Problems of Empire/Steps to Imperial Federation
STEPS TO IMPERIAL FEDERATION.
A Paper read before the Royal Colonial Institute, November 11th, 1902.
'Before calling upon Mr. Brassey,' the Chairman, Sir Frederick Crichton Young, said, 'I should like to quote from the utterances of two of our most prominent Cabinet Ministers on the subject of Imperial Federation. In his striking and masterful address in opening the Colonial Conference in the month of June last, Mr. Chamberlain used these remarkable words:—"I may be considered perhaps to be a dreamer, or too enthusiastic, but I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion the political federation of the Empire is within the limits of possibility." Still more striking if possible are the remarks of the Prime Minister in his speech last night at the Guildhall, in the course of which he said, "After all, I suppose most of us cherish, I will not say the dream—most of us cherish the hope, that if not in our time yet at no distant date, there will be not merely the legal and sentimental ties joining us to our great dependencies, but that something in the nature of a Constitutional Union may be discovered which will enable us to conduct together affairs of common interest."'
Mr. Brassey then read the following paper:—
Imperial Federation not a party questionIn the last Paper of last session, Mr. Archibald Colquhoun dealt with Imperial Federation in its relation to defence, to trade, and to representation. This Paper will be devoted mainly to Federation in its political or constitutional aspect. Questions of party politics are excluded, and rightly excluded, from the purview of the Royal Colonial Institute. But Imperial Federation—the problem of Imperial Unity—is not a party question. It represents an idea which appeals to men of all political parties and to men who belong to none. It is a question which is high above the level of ordinary party politics, and which can only be treated, as it ought to be treated in a gathering such as this, far removed from party strife.
The Manchester School.It is over thirty years since our Chairman of to-night first advocated Imperial Federation. At that time, and indeed for several years later, the ideas of the Manchester School were still prevalent. The Manchester School held that the Colonies were a burden to the mother country, and that the sooner they cut themselves adrift and became independent the better for the mother country and the better for themselves. The Colonial Institute was founded in 1868 to combat these views. The Imperial Federation League, formed in 1884, on the initiative of the late Mr. W. E. Forster, carried the work begun by the Colonial Institute a step further. The objects and views of the League were thus defined:
Objects of the Imperial Federation1. To secure by Federation the permanent unity of the Empire.
2. That no scheme of Federation should interfere with the existing rights of local Parliaments as regards local affairs.
3. That any scheme of Federation should combine on an equitable basis the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and adequately provide for an organized defence of common rights,
Lord Rosebery on Imperial Federation.Lord Rosebery was the second President of the League, and to him and Mr. G. R. Parkin is mainly due the growth of the idea of Imperial Unity during the eighties and early nineties. 'Imperial Federation,' Lord Rosebery once said, 'is a cause for which any man might be content to live; it is a cause for which, if needs be, any one might be content to die.' Those words (I trust I may be pardoned for this personal allusion) profoundly influenced my life.
Growth of the idea of Imperial Unity in England.Of the tangible results of the League's work the most important was the Colonial Conference of 1887, which it was instrumental in bringing about through a deputation to the Prime Minister. The League was challenged over and over again to produce a scheme for carrying out the objects it had in view; but this was felt to be outside its functions. Its work was in the main educational, and by the results it amply justified its existence. It produced a complete change in public opinion as to the future relations of the various communities of which the Empire is composed, not only in the mother country, but in the Colonies. The tone of the public press was revolutionised. A profound effect was produced on the attitude of public men. Statesmen, such as the Duke of Devonshire, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Asquith, and Sir Edward Grey, had no part in the work of the Imperial Federation League. To-day they are the most prominent advocates of Imperial Unity.
