Schemes for the Federation of the British Empire 9780231890113

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Chapter I. Introduction
Chapter II. Analysis of Schemes and Proposals for Imperial Federation: The First Phase
Chapter III. Analysis of Schemes and Proposals for Imperial Federation: The Second Phase
Chapter IV. Arguments for Imperial Federation
Chapter V. Arguments Against Imperial Federation
Chapter VI. Conclusions
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY T H E FACULTY OF POLITICAL S C I E N C E OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

No. 335 SCHEMES FOB THE FEDERATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

SCHEMES FOR THE FEDERATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

BY

SEYMOUR CHING-YUAN CHENG, PH.D. Seortiary of the Chinese Legation at Wathingtan Profettor of Chinete, Sekooi of Fortign Strviet Georgetown Univertity, etc.

NEW Y O R K

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY JPRESS LONDON : P. S. KINGFTSON, LTD.

1931

COPYRIGHT,

1931

BV COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

PUSS

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Srbirotrd TO THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THBIR LIVES FOR T H E NATIONALIST CAUSE O F

THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA

PREFACE T H E federation of the British Empire, commonly called " imperial federation has been a problem both fascinating and intricate. Although the movements f o r imperial federation, as represented chiefly by the activities of the Imperial Federation L e a g u e (1884-1893) and the Round Table group ( 1 9 1 0 - 1 9 1 7 ) , fell far short of realization, they did bring about, directly or indirectly, many important constitutional developments to which may be ascribed, in part, the present unity of the Empire. Aside from the question of the merits of the proposals for federation, the movement itself will always be cherished by imperialists and colonials alike as a worthy, if unsuccessful, attempt to strengthen imperial ties. Its significance in British constitutional history will remain untarnished despite the fact that imperial federation is now generally considered a " vanished dream ". A vast amount of literature has been produced on the subject, yet no effort has been made to compare and to study systematically the various schemes for federation that were proposed. Although most of the advocates of imperial federation discreetly considered it a virtue to confine themselves to theoretical discussions, the necessity f o r concrete plans was emphasized long ago by a prominent statesman. In addressing the deputation of the Imperial Federation League in 1891 which had been urging the government to call the representatives of the Empire to discuss the problem of imperial federation, L o r d Salisbury, then Prime Minister, emphatically said: " I think that we are almost come to the 7

8

PREFACE

time when schemes should be proposed and that without them we shall not get very far." 1 In this monograph the attempt has been made to collect all the definite schemes for imperial federation from 1850 to the present time, and to study them comparatively and systematically. In view of the various constitutional developments of the Empire since the Great War, especially the adoption of the report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee at the Imperial Conference of 1926, such a study will not be untimely. There has been much discussion of late concerning the role of the dominions in the event of a British war. Shall the dominions insist upon their participation in the declaration of an imperial war? Shall they be granted the right to declare their neutrality in the event of such a war? These questions are not new, but they are again attracting the attention of many writers.2 A study of the schemes of imperial federation representing the earlier attempts at a constitutional reorganization of the Empire can hardly fail to throw an interesting light on these questions and on many others related to them. In preparing this monograph, the author is greatly indebted to Professors Lindsay Rogers and Robert Livingston Schuyler of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, for their guidance and criticism. The author wishes to acknowledge his special indebtedness to Professor Gustav F. Schulz of the College of the City of New York for reading the manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. His gratitude is due to Mrs. Noeline Bruce Peebles of New Zealand and Miss Mildred B. Palmer of the editorial staff of the Dictionary of American Biography for kind services. He is also under obligation to his friends, 1

Imperial Federation, vol. vi, 1891, p. 162.

2

See infra, pp. 272 et seq.

PREFACE

9

Dr. Robert R. Wilson, Professor of Political Science at Duke University, and Dr. Y . C. Hoe of Harvard, who read part of the manuscript and gave helpful suggestions. The tedious task of preparing the index of the monograph has been entrusted to his friend, Mr. Su-Lee Chang of the Chinese Legation, whose kindness the author keenly appreciates. His final acknowledgment of appreciation should be made to the officials of the Library of Congress for having placed at his disposal the research facilities under their control, and to the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, the Library of Harvard University, and the Stanford University Library, for making available to him their valuable collections of publications bearing upon the subject. SEYMOUR WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 30, 1930.

C.

Y.

