations he made a plea for "No more war, war never again". The following months have seen a vast increase in the intensity of war in Vietnam and brought Israel’s lightning victory.

Perhaps the obvious moral was best stated by one of the early Americans who said the classic words, "Put your trust in God but keep your powder dry." More cur rently we might say, "Work for universal peace with good will and firm conviction but maintain strong professional armed forces." As any Egyptian will tell you, God help the country that doesn’t.

We in Canada owe an enormous debt to our own Canadian forces and to the British forces which spawned them and guarded us for so long. They have never been our oppressors, always our protectors. This has been especially true of the navy, which most Canadians have never even seen. When one looks over the military history of modern times one inevitably concludes that the greatest, the most influential, force has been not the Grand Army of Napoleon, not the two War Machines of contemporary Germany but the British Royal Navy. Because in the century that followed Trafalgar its mastery of the seas was not only not challenged but scarcely even doubted. Canada (and the United States) were able to grow and mature in absolute security. The sea is not a barrier but a highway and a sea frontier is a danger unless protected. We were so protected.

Naturally I do not wish to ignore or minimize the glorious history of our armies or the matchless valour of the new air forces but in the presence of a great admiral and with honest conviction I pay tribute especially to the naval arm.

It is, I dare say, trite to quote Kipling but I can’t refrain from recalling to you his words: Its Tommy this and Tommy that And throw the blighter out But its saviour of ‘is country When the guns begin to shout.

Let us not, even in our minds, throw the blighter, or the matelot or the airman out in time of peace. Let us remember that in the world of today it is too late to prepare after war has started.

TOAST TO CANADA by Colonel B. J. Legge, E.D., Q.C.

COL. LEGGE:

When Woodrow Wilson was President of the United States he had strict routines, but these were disturbed by a caller in the middle of the night demand ing to speak to the President about a matter of life and death.

He reluctantly took the call and a voice said: "Mr. President, I hate to trouble you but the Collector of Customs in New York has just died and I am his deputy."

The President asked, "Couldn’t this amazing piece of intelligence have waited to be announced in the morning?" The voice was saddened: "Mr. President, you don’t seem to understand. The Customs Collector of New York has just died, I am his deputy and I would like to take his place."

The President snapped: "If you can fix it up with the undertaker, it will certainly be just fine and dandy with me."

In a sense, Canada is like the Customs Collector. A century has passed and in our strange cargo of fallacies, something new must take its place. Centuries are not chapter-endings and we don’t trade old centuries for new. Canada’s past is her present and on these two her future will be built. Usually Canadians themselves have only been mildly interested in the forms of patriotism and indeed, one Canadian critic talks about our great Centennial river of ooze, but I will not float on such a river.

For me, when the Royal Canadian Military Institute and The Empire Club of Canada dine together with their ladies, it is an exciting event. It is even more exhilarating because we are Canadians amongst Canadians and Commonwealth people amongst Commonwealth people.

Canada is British–Canada is American–Canada is French but Canada is also Canadian. Canada is in the tradition of the United Empire Loyalists and a member of three Commonwealths.

Canada is The Commonwealth. According to a famous writer, The Commonwealth is the only organization in the world which brings together rich nations and poor nations, white nations and coloured nations, nations reflecting almost every colour of the political spectrum, a quarter of the people on the earth; and brings them together in at least the framework of equality, of family, of some measure of mutual concern.

Even the United Nations, which is now described by its enemies as "the gang on 42nd Street", does not achieve this particular atmosphere.

Only the fettered spirit of apartheid has taken itself out of the Commonwealth -and that with Canadian encouragement.

Canada is of the French Commonwealth. On the first of July, Her Majesty the Queen said in Ottawa: "Since Champlain founded his habitation at Quebec–and planted rose bushes around it–this air has been sweetened with the French tongue and French culture and sharpened with French intelligence and French resources." Every Canadian school boy knows this truth and will quip: "Champlain’s the name, and exploring’s the game."