In Australia.Of the change of public opinion in the Colonies I can speak from personal experience. When I first visited Australia, fifteen years ago (in 1887), it was an open question whether Australia would remain an integral portion of the British Empire or not. It is true that, thanks mainly to the large-hearted patriotism of Mr. Dalley, an Australian contingent had been dispatched to the Soudan; but the feeling of loyalty to the Empire, of which the contingent was the evidence, was severely shaken by the way in which the Home Government had treated questions of paramount interest to Australia—the New Guinea question, the New Hebrides question, and the transportation of French convicts to New Caledonia. Many in this room will remember that the annexation of the south-east part of New Guinea by the Queensland Government was disallowed by the authorities at home; that the Germans then annexed the north-east portion of the territory which Queensland had claimed, and that thereupon the Colonial Office, stultifying its own previous action, annexed the remainder. It is not remarkable that at the time of which I speak there was great dissatisfaction with the method in which Australian interests were handled by the Imperial Government. Young Australians were undoubtedly then looking to Australia becoming an independent Empire in the Southern Seas. In 1896 I was in Australia again, on a visit to my father, then Governor of the Colony of Victoria. Young Australia, as represented by the Australian Natives Association, which in 1887 had been for separation, was in 1896 devotedly loyal. The idea that Australia was to become an independent Empire had given place to the universal conviction that Australia could better secure the well-being of her people, and could better work out her destinies under the British Flag. But even in 1896, there was considerable grumbling at the small contribution made by the Australian Colonies to the maintenance of the Australian Squadron, and the man would have been rash indeed who ventured to predict that that within three short years Australia would put forth the exertions she has made to assist the mother country in her time of stress and trial.
Effect of the War in South AfricaTo trace in similar detail the growth of the feeling of loyalty to the Imperial connection in the other Colonies would take too long. Canadians and New Zealanders, as well as Australians and Afrikanders, played their part in the struggle for British ideas of liberty in South Africa. In the Square at Pretoria, when it was occupied by Lord Roberts' army, there stood a pediment designed to receive a statue of Mr. Kruger. Some favoured the idea that on it should be erected a statue of our beloved Queen Victoria. Others, and they were in the majority, advocated that the statue of Mr. Kruger should be erected as originally intended by its donor, and that the pediment should bear the inscription, 'To the Federator of the British Empire.' The South African War has not federated the British Empire, but it does represent the realisation of the idea of Imperial unity, and it has convinced the British peoples, as nothing else could have done, that on Imperial Federtion in some shape or other depends the future well-being, nay, even the very existence of the Empire.
Before dealing with Federation in its constitutional aspect, a few words must be said from the points of view of trade and of defence.
Commercial FederationCommercial, on the basis of free trade within the Empire, is at present out of the question, because the greater part of the revenue of the Colonies is raised from customs duties, and it would be impossible for them to make good a large deficiency of revenue under this head from other sources. It has been recognised as impracticable by the recent Colonial Conference. Commercial Federation, on the basis of preferential trade within the Empire, stands on a different footing. Canada already gives to the mother country a preference of 331⁄3 per cent, over those countries which are protectionist. Other Colonies are prepared to follow Canada's example. Is it to the advantage of the people of the mother country to give to the Colonies in return a preference in the home market?
Industrial development in Germany and the United StatesThe free trade position cannot be defended by arguments applicable to the conditions of fifty years ago. The conditions of the problem have changed, mainly united through the enormous decrease in the cost of transport. It must be defended in the light of recent experience and present-day facts. In a memorandum recently issued by the Board of Trade (Cd. 1199, 1902) comparative statistics are given of the commerce of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. Taking five years' averages-a fairer basis of comparison than the trade of single years-the exports increased as follows:-
| Average | Average | Increase per | ||||
| 1880-1884 | 1895-1899 | annum | ||||
| United Kingdom | ... | 234 | 249 | 6.4 | ||
| Germany | ... | ... | ... | 156 | 192 | 23.1 |
| United States | ... | ... | 166 | 237 | 42.8 | |
During the last years of this period Germany and the United States have become increasingly protectionist, and the rate of their industrial development has increased. The exports of Germany rose from 166,000,000l. in 1895 to 222,000,000l. in 1900; those of the United States from 165,000,000 in 1895 to 286,000,000 in 1900; those of the United Kingdom from 226,000,000 in 1895 to 283,000,000 in 1900, the increase in the latter case being largely accounted for by the greater value of the coal exported.
American Trusts and Shipping Combines.The huge aggregations of capital under single control in the American Trust Companies, and the acquisition of some of our most important lines of steamers by the Atlantic Shipping Combine, are a reasonable ground for alarm as to the future of British industry. The American manufacturer has the advantage of an enormous home market. Owing to high protective duties he is able to make a large profit on goods sold in the home market, and then in order to spread his general charges, he can sell his surplus abroad at a price not perhaps below the cost of manufacture, but below the cost of production if the goods sold abroad were debited with their due proportion of general charges. Against competition of this character it will become increasingly difficult for British industry to hold its own.