CHENG

CONTENTS RAUA 7

PREFACE CHAPTER

I

INTRODUCTION

I. Antecedents of the Movement for Imperial Unity (to 1870). . II. Imperial Federation: the First Phase (1871-1910) A . Early Activities (1871-1884) B. The Imperial Federation League (1884-1893) C. The Period of Stagnation and the Working of the Imperial Conference (1893-1910) I I I . Imperial Federation : the Second Phase (since 1910) . . A . The Rise of New Federalism and the Round Table Group (1910-1917) B. British Federalism since 1917

16 33 33 37 44 49 49 54

C H A P T E R II A N A L Y S I S OF SCHEMES AND PMOPOSALS FOR IMPERIAL FEDERATION : T H E FIRST PHASE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Francis Peter de Labilliere's Scheme Jehu Mathews' Scheme Granville C. Cuningham's Scheme Samuel Wilson's Scheme Frederick Wicks' Scheme William Greswell's Scheme J. C. Fitzgerald's Scheme F. H. Turnock's Scheme C. V . Smith's Scheme N. D. Davis' Scheme C. Ransotne's Scheme Arch. McGoun's Scheme Thomas Macfarlane's Scheme Maurice H. Hervey's Scheme P. A . Silburn's Scheme

64 70 73 79 81 83 87 89 g2 96 98 99 108 117 II

CONTENTS

12

FACB

CHAPTER

III

A N A L Y S I S OF S C H E M E S AND P R O P O S A L S FOR I M P E R I A L FEDERATION : T H E SECOND PHASE

16. 17. 18. 19.

S i r Joseph W a r d ' s S c h e m e Charles E . T . Stuart-Linton's Scheme Lionel Curtis' Scheme W . Basil W o r s f o l d ' s S c h e m e

121 123 126 129

20. 21. 22. 23.

Walter Eves Wismer's Scheme Herbert Samuel's Scheme J. A . Murray MacDonald's S c h e m e Lord Raglan's Scheme

133 139 142 145

Conclusions

148

I. Imperial Parliament A . N u m b e r of H o u s e s B . M o d e of C r e a t i o n C . B a s i s of R e p r e s e n t a t i o n D . M e t h o d of E l e c t i o n E . Imperial Revenue F . S e p a r a t i o n of I m p e r i a l f r o m L o c a l P o w e r s I I . Imperial Executive I I I . Federal Court I V . U n i t s for F e d e r a t i o n V . Q u e s t i o n of I n d i a

148 148 150 154 157 159 169 173 175 177 178

CHAPTER

IV

A R G U M E N T S FOR I M P E R I A L F E D E R A T I O N

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

C o n t r o l of F o r e i g n P o l i c y Joint Defense Commercial Harmony Federal Devolution British Migration Financial Burden British Investment N e e d of C e n t r a l A u t h o r i t y Necessity to Prevent Disruption S u n d r y other A r g u m e n t s A . T o Complete Constitutional Requirements B . Prestige C. Sentimental Influence D . N o Insurmountable Difficulties

183 189 195 198 201 206 208 210 212 217 217 218 219 220

E . P r a c t i c a b i l i t y and P r e c e d e n t F . N o Interference with Local A u t o n o m y

223 224

CONTENTS

13

riuaa G. Colonies will not be Involved in British Wars H . For World Peace CHAPTER

. .

•

225 226

V

A R G U M E N T S AGAINST IMPERIAL FEDERATION

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

L a c k of Geographical Continuity Diverse Conditions Interference with Local Autonomy Increased Responsibility and Danger of B e i n g Involved in British Wars Resistence of the British Parliament to Changing its own Status British Opposition to Constitutional Rigidity Difficulty of Enforcing the Federal W i l l Within the Empire. . Forced Union would break up the Empire The Present Tendency of Free National Development is against Federalism Sundry other Arguments A . L a c k of Precedents B . Problem of India C . Difficulty of Framing a Satisfactory Scheme of Imperial Federation D . Imperial Federation would retard Social Reform E . Apprehension of British Imperialism CHAPTER

227 229 231 233 235 237 239 241 244 246 246 247 248 249 249

VI

CONCLUSIONS

A.