In 1967 there is a return of France to North America, which does not mean that Quebec is returning to France. Quebec is proud of an inheritance of French culture, proud of having preserved the French identity for 200 years, and proud of the "Quiet Revolution" which has culminated in the miracle, the verve and beauty of EXPO 67.

Sometimes our efforts at understanding take an odd turn. A Montreal lifeguard stood idly by while a girl struggled helplessly in the water. A spectator urged him to do something. "I can’t swim," he told the astonished spectator. "Well, how on earth did you get this job?" he asked. The lifeguard replied, "I’m completely bilingual."

If accepted in the spirit "that a minority does not have equal rights, but better than equal rights", then Canada will be easily understood and accepted as part of a French Commonwealth with citizens whose mother-tongue is French.

Canada is also of the American Commonwealth in geography, in economics, in emigration and in friendship. In the last century bitter boundary disputes led to the frightening American jingoism, "Fifty-four forty or fight", and later on in Ontario, Goldwin Smith campaigned for reunification of the English-speaking peoples and annexation with the United States. Later on in 1911, the American Speaker, Champ Clark, hoped "to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions."

Despite its. alliance with and its apprehension of the American Commonwealth, Canada has remained distinctly Canadian. Lest we get carried away with our Canadianism, we should remember the Scottish prayer,

O Lord, we beseech thee, if it be possible, Enable us to be worthy of the high esteem in which we so rightly hold ourselves.

To each of us Canada is many things. Canada is Muskoka and Montreal, Tuktoyaktuk in the Arctic and the Empress Hotel in Victoria. Canada is learning and bravery.

It is the discoveries of Sir William Osler and Dr. Wilder Penfield. It is Vimy Ridge, Salerno and the attack on Caen. Canada is the Victoria Cross and the discovery of insulin. Canada is the Royal 22nd Regiment and the Mounted Police.

Canada is the Centennial Project of every province and every village. Canada is hockey, Rocket Richard and Connie Smythe. It is Eaton’s and Simpson’s and the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is the universities of Laval, Queen’s and Toronto. It is the Trans-Canada Highway, the Place Ville Marie and the Toronto City Hall.

Canada is the Montreal of Gabrielle Roy, the novels of Morley Callaghan, the poems of Pauline Johnson and Irving Layton; the photographs of Karsh and Cavouk, the paintings of the Group of Seven and the music of Healy Willan. Canada is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation–debts and all.

Canada is the French Missions to the Indians and the Anglican to the Eskimos. Canada is the Jesuits and the Salvation Army. It is the Colombo Plan, the Alouette Satellite, the Military Tattoo and the National Ballet.

Canada is the homes and farms of all its people. Canada is the fishermen of the Atlantic, the habitants of Quebec and the refugees from Europe. Canada is children and pioneers, Finnish choirs and Estonian gymnasts. Canada is campaigns for the Red Cross, the Red Feather, and Save the Children everywhere.

Canada is the family compact and the uprising of Louis Riel. Canada is Mitch Hepburn, Maurice Duplessis, Joey Smallwood and Dief the Chief. Canada is the Old Originals of 1914 and the tough sergeants of all Canada’s wars.

Canada is His Excellency General Georges Vanier, full of years, clothed in valour, replete with kindness and dignity and learning, and full of compassion for all mankind. Canada is Elizabeth 11, the gracious Head of the Commonwealth and above all, the beloved Queen of Canada. Ladies and Gentlemen. On this great occasion, I ask you to celebrate the One Hundreth Birthday of our own Country, and I ask you to drink with me a toast "To Canada".

MR. STAPELLS:

A week ago Saturday, Canada was led into her second century by her Queen in a giddy birthday party. Our Centennial has been celebrated in many ways during this year, and it is right that The Empire Club of Canada should take part by following its tradition of welcoming to our forum the most notable of speakers.