Great Britain dependent on foreign food stuffs.To turn to another point of view, viz., the extent to which we depend on foreign countries for our food supplies. The fact that this country is provisioned for little more than six weeks would undoubtedly constitute a serious danger in case of war. The recognition of this fact led to an agitation a few years ago for the establishment of national granaries. It is idle to make preparation to meet invasion unless our food supply is assured. Invasion can only be possible if we lose command of the sea; and if the command of the sea were lost our enemies could compel us to submit by starvation to whatever terms they might dictate. Three-quarters of our wheat imports come at present from foreign countries. In 1901 our total imports of wheat amounted to 70,000,000 cwt., of which Russia supplied, in round figures, 2,500,000, the United States 40,500,000, Argentina 8,000,000, and British possessions nearly 17,000,000 cwt. In the event of war with the United States the command of the sea would not ensure the maintenance of our food supply. War with the United States is a contingency which no Englishman cares to contemplate. But it is well to point out that, under present conditions, we are absolutely at her mercy. The Government would only have to prohibit the export of corn stuffs to the United Kingdom to compel us to submit. Canada alone is said to be capable of producing all the wheat required to feed the people of the United Kingdom. Australasia sent us in 1901 more wheat than Canada, and, as Sir Edmund Barton said in his speech to the Tunbridge Wells Farmers' Club, it is also a first-rate butcher's shop. Preferential duties, which would ensure the Empire becoming self-supporting as regards its food supply, have many attractions, not the least of which is that they would have a tendency to check the decline in the agricultural population of Great Britain and Ireland.
The incidence of a differential tariff.On the other hand it is asserted that British industry will be able to hold its own by increased efficiency on the part of British merchants, manufacturers, and workmen. The next five years will, I believe, prove to be the most critical in the history of British industry, and will settle the question one way or the other. It must also be borne in mind that a Commercial Federation which did not impose a tax on Russian and American wheat for the benefit of the Canadian wheat-grower, and a duty on other agricultural produce for the benefit of the Australian and New Zealander, would be of little value to the Colonies. Taxes on food supplies and raw materials are open to the gravest objection. The Colonial Conference has gone as far as it is possible to go at the present stage in the direction of Commercial Federation. The most extreme Free Trader can have no objection to the Colonies reducing their tariffs on imports from the mother country when they exact no pledge in return.
Imperial Defence.To turn to Defence. In the history of the Imperial Federation movement, nothing is more remarkable than the continuity of the idea that the most practicable step in the direction of Federation lies in a combination for defence. To deal with the question of Federation from this point of view would require a paper in itself. I have always held that the Colonies, in their present stage of development, cannot give substantial monetary assistance towards the general defence of the Empire, or, in other words, that no contribution which they can at present afford would substantially lessen the burden which the Navy and Army estimates impose on the British taxpayer.
Colonial contributionsAt the recent Colonial Conference the following annual contributions to naval defence were suggested:—
| £ | |
| Australia | 200,000 |
| New Zealand | 40,000 |
| Cape Colony | 50,000 |
| Natal | 35,000 |
| Newfoundland | 3,000 |
| £328,000 |
Even assuming that Canada agreed to contribute in the same proportion as Australia, the total contributions of the Colonies to the naval defence of the Empire would scarcely exceed 500,000l. Such a sum does not loom very large in estimates which amount to over 30,000,000l.
Colonial Naval Reserve.On the other hand, the Colonies might assist us, and assist us very materially, with men. For example, Reserve, in spite of large increases to the permanent force, the personnel of the Navy, including reserves, is quite insufficient for our country's requirements; and there are many indications that a further increase in the fleet will be necessary. In 1896, when visiting Canada and Australia, I made an especial study of the possibility of drawing on the Colonies for the Naval Reserve. In the fishing and seafaring population of Canada and Newfoundland and in the merchant seamen of Australia there was clearly an abundance of good material. In 1897 and in the following years I advocated by every means in my power that this material should be utilised. Two years ago a small experiment was made in this direction in Newfoundland. The result appears to have been satisfactory, and it is gratifying to know that at the Colonial Conference it has been definitely decided to establish branches of the Naval Reserve in Australasia, as well as in Newfoundland.