Is Imperial Federation PossibleT

Nature of a Federal Government 252 Necessary and Favorable Conditions of a Federal Government . . 256 Chief Difficulties to Federation of the British Empire 259 T h e Desire of the Dominions for Union 264 Opinions of Canada 265 Opinions of Australia 270 Opinions of Union of South Africa . 274 Opinions of New Zealand 276 Opinions of Newfoundland 279 O p i n i o n s of Great Britain 280 Imperial Federation is Impossible • 281

14

CONTENTS PACE

B. Is Imperial Federation Necessary T Outstanding Problems of the Empire The Development of New Imperial Political Institutions Imperial Conference Committee of Imperial Defense Resident Minister Imperial War Cabinet Dominion Representation at the Paris Peace Conference Dominion Representation at the League of Nations Establishment of Dominion Diplomatic Agencies in Foreign Countries Right of Dominions to Declare Neutrality in a British War . . . Report of Inter-Imperial Relations Committee

282 283 283 285 286 287 290 291

I m p e r i a l F e d e r a t i o n is U n n e c e t t a r y

301

INDEX

291 292 299 311

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION " I M P E R I A L Federation," a term which has been indiscriminately used to indicate any idea, effort, or proposal for the consolidation of the Empire, is susceptible of various shades of meaning. At one time, it may signify some form of partial federal union, whether commercial, military, or political; at another, it may imply some type of incomplete federal device, whether a council, an assembly, or a parliament. In order to make our investigation of the subject more profitable and to avoid possible confusion, this term, " imperial federation ", should hereafter be understood to mean only the federation of the Empire in the strict sense of the term. Therefore, while a complete history of the federal movement would take into account all of the forces which have the unity of the Empire as their common goal, our study will be confined to those proposals which are strictly federal in nature. The object of this chapter is to deal with the rise and development of the idea of imperial federation. The history of the growth of this idea, however, would be incomplete without some consideration of the causes which led to its inception. The historical background out of which the federal idea sprang is no less important than the beginning of the movement itself. The movement for imperial federation was a reaction against the forces of anti-imperialism or separatism. Therefore, a brief description and analysis of these anti-imperialist or separatist forces immediately preceding the turning of the tide in favor of imperial federation should claim an important place in this chapter. 15

X6

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

I . A N T E C E D E N T S OF T H E M O V E M E N T FOE I M P E R I A L UNITY

(TO 1 8 7 0 )

No sooner was responsible government granted to the British North American colonies than the opinion became current that " responsible government, especially if it led to a legislative union of all the Colonies, must mean separation." 1 The colonial reformers 2 vigorously combated this opinion. Lord Durham, one of the leading reformers, asserted that " the practical relief from undue interference . . . would strengthen the present bond of feelings and interests ; and the connection would become more durable and advantageous, by having more of equality, of freedom, and of local independence."' But the reformers had no unshaken faith in the permanency of the connection between the colonies and the mother country. They failed to reconcile the idea of full autonomy for the colonies with the idea of the maintenance of their connection with the mother country. 4 They considered the growth of national feeling in the colonies as indicative of tendencies in the direction of separation. Molesworth, one of the important reformers, objected to the provisions in the Australian Government Bill of 1850 relating to federation on the ground that they would " lay the foundation of a great federal republic in Australia to be independent of this country as were the United States of 1 H. D. Hall, The British Commonwealth of Nations (London, 1900), p. 40; J. A . Williamson, A Short History of British Expansion (London, 1922), p. 618. 2 The term " colonial reformers " comprises those who fought against the old British system of colonization and advocated granting responsible government to the colonies. Their leaders were Lord Durham, Gibbon Wakefield, Charles Buller, Sir William Molesworth, Lord Elgin, Lord Grey, etc. Cf. Hall, op. cit., p. 39.

* Lord Durham's Report, ed. by Lucas (London, 1912), vol. ii, p. 284. 4 Hall, op. cit., p. 42; R. L. Schuyler, " Climax of anti-imperialism in England," Political Science Quarterly, vol. 36, p. 538, 1921.

