A SKETCH OF THE IMPERIAL UNITY

MOVEMENT

COMMONLY KNOWN AS "IMPERIAL FEDERATION"

BY HERMAN W. MARCUS

(Editor of "The British Empire Review")

"There is not the least probability that the British Constitution would be hurt by the union of Great Britain with the Colonies. That Constitution, on the contrary, would be completed by it, and seems to be imperfect without it. . . . That this union, however, could be easily effectuated, or that difficulties-and great difficulties -might not occur in the execution, I do not pretend. I have yet heard of none, however, which appear insurmountable.”—ADAM SMITH'S "Wealth of Nations."

IT is the fate of all movements in the direction of political change to be seriously misunderstood in exact proportion to the magnitude of their aims and to the comprehensive and far-reaching character of the interests which they are likely to affect. Probably Imperial Federation enjoys a unique pre-eminence in this respect. There can hardly be any other proposal of the same importance around which so many legends have clustered, and upon which such avalanches of misrepresentation have been hurled. It is a simple phrase, consisting of an adjective and a noun substantive. The adjective is one which might have been expected to be intelligible to the citizens of the most famous Empire known to history; whilst the idea comprised in the substantive is one of the commonplaces of the present day. "Federation," "alliance," "co-operation,"

"association," and the like, are the terms which express the tendency of every class and every interest towards concerted action, based upon the view that union is strength, whilst isolation is weakness.

The British Empire being already in existence, it is proposed to "federate" it—that is, to reconstitute it to some extent upon a federal basis-this, and nothing more or less, is the entire mystery of "Imperial Federation."

The ideal of a closer and better organised union between the United Kingdom and the outlying parts of the Empire has long occupied a prominent place in the aspirations of patriots and political philosophers. In recent years the eloquent writings of James Anthony Froude and Sir John Seeley have done much to render it both intelligible and popular. But without any disparagement of either the foresight or the actual services of these or of still earlier pioneers of the movement, it will be convenient if, for the purposes of the present article, the question be regarded as having been brought within the sphere of practical politics by the concrete step taken at the foundation of the Imperial Federation League itself, when, at a Conference held in London, on 29th July 1884, the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P., in the chair, it was unanimously resolved :

That in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some form of Federation is essential.

That for the purpose of influencing public opinion, both in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, by showing the incalculable advantages which will accrue to the whole Empire from the adoption of such a system of organisation, a Society be formed of men of all parties, to advocate and support the principles of Federation.

And at the adjourned Conference, held on Tuesday,

18th November 1884, the following resolutions were unanimously passed:

That a Society be now formed, to be called "The Imperial Federation League."

That the object of the League be to secure by Federation the permanent unity of the Empire.

That no scheme of Federation should interfere with the existing rights of Local Parliaments as regards local affairs.

That any scheme of Imperial Federation should combine on an equitable basis the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and adequately provide for an organised defence of common rights.

That the League use every constitutional means to bring about the object for which it is formed, and invite the support of men of all political parties.

That the membership of the League be open to any British subject who accepts the principles of the League, and pays a yearly registration fee of not less than one shilling.

That donations and subscriptions be invited for providing means for conducting the business of the League.

That British subjects throughout the Empire be invited to become members, and to form and organise branches of the League, which may place their representatives on the Council.

The foregoing is the official programme of the association which was constituted for the organised expression of the Imperial Federation idea, and its terms are entitled to be treated as authoritative and conclusive, so far as their accuracy, and the intentions of their authors, are concerned. But additional light upon the objects and policy of the League may be found in the written and spoken utterances of its leading members, and chiefly in those of its first two Presidents, the late Mr. W. E. Forster, and Lord Rosebery.

In an article published in The Nineteenth Century for February 1885, Mr. Forster defined Imperial Federation as "such a union of the Mother Country with her

Colonies as will keep the realm one State in relation to other States. Purposely I use the word keep, and not make. I do not say that we are trying by federation to make the Empire one commonwealth in relation to foreign Powers, because at the present time it is one commonwealth." Now, one of the most common misconceptions regarding Imperial Federation takes the form of imputing to its advocates an insidious design to impair the virtual autonomy of the self-governing Colonies, which they cherish, and rightly cherish, with jealous care. But, even apart from the clause in the Constitution of the Imperial Federation League, quoted above, which expressly negatives such a purpose—viz., "that no scheme of Federation should interfere with the existing rights of local parliaments as regards local affairs "the leaders of the Imperial Federation movement repeatedly declared that a scrupulous respect for the existing rights of the Colonies, and the maintenance of their relations with the Mother Country on the present basis in every material feature, save one, were essential conditions of their proposals. The single modification which they sought to introduce was, on the contrary, designed not to impair or to restrict, but to extend and complete, the constitutional rights of selfgoverning Colonies.

A close and instructive analogy is afforded by the policy which has been adopted in framing a federal constitution for Australia, although the analogy, for reasons which will appear, requires to be applied with caution. In the case of the Federation of Australia, it was inevitable that, for the sake of union, each colony should surrender certain of its provincial rights. For instance, absolute Free-Trade will prevail throughout the Continent, and the right of any colony to impose protective duties against its neighbours (except as regards a temporary provision in favour of Western Australia) will be abandoned as long as the Common

wealth endures. Other restrictions upon local autonomy are also imposed, and yet, with a fine insight, the resolutions defining the scope of the Commonwealth Bill declared that its object was "to enlarge the powers of self-government of the people of Australia." In other words, the abandonment of certain provincial rights and privileges, in themselves of no mean importance, was completely overshadowed by the larger citizenship, with its more majestic powers and opportunities, which would pertain to the membership of an Australian Commonwealth.

If this be true, as it undoubtedly is, of a federation of Colonies in a single continent, with how much immeasurably greater force must it apply to the case of a colony, or even of a group of federated colonies, which is raised from the position of a subordinate, although quasi-independent, State, to that of equal membership of a world-wide Empire? For this, and nothing else, is the ultimate aim of Imperial Federation-to raise the Colonies to a higher plane of citizenship in the Empire of which they already form a part, but without the slightest derogation from their existing rights. Alike in this country and in the Colonies it has been found difficult to grasp this fundamental idea. At home, no doubt, conservative tendencies induce a reluctance to contemplate so great an innovation in constitutional practice as to admit partners, even of our race and household, and although at first probably only junior partners, in the supreme control of the destinies of the Empire. In the Colonies themselves, the evil traditions of Downing Street rule of half a century ago still make it difficult to believe that so great a privilege would ever be conceded by Great Britain, except in return for some equivalent on their part, amounting to a sacrifice; and this impression has undoubtedly been strengthened by the false analogy between two systems, differing in kind as well as in degree, which the experience of their