Local Defences.It is, however, not only in this direction that the Colonies can assist in the matter of naval defence. Melbourne and Sydney have been made two of the most strongly-defended ports of the Empire, and Albany and Thursday Island have been protected from the raider, mainly at Colonial expense. The forts that defend them are manned by Colonial troops. Is it too much to ask Canada to follow the example of Australia, and make herself responsible for manning the defences of Halifax and Esquimault? Bases such as these—and with them must be included Durban and the Cape—which are rendered secure not so much by their forts and guns as by the fact that they have a large population behind them ready to resist the invader, are a valuable element of sea power, and a Colonial contribution to the defence of the Empire which must not be lost sight of.
Naval Defence creates National ties. On the Navy we depend for the defence of our shores from invasion, for the protection of our commerce, and for the security of our trade routes. The part which the British Army can play in war with any first-class power except Russia and the United States is only a secondary one, but it is still important. It is our chief weapon of offence. With the assistance of the Navy, it must lend its energies to the capture of the Colonies and coaling stations of the enemy, more indispensable now than before the introduction of steam to the success of their depredations on our commerce. For a war such as that which we have recently waged in South Africa, the Colonies have shown that they can provide material of unequalled quality. Mounted infantry are probably destined to play an important rôle in other fields. Would it not be possible to raise regiments of mounted infantry in Canada, in Australia, and in South Africa, one of the battalions of which would form the depôt in its own Colony whilst the other was serving in India or some other part of the Empire? Nothing could have a greater effect on the widening of the Colonial conception of Imperial responsibility in matters of defence than the fact that there were Canadians, Australians, and South Africans serving in peace time, as they have done so nobly in time of war, side by side with Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen in all corners of the world. Such a step as that suggested may be in advance of Colonial opinion at the present time, but the Colonies can certainly, by keeping the military forces—which are now, and must remain, under their own control—efficient and properly equipped, render great assistance in the direction already indicated.
Constitutional aspects of Imperial Federation.To turn to the constitutional aspects of Imperial Federation.
'If I am asked, said Mr. W. E. Forster, in 1885, "How can the mother country be kept united with her Colonies?" I reply, "By an organization for common defence and a joint foreign policy." And again, to the question, "Why not leave matters alone?" I reply, "Self-government will end in separation if there be no such organization."' Exaggerated hopes were entertained in certain quarters as to the possibilities of the Conference of Colonial Premiers during the past summer. Such hopes were pre-doomed to disappointment. As pointed out over and over again by Sir Edmund Barton during his stay in this country, 'It is only possible to advance so far as public opinion coincided in various parts of the Empire, and so far as it was compatible with self-government. If more was attempted the Empire would suffer loss.' Decisions of the Coronation Colonial Conference.The decisions of the Coronation Colonial Conference are a most important advance in the direction indicated by Mr. Forster. It decided subject, of course, to ratification by the various Parliaments concerned—(1) that the Colonies should take upon themselves a larger share of the burden of naval defence, and (2) that periodical conferences of Premiers should be held, at intervals of not more than four years, to discuss questions of common interest. The Conference admitted the principle of Imperial Federation. These decisions are of great import for the future; but they only represent the first and tentative stage in the desired direction.
Imperial Unity dependent upon two principles.Ever since I had the privilege of visiting our great Colonies and dependencies, I have been convinced that the permanent unity of the Empire rests on two great principles of Imperial Government:—(1) The right of each part of the Empire which bears its fair share of Imperial burdens to a voice in the control of Imperial expenditure and the direction of Imperial policy. (2) The right of each part of the Empire to manage its own local affairs in its own way. The time will come ere long when these principles must be applied to the government of the Empire, for the simple reason that the burden of defence is becoming too heavy for the mother country to bear without the help of her children beyond the seas.