INTRODUCTION

17

America. . . . He did not see how a federal assembly could be admitted at all unless the intention was to separate these colonies from the mother land." 1 Lord Durham viewed colonial connection in the light of a " perfect subordination " while Wakefield referred to responsible government as " municipal government." 2 These views of the leaders of the colonial reform as expressed by both Lord Durham and Wakefield were incompatible with the inevitable change of relationship between the colonies and the mother country as a result of the grant of responsible government and local autonomy to the former by the latter. The fact was clearly pointed out by Sir Charles Lucas in his comments on the Report of Lord Durham. He wrote: While he [Lord Durham] laid stress on self-government as creating a national existence, he did not seem to recognise that when once an overseas community has been endowed with national institutions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to set a limit to its growth as a nation, or permanently to withhold any subject as outside its scope.8 The grant of responsible government to the colonies, although it was regarded by Lord John Russell in 1 8 3 7 * ^ incompatible with the maintenance of imperial authority over them, was not the only cause for the rise of the separatist movement. The sweeping away of the mercantile system of trade monopoly, the triumph of the doctrine of free trade in 1846, the British resentment against the burden of imperial expense, the annexation movement in Canada in 1849, 1

Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cx (1850), p. 802. Hall, op. cit., p. 41. ' Report, ed. by Lucas, vol. i, p. 285. * Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 538; see also Hansard, 3rd series, vol. xxxvii (1837), p. 1249. 1

j8

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

the unrest in N e w South Wales in 1850, had all influenced the views of pessimists, who believed that the final destiny of the colonies would be independence. 1 A s long as the reformers still had a following in the Liberal party they fought hard against the forces of disruption. A f t e r the death of Molesworth in 1 8 5 5 , however, their influence entirely disappeared. 2 W i t h the separatists soon in the ascendancy, the decade 1 8 6 1 - 1 8 7 0 proved to be a critical period in British imperial history, " f o r it was during those years that tendencies in England toward the disruption of the Empire reached their climax." 8 Although the forces of separatism were chiefly represented by Radicals belonging to the Manchester School, the Tories were also influenced by the same pessimism until the revival of imperialism about 1870. Being naturally opposed to excessive freedom and democracy, the Tories were alarmed over the fact that British supremacy was vanishing. In their opinion, the grant of responsible government to colonies would " go straight towards democracy, republicanism, colonial disaffection, and dismemberment of the E m pire." * Their views about the colonies were well expressed by their spokesman Disraeli who said in 1 8 5 2 : " These wretched colonies will all be independent too in a few years and are a mill-stone round our necks." 6 T h e separatist tendencies represented by the Radicals really began to show in 1 8 3 0 when there were two groups within the party. T h e majority, on the economic and po1 Hall, op. cit., pp. 45-6; C. A. Bodelsen, Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism (London, 1924), pp. 34-5. * Ibid., p. 48. ® Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 538. 4 Hall, op. cit., pp. 46-7. 8 Earl of Malmesbury, Memoirs of an Ex-Minister (London, 1884), vol. i, p. 344; see also Hall, op. cit., p. 47.

INTRODUCTION

19

litical grounds advocated by the Manchester School, under the leadership of Cobden and Bright, leaned towards colonial separation, while a minority under the influence of Wakefield and others stood for colonial reform. 1 F o r over a decade the latter triumphed and succeeded in establishing responsible government in the British North American colonies, but from 1840 to 1850 the separatist forces became more influential and affected a larger section of the Radical party. In 1849 L o r d Grey, then colonial secretary, wrote as follows to Lord Elgin, then governor general of Canada: There begins to prevail in the House of Commons, and I am sorry to say in the highest quarters, an opinion (which I believe to be utterly erroneous) that we have no interest in preserving our colonies and ought therefore to make no sacrifice for that purpose. Peel, Graham, and Gladstone, if they do not avow this as openly as Cobden and his friends, yet betray very clearly that they entertain it, nor do I find some members of the Cabinet free from it.2 The fundamental grounds upon which the Manchester School relied in advocating colonial separation was that the colonial system was still associated with the doctrines of mercantilism which were directly opposed to the free trade and laisses-fairc doctrines of that school. " The strong emphasis laid by the School on the pecuniary aspect of affairs, its activities in favor of retrenchment, its anti-militarism, and its studied disregard of sentimental considerations tended in the same direction, and made the Manchester School the centre of Separatism." 3 1

Hall, op. cit., p. 47.

