The Imperial Conference 1926 and the origins of the Commonwealth of Nations

The Imperial Conference

In October and November 1926, the prime ministers of six self-governing territories of the British Empire met in London. These Dominions – Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa had a combined population of approximately 27 million people. Together they encompassed a vast area of the Empire’s territory. India was also represented at the conference, reflecting its specific constitutional position within the Empire, but it did not hold Dominion status.

A conference statement, known as the Balfour Report, was issued under the name of its chairman, former prime minister and lord president of the council, A. J. Balfour. The report, a copy of which is held at The National Archives, played a critical role in the constitutional development and eventual independence of each Dominion. It also shaped what would later become the modern Commonwealth of Nations.

CABINET.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

COMMITTEE ON INTER-IMPERIAL RELATIONS.

Note by the Lord President of the Council

I attach for the information of my colleagues some draft paragraphs relating to the position and mutual relations of Great Britain and the Dominions, which have been provisionally accepted by the Committee of Prime Ministers and Heads of Delegations, over which I have the honour to preside. This draft has been arrived at as the result of difficult and prolonged discussions.

A.J.B.

2, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.1.

15th November, 1926.

• From our collection

  CAB 24/182/9

  Title

  The Imperial Conference 1926 statement

  Date

  15 November 1926

Referring to the Dominions, the key sentence from the report was:

Crucially, the report stated that Britain and the Dominions were equal in status, rather than subordinate to the government in London. It clarified that they shared a common allegiance to the Crown, rather than the Crown representing the centralised authority of Britain. This opened the path for the monarchy to develop distinct relationships with each Dominion.

The report referred to the Empire’s self-governing members as the British Commonwealth of Nations. Following the London Declaration of 1949 (which marked the marked the birth of the Commonwealth of Nations) increasing emphasis was placed on using the term The Commonwealth. After this, the term was no longer confined to states associated through a common allegiance to the Crown.

They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Responses to the report

Had the report reflected the current state of relations between Britain and the Dominions or was it a precursor to something new and radical? Did it represent an evolution of Empire to a more sophisticated and idealistic form of internationalism, or was it an unnecessary declaration that served the disintegration of empire?

How the report was received varied markedly across the Empire and among the different political groups involved. While the Dominions were governed by politicians of European origin, many of their populations did not identify as British and, to varying degrees, had developed their own national identities.

The leading political voices in both the Union of South Africa and Irish Free State generally viewed imperial ties as something historically imposed. They sought a major renegotiation of their constitutional position within the Empire or a path to complete independence. This contrasted with the political context in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Here imperial links were viewed more favourably and could be gradually adapted to reflect increasing national autonomy and equality of status.

There were many different responses to the report, both within Britain and across the Empire. For some, it was welcomed as an important step in self-determination and national independence. For others it represented a natural progression of the Empire to a more co-operative imperial framework.

To many who considered themselves imperialists, the report represented the weakening of empire. To others it represented dynamism and compromise which could sustain both British international power and the global role of the Crown. There wasn't a binary divide between those who were for or against empire. Instead, the report provoked a range of responses based on history, geography and national politics, both in Britain and the Dominions themselves.

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

First World War

The Balfour Report was an articulation of the current state of Britain’s relationship with the Dominions. Events from the previous decade are essential to understanding its meaning.

The main catalyst for change was the First World War. Britain’s involvement in the war also committed the Dominions, who made large contributions and suffered heavy casualties. The Dominions were recognised in the 1916 decision by British prime minister, David Lloyd-George, to establish an Imperial War Cabinet as an overall decision-making body. This included Dominion prime ministers and set a precedent for relations based on partnership and consultation. Alongside the Imperial War Cabinet, Lloyd-George convened an Imperial War Conference in 1917, which released a resolution that the Dominions should be regarded as ‘autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth’.

After the conclusion of the war, Britain and the Dominions formed the British Empire delegation at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in Versailles. Convention would have been that Britain signed the Treaty of Versailles on behalf of the Empire. A compromise was reached, however, under which the Dominions individually signed the document while remaining part of a single delegation. The compromise maintained unity, but it exposed an increasingly outdated constitutional arrangement.

Following on from Versailles, all Dominions, except for Newfoundland, joined the newly established intergovernmental organisation, the League of Nations. This signalled that they each held their own foreign policy objectives and international roles.

Treaties

Treaties remained an important function in measuring the changing relationship with Britain. Notably, Britain was a signatory of the Locarno Treaties in late 1925, which guaranteed the French German border. This was a seen as a major factor to securing peace in Europe.

Yet a British guarantee of France’s security risked entangling the Empire in another European war. The Dominion governments opposed such a binding commitment. A compromise was reached in article nine of the treaty, which stated that the agreement ‘shall not impose any obligation on any of the Dominions’.

In March 1923, Canada broke new ground as the first Dominion to negotiate and sign a treaty independent of Britain. It did so with the Halibut Treaty agreed with the United States regarding fishing rights. Canada would also appoint its own diplomatic representative to Washington at the end of 1926, whereas previously her affairs, along with the rest of the Empire, was represented by the British ambassador in the US capital. The Balfour Report was therefore a recognition of the national changes taking place in the Dominions.

Lasting impact

The report was formalised in law five years later through the Statute of Westminster Act, 1931. The Act legislated that Parliament could no longer pass laws on behalf of a Dominion, unless at the request of that state.

The reference to a common Crown demonstrated the flexibility of the Crown and the evolution to Commonwealth. The 1949 London Declaration, which established the modern, multi-racial Commonwealth of Nations, defined the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth, rather than head of state. This meant members wouldn’t need to recognise the monarch as a head of state, allowing India to join as a republic following its independence in 1947.

The 1926 Report and the wider constitutional process it reflected, continues to have an impact on the present day links between these nations: to agreements on trade and citizenship, defence and security. It offered a pathway for national independence without the breaking of ties with the Crown, as reflected in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. For nations such as the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa, however, the report contributed to more profound constitutional change, culminating in the two states becoming republics.