Growth of expenditure for Imperial Defence.In 1892–3 the cost to the British taxpayer of Imperial defence amounted to some 35,000,000l. In 1902–3 our naval and military expenditure, quite apart from the special expenditure on the wars in South Africa and China, had risen to over 60,000,000l. All our expenditure for purposes of defence does not appear in the Annual Estimates. Under the Naval Works Act of 1902 no less than 27,000,000l. is to be expended on the construction of docks and naval barracks, and the protection of naval ports at Gibraltar, Devonport, Dover, Hong Kong, Simon's Bay, and Bermuda. Expenditure on defence is more likely to increase than to diminish. Owing to the large additions being made by Germany, Russia, and the United States to their navies, increased exertion on our part will be necessary if we are to retain the command of the sea. We have been passing through a period of great commercial prosperity, so that, until the imposition of the extra taxation necessitated by the war in South Africa, the increase in our national expenditure has been little felt. Prosperity cannot continue for ever. Trade moves in ever-recurring cycles of prosperity and depression, and when the depression comes, as it must come ere long, we in the mother country shall begin to feel that the burden of defending the Empire is becoming too heavy for the taxpayers of these islands alone. When Colonies are in their infancy it is the duty of the mother country to charge herself with their defence, but our Colonies are now rapidly growing from youth to manhood. Their population and their resources are year by year increasing relatively to those of the mother country (a temporary exception must be made in case of Australia, which has been suffering from a drought of unprecedented severity and duration). It is not, I think, unreasonable to expect that before many years have past the Colonial taxpayer will be both able and willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the taxpayer of the mother country. The conditions on which that help will be given were tersely put by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the Dominion House of Commons on March 14, 1900. 'If our future military contribution were ever to be considered compulsory—a condition which does not exist—I would say to Great Britain: If you want us to help, you must call us to your Councils.' This demand can only be met by giving to every part of our Empire which bears its fair share of Imperial burdens a constitutional voice in the control of Imperial policy.
Colonial Representation: constitutional difficulties.How is this to be done? It has been suggested that Colonial representatives might be added to the Privy Council, to the House of Lords, or to the House of Commons. None of these suggestions offer a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. The Privy Council and the House of Lords do not control national expenditure. The House of Lords would hardly be a congenial atmosphere for the representative of a democratic community. The House of Commons does not deal solely with Imperial questions. What is to be the position of the Colonial representative in the House of Commons when, for instance, an English Education Bill is under discussion.
Modification of Constitution necessary.It is, I believe, impossible, under our present constitutional arrangements, to provide for Colonial representatives taking part in the direct control of Imperial policy. Imperial Federation, therefore, implies a modification of the constitution for which public opinion is certainly not yet prepared, either in the Colonies or the mother country,
Preliminary steps.Australia has just established her Commonwealth Constitution. It is impossible to suppose that Australian statesmen will be prepared to make another great constitutional experiment until they have satisfactorily overcome the difficulties inseparable from the working of new constitutions, with which the Federal Parliament is confronted. In South Africa the efforts of statesmen and people must for some time be devoted to repairing the damages wrought by the long struggle now happily brought to a conclusion. Responsible government must be built up, not only in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, but in Rhodesia; and the Federal Government for South Africa, to which many South African statesmen were looking long before the recent troubles, must be established before South Africans will be in a position to discuss any proposal for Imperial Federation. While every Canadian for the past thirty-five years, and every Australian for the last two years, has lived under three Parliaments, each dealing with a distinct class of business, we, in the mother country, have been accustomed to the whole of our business, Imperial and domestic, being transacted in the Parliament which sits at Westminster. Our Empire has grown up and expanded under the aegis of that Parliament. The Government of Scotland, and the Government of Ireland, have been centralised in its hands. The population of the country has multiplied, and with the growth of population have come increasing demands for legislative and administrative action. Not until the British people recognise the impossibility of transacting the business of the Empire and of these islands with less machinery than 300 years ago, not until they appreciate that a distinction can be drawn between Imperial and domestic questions, will they be able to understand what is meant by Imperial Federation. The United Kingdom must adopt Federal Government.While Australians are getting their Commonwealth Constitution into working order, while Afrikanders are laying the foundations of Federal Government for South Africa, we, in the mother country, have our part to play in the evolution of a more perfect system of Imperial Government. The establishment of Federal Government in the United Kingdom is an essential preliminary to Imperial Federation.
Arguments for.Such a proposal involves a great change in our constitution, and it must be justified by very strong arguments. First and foremost of these is the fact that power is rapidly passing from Parliament to the Cabinet, and to the great Departments of State, owing to the overwhelming pressure of business in the House of Commons. This pressure arises partly from the growing prominence of Imperial questions which, though not receiving adequate attention themselves, have absorbed the energies of Parliament and the Government to such an extent as to throw questions of domestic and social reform into the background, partly from the competitive claims of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, to secure a portion of the time of Parliament for the consideration of their special interests.
