Sir Isaac Isaac’s Appointment As Governor-general of Australia: Debate in House of Lords: New Situat

The constitutional side of the appointment of sir Isaac Isaacs, who was sworn in on January 22nd. as Governor-General of Australia, was raised in the House of Lords yesterday by Lord Denman, who moved for the papers.

He made no reflection on the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs, Lord Denman explained. The fact that Sir Isaac Isaacs was a lawyer would be no disadvantage to him in discharging the duties of his office. The appointment was, however, a departure from the usual practice, and was a direct outcome of the 1926 Conference. At the present time the home Government no longer had a representative in the Commonwealth of Australia. The Governor-General had no responsibility of any kind to the home Government. If in the case of Canada, which was less than a week’s journey away, a High Commissioner had been appointed to keep touch with the Government, surely it was all the more important in the case of Australia. Australia was passing through a period of severe depression and important decisions were being taken almost daily. A representative should, therefore, be appointed without delay to keep the home Government in touch with the Government of the Commonwealth, to interpret public opinion in this country to the people of Australia, and so to serve as a link between this country and the Government and people of the Commonwealth.

Earl Beauchamp said that there had been very great changes in Australia. The changes which had taken place in no way reflected on the loyalty of Australia. He heartily supported the suggestion of Lord Denman that a High Commissioner should be appointed without delay.

Viscount Novar said that, having been for six years Governor-General of Australia, it was difficult to abandon the detached non-political attitude of mind which was essential in that position. He strongly opposed the alterations which had been made in the status of the Governor-General. He had much regard, he said, for Sir Isaac Isaacs; he would only question the method of his appointment, and express the fear lest the Governor-Generalship might come to be looked upon as a mere party appointment, which might entirely alter the character of the office and leave the State without an impartial head possessing the confidence of all parties and able to give impartial information to the Crown.

Lord Stonehaven, on whose retirement Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed, said that during his term of office as Governor-General of Australia he had experience of both the old and the new system. The essence of the new system was that it represented the growth of the feeling of nationality which was a prominent feature in all sections of the Empire. Australian nationality was a very real thing to an Australian, and it was only compatible in its present form with absolute loyalty to the Empire and particularly to the King.

Lord Passfield, Secretary for the Dominions, after whose reply the question was withdrawn by Lord Denman, said that the changed position of the Governor-General was a matter of some delicacy, and there were some things which they could hot help, but might injure, by discussing. The guiding principle which had led to the change arose from the declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926. The subject was one to which it was not possible to give a plain and universal reply, because the Dominions differed among themselves in the degree in which they had evolved and in the wishes of the Dominion Governments in this matter. Any question as to the propriety of the action which had been taken by Dominion Ministers in relation to an appointment was peculiarly a matter for the Dominion parliament concerned and not for the Imperial parliament. That was about as far as he could usefully go in that particular matter.