The Club’s Centennial Dinner, in which our good friends of the Royal Canadian Military Institute join us, is honoured tonight by the presence of a descendant of Charlemagne and Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, a great grandson of Queen Victoria, great nephew of the Tsaritsa Maria of Russia, cousin of the last Queen of Spain, brother of Queen Louise of Sweden and Princess Alice of Greece and uncle of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. In a word, we welcome here tonight as our guests of honour, royalty . . . Admiral-of-the-Fleet, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Prince Louis of Battenberg, who is accompanied by his lovely and gracious daughter, Lady Patricia.

But I am introducing you to the family and not the man. The man is a naval person, an Admiral-of-theFleet and First Sea Lord, by heritage and by hard work and not by "polishing up the handle of the big front door". In accomplishment, he is the innovator in naval affairs and the moulder of combined operations which made possible the Normandy landings in the last war, the success which led to his appointment as Supreme Commander, South East Asia. His title is an obvious reflection of the victorious Burma Campaign which, upon his arrival, ceased to be the "forgotten war".

In Broadlands, his home near Romsey, there is an impressive display of model ships which Lord Mountbatten has commanded. But among those ships, it is H.M.S. Kelly for which he has a special affection. As war threatened in the summer of 1939, he took command of the spanking new Kelly, and he told his hand-picked company of 240 men as they came on board:

"None of us will take off our clothes or sling our hammocks, or turn in for the next three days and nights until the job is finished. Then we’ll send Hitler a signal saying ‘The Kelly’s ready–you can start your war."

He organized the relatively peaceful transfer of the British Raj in 1947–a seemingly impossible task. Walter Lippmann wrote of this feat –

"Mountbatten has done a service to all mankind by showing what a statesman can do, not with force and money, but with lucidity, resolution and sincerity."

While Lord Mountbatten has been associated with many worthy causes, there are three societies which particularly foster Commonwealth relations and of which he is the Grand President: The British Commonwealth ExService League, The Royal Life Saving Society and The Royal Overseas League. The Royal Life Saving Society, in which I have a particular interest, is fashioning, under his leadership, a model of how the Commonwealth can develop; independent but responsible national societies combine to make a stronger Grand Society.

I now introduce you to a prince among princes, a man among men, one of the truly great personages of our time, Admiral-of-the-Fleet Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Knight of the most noble Order of the Garter, our Queen’s most excellent Privy Councillor who will address this Centennial Dinner on "The Unsinkable Commonwealth".

LORD MOUNTBATTEN:

I feel extremely honoured to have been invited to address the Empire Club of Canada on the Commonwealth.

I have chosen as the title of my address "The Unsinkable Commonwealth" because although it has been shot at quite a lot, especially in recent times, the Com monwealth, like any of Her Majesty’s ships has an excellent "Damage Control Organization" which seems to be able not only to repair the damage of this gunfire but to steer the ship on a course which will take her further away from attack into more peaceful and profitable waters.

I feel it would be appropriate to begin my speech with a review of some aspects of the history of the Commonwealth.

Those two great sailors of the 16th century, Sir Richard Grenville and Sir Walter Raleigh, established temporarily the first British Colonies–in Virginia.

The first really successful colony was established at Jamestown in Virginia by Christopher Newport in 1607 on behalf of what was to become the Virginian Company.

It is also recorded that in 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert proclaimed the annexation of Newfoundland though he did not leave settlers there at that time.

Settlement in what came to be called the ‘old Colonies’ has been pretty continuous in Canada since the 17th century, in Australia since the 18th century and in New Zealand since the 19th century.

Nor must we forget the 13 North American colonies had extensive British settlements at the time they embarked for better, or dare I say for worse, on an independent political course nearly 200 years ago.

British settlers in the West Indies originally outnumbered the indigenous Carib population in some of the islands. It was only the importation of slave labour from Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries, and Asiatic labour in the 19th which created a large non-European majority in the Caribbean area.