Let me give two illustrations of the way in which our Imperial business is at present conducted:—
India.(1) The Imperial Parliament is responsible for the government in India of three hundred millions of people, nearly a fifth of the human race. That is an enormous responsibility. And what is the amount of time devoted by Parliament to the consideration of Indian questions? At most one or two days at the fag end of a session.
(2) The control of national expenditure is amongst the most important, if not the most important, of the functions of the representatives of the people in Parliament. I have already alluded to the recent growth in annual expenditure. The growth in expenditure has not been confined to the Department of the Navy. It has affected every Department to a greater or lesser extent. During the past seven years the annual ordinary expenditure of the country has increased by no less a sum than 35,000,000l. sterling. Some of this increased expenditure could, I believe, have been avoided had Parliament exercised its powers of control. But control cannot be effectively exercised when 67,000,000l. of public money are voted in three hours, or at the rate of some 22,000,000l. an hour, practically without discussion. This was actually done on August 9th of last year. No stronger instance could be given than this of the impossibility of carrying on the business of the Empire under present conditions.
Domestic legislation neglected for Imperial questions.As regards domestic business, it is impossible to deny that the absorption of the time of Parliament on Imperial matters has tended to throw into the background such questions as education, housing, temperance, the relations between capital and labour, the problem of the aged poor, the decline of our agricultural population, the decline of the number of British seamen in British ships questions which affect the people of this country in their homes. This constitutes the solid basis of such anti-Imperialist feeling as exists in the country. The Little Englander attributes to what is vaguely called Imperialism what is really due to the congestion of business in Parliament. It is a feeling which is too widely held to be ignored by us who are Imperialists and every member of the Colonial Institute is an Imperialist—and it is our business to remove the basis on which it rests, and to reconcile the spirit of democracy with the ideal of 'United Empire.'
There are two other evils incidental to our present system of Imperial Government, to which allusion must be made:—
Want of knowledge of Imperial Questions.1. Imperial business and domestic business each require special training, special study, and special aptitudes The training of the School Board, the County Council, or the Trade Union may be admirable for one who seeks to take part in domestic legislation; but something more is required from the Member of a Parliament which deals with the great questions of Imperial and Colonial policy. To those who have travelled much in the Empire, the assurance with which some men speak on Imperial and Colonial questions, of which they have no special knowledge, is amazing. Nowhere has this been more conspicuous than in the treatment of the war in South Africa and its conduct.
Confused issues.2. Under present conditions, when an appeal is made to the country, Imperial questions and domestic questions are submitted to the electors in a confused issue. At the election of 1900 every domestic issue was subordinated to the one Imperial question—the war in South Africa. At some future election the converse of what happened in 1900 might take place. Some question of domestic policy might be to the front, and the party might be returned to power on that issue, which perhaps, in the opinion of the electorate, was the less qualified to carry on the government of the Empire. That is a danger to which Mr. Chamberlain alluded in a recent speech at Birmingham; and it is in my belief a very real danger to the Empire.
The Boers' hopes.Let me illustrate what I mean. The Boers went to war trusting in two things: (1) foreign intervention; (2) the possibility of a change of government and a reversal of policy, such as took place in 1880. Had an Imperial Parliament been in existence in 1899, the people of this country would have had accurate information from the representatives of Natal or of the Cape Colony as to the situation in South Africa, and there would have been none of that ignorance and misunderstanding which have been so fruitful a cause of evil in our relations with South Africa. It is my firm conviction that, had the Boers known that they had to deal with a United Empire, and that there was no chance of a reversal of Imperial policy, the war in South Africa would never have taken place.
Complexity of Parliamentary business.Such then are the evils of our present system of government, and these are the reasons which are convincing men of all political parties that parliamentary government has broken down. Parliamentary government has broken down, because we are attempting to deal, in one single assembly, with three distinct classes of business: (1) the business of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen; (2) questions affecting the United Kingdom as a whole, such as those which in Canada are dealt with by the Dominion Parliament and in Australia by the Commonwealth Parliament; (3) the special needs of England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, which in Canada would be dealt with by the Provincial Parliaments of Ontario, Quebec, &c.; in Australia by the Colonial Parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, &c. No other country has ever attempted to carry on its business with such inadequate machinery. It is not attempted in Germany, in the United States, or in Switzerland.