1

Ibid., p. 48: see also J . L. Morison, British Supremacy Self-Government (Glasgow, 1919), pp. 266-7. 3 Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 3 3 ; cf. John Morley, Life (London, 1896), vol. ii, pp. 470-471.

and Canadian

of Richard

Cobden

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

Cobden, 1 writing in 1836 and 1842, objected to the colonial connection. In 1865 he commented on the proposed federation of the North American colonies as follows: " I cannot see what substantial interest the British people have in the connection to compensate them for guaranteeing 3 or 4 millions of North Americans living in Canada against another community of Americans living in their neighbourhood." The " loyalty " of Canadians was to him an ironical term, applied to a people who neither paid British taxes nor held themselves liable to fight British battles, but who, on the other hand, claimed the right of imposing their own customs duties even to the exclusion of British manufactures. Under such circumstances, to keep up a sham connection, in his opinion, would be a " perilous delusion." John Bright,' another leader of the Manchester School, argued practically to the same effect. In 1865 he declared in the House of Commons that if Canada were to become an independent state by a friendly separation from Great Britain, her tariff would not be more adverse to British manufactures than it was then. He was not only in favor of such a separation, but even believed that it would be better for both Canada and Great Britain. In 1867 he again asserted in the House of Commons: " I think it would be f a r better for them and for us—cheaper for us and less demoralizing for them—that they should become an independent State." Goldwin Smith,* the most brilliant contemporary writer on colonial questions, was looked upon by the imperialists as the chief representative of separatism, not counting the lead' Bodelsen, op. cit., pp. 33-4. * J . E. T. Rogers, Speeches of John Bright (London, 1868), vol. i, PP. 153-4, 167. ' Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., pp. 539-540; Bodelsen, op. cit., pp. 52-59.

INTRODUCTION

21

ing members of the Manchester School. While Regius Professor of Modern History at O x f o r d , he contributed a series of letters to the Daily News in 1862 ad 1863 advocating the dismemberment of the Empire. He wrote: The time was when the universal prevalence of commercial monopoly made it worth our while to hold colonies in dependence for the sake of commanding their trade. But that time has gone. Trade is everywhere free, or becoming free; and this expensive and perilous connection has entirely survived in its sole legitimate cause. H e was regarded as the " apostle of anti-imperialism," whose favorite colonial policy was the dissolution of the Empire. In his opinion, " the colonial Empire, while it gives to Great Britain no advantages whatever which would not accrue to her equally if the colonies were independent nations, is a source of expenses, weakness, and danger " to the mother country. Disraeli's views have already been mentioned. According to Sir William Gregory, a veteran parliamentarian, who knew Disraeli well, his expressions with regard to the colonies were " always those of contempt and a contented impression that we should sooner or later be rid of them." 1 In 1866, Disraeli wrote to his party chief, Lord Derby, as follows: . . . . what is the use of these colonial dead-weights which we do not govern? . . . Leave the Canadians to defend themselves ; recall the African Squadron; give up the settlements on the West Coast of A f r i c a ; and we shall make a saving which will, at the same time, enable us to build ships and have a good Budget. 2 Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 546; see also Sir Williams Gregory, An Autobiography (London, 1894), chap, v ; Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences ( N e w York, 1910), p. 168. 1

' G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli vol. iv, p. 476.

( N e w York, 1910-20),

22

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

L o r d Derby was also said to be in favor of Canadian independence. 1 It was, however, to the Liberal administration that the attempts of severing the colonial connections have been commonly attributed. Disraeli, who changed his own views in 1 8 7 2 , asserted that the Liberal party had been striving for forty years, continuously, subtly and energetically, to disrupt the British Empire. 2 The opinion of Gladstone himself in this connection is important. Although the charge that he deliberately desired to get rid of the colonies is unjustifiable, he certainly believed that the colonies would at some future date become independent. H e did not consider the colonies a source of actual profit to the mother country, but believed that " the maintenance of our connection with the colonies was to be regarded rather as a matter of duty than as one of advantage." He was indeed in favor of a retrenchment of imperial expenses with regard to the colonies and had no desire to retain them against their wishes. In 1840, he expressed the opinion that it would be most difficult, at some future time when the colonies were prepared for self-government, to effect a separation. 8 Indeed, in his early years, Gladstone did not share the faith of the colonial reformers in advocating the grant of responsible government to the British North American colonies. H e thought that this system was suited only to independent states, but not to colonies. If it were applied in Canada, it was his belief that colonial relations between her and Great Britain would soon be at an end. In fact, he did not believe that Great Britain could hold Canada or any other of the dependencies in perpetual bondage. They were like ' Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 46. * Buckle, op. cit., vol. v, pp. 194 et seq. * May 29, 1840; Hansard, 3rd series, vol. 54, p. 731.

