Greetings! Good question about the nature of British imperial rule in the dominions, and the answer is actually not as clear cut as one might expect. Well...the first one is fairly clear-cut, the dominions did indeed have representation in the British parliament by way of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, a position in the British government which was (at its initial formation in 1925), held in tandem with Secretary of State for the Colonies (this held until 1930). This cabinet position was responsible for all affairs pertaining to the dominions of the British Empire as they had been designated by the Balfour Declaration of 1926: New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. Newfoundland was also technically given Dominion status, but she is often regarded as a "colony" by imperial historians. The second question however, is tad more difficult to respond to, so we shall explore the evolution of the "dominion" status from its inception in the late 19th century up until the prewar years of the 20th century. Let's begin

The Origins of the Dominions

"In the course of this chapter [the first half of the nineteenth century], the British profited from the lessons of the American Revolution, and they said "If our settlements overseas are not contented with having their own legislatures but want in addition to have their own executives, and to control them through their own legislatures, they must have their way."

- Historian Ernest Baker, writing in 1947 on the history of the dominion system

The origins of the "dominion" system of colonial governance predate the use of the word itself. Ever since the early days of English (and after 1707 British) expansion into North America, the "men on the spot" who represented the Crown and Parliament back home continually pressed for their own right to self-govern the territories. London attempted -though not that effectively - to impose its will over these white settler bridgeheads, but more by the time of the American Revolution, elected assemblies had already sprung up and represented a fair bit of power over the colonial governors and advisers in the region. After the American Revolution ended and the 13 Colonies exited the empire through military force, the government back in the Home Isles began to worry that the rest of the white-settler territories would follow suit.

To prevent this from occurring again, the British began to slowly "experiment" with the concept of granting "responsible government" to the various white-settler colonies in the mid and late19th century. Canada was the first region to receive such treatment, followed by Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. In each case, the colonies had their own elected assemblies, legislative bodies, and the power to set down their own laws. In each of these colonies however, the Crown back home maintained its influence over the local governments. Physically, this was represented by the governor-generals and governors who also represented the colony back in the House of Commons. These colonial administrators however, were not meant to have much power, they were intended instead to act as the official "link" between the self-governing colonies and the "mother country" of Great Britain.

The link back to Britain was also present in the sense of "Britannic identity" between the white-settler populaces of the self-governing colonies. Even as late as the 1890s in Canada and other to-be dominions, the local government representatives felt that had a shared heritage in Britannia that linked them to London. John Darwin on this "hidden" link:

"In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, national identity was asserted by rejecting subservience to the British government, but by affirming equality with Britain as 'British peoples' or 'nations'. It was this 'Britannic nationalism' which underpinned the commitment of all the white dominions to the imperial enterprise, and the British world system, until its eventual disintegration in the 1940s and 1950s."

Ernest Baker, who was quoted earlier on in this response, put things a tad more bluntly.

"You may well say, 'What in the world holds them together, if each is fully sovereign both in domestic and [after 1931] external affairs?' The answer is simple: the King. The Dominions and Great Britain have all the same King. It is he who holds them together."

In the late 19th century, this Britannic nationalism went hand-in-hand with the more material-based links back to the mother country in Europe. The white-settler colonies, despite their relative autonomy to the "Crown colonies" of the Empire (those controlled directly from Britain), still did not possess the legal right to conduct foreign affairs with other countries, to modify their colonial constitutions, and indeed to make war. Ashley Jackson comments with similar points on how these to-be dominions remained loyal to the Crown and "Imperial Parliament", as Westminster was referred to back in the day:

""these territories remained dependent upon Britain because Britain was responsible for their foreign affairs and defense, purchased the lion's share of their exports, supplied their imports, provided requisite inward investment, and held their sterling balances in London."

However, this rigid system of self-governance was by no means fixed indefinitely until 1914. In fact, with various "settlements" between Britain and the white-settler colonies, the Imperial Parliament granted greater degrees of autonomy to the elected representatives and assembles. The key question of foreign policy however, remained firmly with London, and only on occasion (and after consultation with the mother country) could the settler colonies engage in affairs with neighbouring countries. In the Imperial Conference of 1911, when motioned to organise an Imperial Council to grant the dominions equal footing with Great Britain (a motion created by PM of New Zealand Joseph Ward), British PM Herbert Asquith responded with a clear stance on the whole matter:

"this would impair, if not altogether destroy, the authority of the Government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration of war, and, indeed, all those relations with foreign powers, necessarily of the most delicate character, which are now in the hands of the Imperial Government, subject to its responsibility and the Imperial Parliament. That authority cannot be shared." [italics as originally transcribed]

In other words, as far as international law was concerned, the dominions remained subservient to Britain, and it alone acted as a "mouthpiece" of the empire in all foreign matters. It was assumed automatically that the word of London represented the word of the empire, including those more autonomous federations and (in the case of South Africa) unions which had sprung from the white-settler colonies.

Part 1 of 2