In Canada, Australia and New Zealand the indigenous population declined in numbers following the arrival of the European settlers. In each case the basic cause would seem to have been the disruption of their social structure with the consequent collapse of morale making them more liable to the new diseases which the settlers brought with them. In each case the population has begun to rise again. In New Zealand the increase in the Maori population began as far back as the turn of the century and the number of Maoris is now probably greater than it was when settlement began. Maoris of course enjoy equality in all respects with other New Zealand citizens. The Australian Aborigines, with their stone age culture, have been faced with much greater problems in coming to terms with European civilization. The drop in their numbers was catastrophic and it is only in recent years that they have begun to rise again, largely as the result of greater government and public concern for their welfare. Here in Canada the situation of the indigenous people who are full citizens is improving slowly but surely. You also have some 12,000 Eskimos in the north of whom the world is getting to know more and more today largely through their fascinating soapstone carvings. In most other territories the indigenous populations were very much in the majority and in fact in most cases were conquered such as in India.

I have been deeply honoured to have been made Honorary Chief by representatives of Blackfoot, Piegan, Sarcee and Stony Indians on 6th July at Calgary, with the title "Chief Sea Warrior". I am all the more gratified as my daughter, Patricia, was with me and she is herself part Red Indian, being a direct descendant through her Mother of Princess Pocahontas who married an Englishman called Rolfe 350 years ago. So I feel I have now made an honest Injun of her and can call her "Papoose Patricia"!

Mr. Churchill, as he then was, and President Roosevelt, were extremely good friends. They rather enjoyed pulling others’ legs. Our Prime Minister sent me over to Washington in June 1942 to explain to the President that it would not be feasible for the Allies to carry out a successful invasion of France before the spring of 1944. This was of course very unwelcome news to the Americans who were keen to open a second front right away, but we offered as a compromise solution that there should be a landing in North Africa in 1943.

While staying in the White House I heard of a joke which the President was preparing to perpetrate on Mr. Churchill. He had come across one of those middle-aged crusading women one so often meets in the States. This lady’s particular crusade was that the British should quit India. Knowing that Mr. Churchill was violently opposed to this idea the President thought it would be amusing to arrange a leg haul. I understand that this took place after I had left. The lady was asked to a small luncheon just with the President, the Prime Minister and perhaps half a dozen of the staff. Everyone except Mr. Churchill was in the know.

After the first course our crusading lady could not contain herself any longer and attacked him by saying: "Mr. Prime Minister, what do you intend to do about those wretched Indians?" Winston was taken aback for a moment and then looked at her and said: "Madam, to which Indians do you refer? Do you by chance refer to the second greatest nation on earth which under benign and beneficent British rule have multiplied and prospered exceedingly; or do you by chance refer to the unfortunate Indians of the North American Continent which under the present Administration have become practically extinct?" However, many territories were not held against the wishes of their inhabitants. Malta elected to join the British Empire 160 years ago and has been very sad at the gradual withdrawal of the British Fleet and garrison. Gibraltar will, I am sure, vote overwhelmingly to remain British. Hong Kong is very anxious to remain British. Even in Fiji, I discovered during my last visit there, the indigenous Fijians are most anxious not to be given independence for fear that would mean that the Indian population which has grown from the original indentured workmen brought in by the British, would gain control through having a majority of the votes.

At all events there is one dependence we can feel fairly certain will not wish to be given independence and that is Pitcairn Island which is only two square miles and has a population of 88. The last island to be annexed by the United Kingdom was Rockall in the Atlantic as recently as 1955. There is no fear of Rockall wanting independence for it was and remains uninhabited although the Union Jack has been planted on it. It is perhaps worth recalling that Singapore Island was entirely uninhabited when Stamford Raffles came to wake it into a base. The Malays and Chinese who have now got their independence were brought in by the British.