Remedies suggested.Two alternative remedies are suggested by the experience of other countries. An Imperial Parliament, representative of the whole Empire, might be established, the existing Parliament confining itself to questions which affect the United Kingdom as a whole, and to the special interests of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. This remedy involves the degradation of our ancient and historic Parliament to an entirely subordinate position, and, for the reasons already given, it is a policy for the adoption of which neither the Colonies nor the mother country are yet prepared.
The alternative is for Parliament to hand over to subordinate legislative authorities what may be termed domestic questions, while retaining in its own hands all Imperial business, as well as all matters of common interest to the whole of the United Kingdom. It implies the creation of legislatures in England, Ireland, and Scotland (probably also in Wales), each having power to deal with their own internal affairs. The establishment of a federal form of government in the United Kingdom somewhat similar to that of Canada has, I believe, become urgently necessary. I advocate it, not only for the sake of Ireland or Scotland, but, to use Mr. Redmond's words, for the sake of England, for the sake of the English Parliament, and for the sake of the British Empire.
The Irish Question.Not the least of the advantages of the establishment of Federal Government in the United Kingdom is that it affords a solution of the constitutional difficulties in granting self-government to Ireland alone. I certainly do not propose to discuss that thorny Irish question, which is a perennial source of weakness to the Empire, and which can only be satisfactorily settled with the assistance of all political parties in the State; but it is necessary for the proper understanding of our subject to refer to the constitutional objections to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule proposals. The Home Rule Bill of 1886 excluded Irish representation altogether from the Imperial Parliament. In other words, Ireland was to be taxed for Imperial purposes, without having any voice in the control of the expenditure. If it had become law it would have violated one of the fundamental principles of the British constitution—'there shall be no taxation without representation.' In the second Home Rule Bill the 'in-and-out' plan was proposed; but during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons this method was shown to be so impracticable that it was decided to allow Irish members to sit in the Imperial Parliament for all purposes. The objections to this course were fatal from the English point of view, because it would have permitted Irishmen, while free to settle their own local affairs in their own way, to interfere in purely British questions.
Mr. Chamberlain's advocacy of Federal Government for Ireland.The modern Home Rule movement, which dates from 1870, and which is associated with the name of Mr. Butt, was directed to securing for an Irish Parliament, 'under a federal arrangement, the right of legislating for and regulating all matters relating to the internal affairs of Ireland.' Mr. Chamberlain, in the debate on the first reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1886, used the following remarkable words: 'I shall look for the solution in the direction of the principle of federation … It appears to me that the advantage of a system of federation is that Ireland might, under it, really remain an integral part of the Empire. The action of such a scheme is centripetal and not centrifugal, and it is in the direction of federation that the democratic movement has been most advanced in the present century.' On the second reading of the Bill Mr. Chamberlain suggested, as an alternative Home Rule policy, 'the present constitution of Canada, not, in the relations between Canada and this country' (to which Mr. Gladstone and others had referred)—'those are the wrong lines, and lines against which I protest, and which mean separation but in the relations inter se of the provinces of Canada and the Dominion Parliament. Those are the relations which I, for one, am perfectly prepared to establish to-morrow between this country and Ireland.'
History has proved that Mr. Chamberlain was right when, in 1886, he pointed to Federation as the true solution of the Irish question.
To sum up. The Coronation Colonial Conference has taken us as far as it is possible to go at the moment in the direction of Imperial Federation. All honour to the statesmen whose labours have carried us so far. The burden of the Empire is becoming too heavy for the mother country to bear alone. I admit that the Colonies are not yet in a position to tax themselves to the same extent as we are able to do for the common defence; and until they are in this position the question of providing for direct control by Colonial representatives of Imperial policy does not arise.
An Imperial Parliament, in which every part of the Empire will be represented, either by elected or nominated representatives, is the ultimate goal which we must ever keep before us. The ideal constitutional structure for the Empire is illustrated in the diagram on p. 71. The steps necessary to complete the fabric are shown in italics. Whether it is possible to devise a satisfactory method of dealing with the business of the United Kingdom and the Empire in the same legislature, or whether the business of the United Kingdom should be carried on in a Parliament corresponding to the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia and the Dominion Parliament of Canada, and Imperial business in a Parliament distinct from any existing body, is a question which for the present may remain an open one. In the immediate future the Canadian, the Australian, the South African, and the Briton has each his own work to do in creating or strengthening the four great federations on which Imperial Federation will some day be built.