I was involved personally in the last substantial addition to the Commonwealth which occurred in 1946 when I negotiated with the Raja of Sarawak, Sir Charles Vyner Brooke, to hand over his country to the British Crown and it became a British Colony. What made the situation rather delicate for me was that his nephew and heir was an Intelligence Officer on my staff at the time (in 1946 when I was Supreme Allied Commander in South East Asia) and protested violently at what I was negotiating between his Uncle and the British Government. He reminded me that his great grandfather had come to Sarawak as a Midshipman and had been elected Raja by the Dayaks. However, Sarawak is now part of Malaysia.

Eire became the Republic of Ireland formally seceding from the Commonwealth in 1949. The British Parliament passed the Ireland Act which recognized that the Republic of Ireland had ceased to be part of His Majesty’s Dominions, but provided that it should not be regarded as a foreign country nor should its citizens be regarded as aliens. A typically Irish solution.

In fact I have a place in Eire, Classibawn Castle in County Sligo, and I and my family could not be treated with greater friendship by the Irish. My son-in-law’s grandmother was the Marchionness of Sligo who died not long ago at the age of 98. Shortly before the second election for which Mr. De Valera stood Lady Sligo asked her head gardener: "Do you think Mr. De Valera will be re-elected?" He replied: "Of course he will, your Ladyship, after all it was the poor who got him elected last time, and there are many more poor now."

When my housekeeper’s son became 18 she told me she was sending him into the Army. I asked what Regiment and she said: "The Irish Guards, of course; there’s no finer Regiment!"

Up to the end of the war the British Commonwealth had remained pretty static. The old Commonwealth countries–Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and of course the United Kingdom itself–were the only independent countries. Fate picked upon me to start the fundamental change in the Commonwealth in 1947 when as last Viceroy I was responsible for partioning India and giving independence to India and Pakistan.

There are some 50 Commonwealth territories and a good half have now got their independence, the stop press news on the total being 26: at least it was that last month. It leaves about as many again who have not yet got their independence. Some, as I have already pointed out, will never want it; others will gradually be getting it.

Whether or not the eventual destiny of any particular British territory is to become independent as a separate State, its political development is carefully devised over a period of years to prepare it for whatever may be its appropriate form of self-determination. An element of effective self-government is generally introduced into the Colonial Administration at an early stage and then gradually extended over the years. At the earliest stages of development there may be direct administration by British officials aided by advisory councils. The first Legislature probably consists of senior Government officials with a minority of local people nominated by the Governor. Later an elected element is introduced and this is increased until it forms a majority and eventually replaces completely the official and nominated element.

Meantime, parallel changes are introduced in the Executive which at first is wholly official. Nominated nonofficial members are introduced, then elected members from the Legislature. The elected members gradually take over responsibility for Government Departments. Later, as Ministers, they are given a majority in the Executive. Finally, the last officials are withdrawn leaving a wholly elected Executive responsible to a wholly elected Legislature–that is, full internal self-government.

During internal self-government, the Governor (and through him the British Government) continues to be responsible for the conduct of certain matters -usually Defence and Foreign Relations -but Ministers are increasingly associated with these subjects to prepare them for taking over complete responsibility on the attainment of independence. Parallel developments take place in Local Government and in the Public Services where, with assistance from the United Kingdom in education and training, first the lower and then the higher grades of the Administrative Services are progressively filled with locally recruited people. The British Civil Servants working in the Dependency, act, of course, as servants of its Administration, which means, to an increasing degree, as servants of an Executive responsible to a Legislature representing the local inhabitants. Of course it is essential that there should be enough literate and adequately educated people in the country to learn how to take over government. It is also necessary to have a sufficient number of graduates of universities in law, medicine, science and also to have properly trained officers of the armed forces.

I have of course a personal interest in India since I was the last Viceroy appointed to transfer power. The Honourable East India Company was formed early in the 17th century and was active from the beginning of that century establishing a number of posts including the most important one in Madras in 1639. Even when a part of India came direct to the British Crown as was the case when Bombay formed part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married King Charles II in 1662 it was duly transferred to the East India Company (in 1668). The Company was known colloquially as "John Company". It raised its own armies and indeed they had their own navy, and they appointed their own Governors General. Robert Clive was among the foremost of those who developed India for the Company.

Warren Hastings was appointed as first Governor General of Bengal in 1774 with supervisory powers over the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. The first Viceroy was Viscount Canning appointed in 1858. When the Marquis of Hastings was Governor General of India he wrote in his journal on 17th May 1818 the following:

"A time not very remote will arrive when England will, on sound principles of policy, wish to relinquish the domination which she has gradually unintentionally assumed over this country (India), and from which she cannot at present recede. In that hour it would be the proudest boast and most delightful reflection that she had used her sovereignty towards enlightening her temporary subjects, so as to enable the native communities to walk alone in the paths of justice, and to maintain with probity towards their benefactor that commercial intercourse in which we should then find a solid interest."

It is true this was written in a private journal but it shows how the Governor General in India was thinking nearly 150 years ago.

However, when Macaulay was Secretary of the Board of Control for India he made the following statement in the House of Commons on 10th July 1833:

"The destinies of our Indian Empire are covered with thick darkness. It is difficult to form any conjecture as to the fate reserved for a State which resembles no other in history, and which forms by itself a separate class of political phenomena. The laws which regulate its growth and its decay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not; but never would I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history."

In 1858 the Government of India Act placed British India under the direct government of the Crown. Incredible as it may seem it is a fact that Mrs. Salt, the last widow of an officer of the old Honourable East India Company died only a month ago. In 1877 on Disraeli’s inspiration Queen Victoria was proclaimed as Empress of India, a title held by her four successors up to 1947.

As our armies conquered parts of India, so the local ruling Prince was either deposed and his family prevented from succeeding him, or a treaty was made with him whereby he and his heirs could continue to rule under British paramount power. In the former category there were finally two-thirds of the territorial area and threequarters of the population in India. This area was known as British India and divided into Presidencies and Provinces ruled by British Governors. In the second category were the 565 Indian Princely States ruled either by Hindu Maharajahs or Muslim Nawabs. These two parts of India were administered really separately.

British India was ruled by the Governor General in Council. He could pass laws which were immediately enforced throughout British India. The Government of India was under him and had their own offices in the capital, originally in Calcutta and after 1912 in New Delhi.

The 565 Rulers of Indian States were all in treaty relations with the Queen Empress/or later the King Emperor. They were dealt with by the Crown Representative for executing the functions of paramountcy. He had a large office known as the Political Department in the capital, under whom there were officials known as the Residents living in all the big States. The smallest States were grouped together under one Resident. He lived in a fine big official house known as The Residency, whereas the Governor of a Presidency or Province lived in a big house known as Government House.

In theory these two top appointments were quite separate, but what happened in practice was that the same man was appointed both as Governor General of British India and as Crown Representative for Native or Princely India. The man who held these two positions was known as the Viceroy.

So it was in the person of the Viceroy that the overall government of India was co-ordinated. When he passed any law as the Governor General in Council for British India he would inform his Political Department and they would tell their various Residents to require their various Rulers to pass similar laws in their own states.

This is a somewhat oversimplified explanation of how the two separate parts of India were governed up to 1947. It provided one of my worst headaches when I was responsible for transferring power. Whereas the proposals for transferring power in British India were carefully discussed with me in Whitehall before I went out, curiously enough no discussion took place on how to deal with the Indian Princely States. All I was told was that the Indian princes would have paramountcy retroceded and would in theory then become independent and could make up their own minds what they wanted to do in the future. Clearly this situation could produce real chaos and bloodshed all over India if not properly gripped at the time of the transfer of power. I solved this particular problem by persuading the future Governments of Independent India and Pakistan to agree that they would allow the various Princes to accede to one country or the other on the basis of accepting their rule on external affairs, communications and defence.

The Commonwealth has always fascinated me. I had the great good fortune when I was only 19 years old to be invited by the Prince of Wales to accompany him in the