INTRODUCTION

23

" the children of the parent country," and would demand freedom as soon as they reached their maturity. N o r did he think that the separation of the colonies would injure the mother country. 1 Although by 1850 Gladstone had been converted to colonial reform and had become a believer in responsible government, he still thought that the ultimate destiny of the colonies would be independence, and suggested that the best way to prepare them for their future destiny was by giving them self-government. H e held that the British government should reduce not its political influence, but its power over the colonies to a minimum. 2 Undoubtedly he shared the pessimistic view of Lord John Russell that all the colonies beyond the seas would soon become independent. 3 A g a i n in 1870, Gladstone made the following statement in the House of Commons: If you look back to the history of the colonial connection between European Powers and trans-Atlantic possessions you find that it is the nature of those possessions to grow, and so to grow as to alter essentially, in obedience to laws stronger than the will of man, the conditions of their relations to the countries with which they were originally connected, until they arrive at that stage of their progress in which separation from the mother country inevitably takes place.4 In spite of all this, Gladstone made no deliberate attempt to get rid of the colonies. During his first ministry (18681872), his policy was chiefly based upon the principles championed by colonial reformers. There is no truth in the charge that his government aimed at abandoning the colon1

P. Knaplund, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Policy (London, 1927),

PP- 32-4-

' Ibid., pp. 61-3. • Ibid., p. 65. 4

Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cc (1870), pp. 1900-1.

24

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

ies. 1 On the other hand, he hoped that there would be a continued connection between Britain and her colonies similar to that between the Greek colonies and their parent states.2 If Gladstone, however, did not take a definite stand on separation, his associates in his administration undoubtedly went further. The opinion of John Bright, who joined Mr. Gladstone's first ministry, has already been given. Robert Lowe, afterwards Viscount Sherbrooke, who was chancellor of the exchequer in Gladstone's first ministry, said in the House of Commons in 1865 that Canada ought to be given to understand that she was quite free to establish herself as an independent republic if she desired.8 In 1867 he again said in the House of Commons: " In the time of the American Revolution the colonies separated from England because she insisted on taxing them. What I apprehend as likely to happen now is that England will separate from the colonies because they insist on taxing her." 4 Lord Clarenden, the foreign secretary of the same administration, also expressed himself in favor of separation. Answering a letter from Lord Lyons with regard to Canada, he wrote: " I agree in every word you say about our possessions in North America, and wish that they would propose to be independent, and to annex themselves (sic). W e cannot throw them off, and it is very desirable that we should part as friends." 5 1

Knaplund, op. cit., pp. 96-7. * Ibid., p. 144. ' Hansard, 3rd series, vol. clxxviii (1865), p. 153. * Hansard, 3rd series, vol. 186 (1867), p. 762. Lord Dufferiris biographer tells us that he once wrote in a private letter: " It is perfectly true that, after I had been appointed to Canada (i. e. in 1872), Bob Lowe came up to me in a club and said ' Now you ought to make it your business to get rid of the Dominion.'" (Sir Alfred C. Lyall, Tht Life of the Marquis Dufferin (London, 1905), vol. i, p. 286.) 4 Lord T. W. L. Newton, Life of Lord Lyons (London, 1913), vol. i, p. 292.

INTRODUCTION

25

One of the most important of Gladstone's associates was Lord Granville, colonial secretary in the Gladstone administration of 1868. He was considered in the late sixties one of the leading spirits among the separatists. Writing to Lord John Russell in 1869, he said: " O u r relations with North America are of a very delicate character. The best solution would probably be that in the course of time and in the most friendly spirit the Dominion should find itself strong enough to proclaim her independence." 1 His policy toward the various colonies at that time created a belief among the public that " the Government was contemplating, if it had not positively decided upon, the dissolution of the E m p i r e . " 2 In 1868 he insisted upon withdrawing all troops from New Zealand during her troubles with the natives. In 1869 he flatly refused the request of New Zealand for imperial guarantee of a loan to aid the colony. His dispatch to the governor of New Zealand (March 2 1 , 1869) aroused the deepest indignation throughout the colony,3 and the New Zealand ministers officially recorded their conviction that the " tone and purport" of his document to them (October 7, 1868) regarding the loan indicated a desire on the part of the imperial government to sever the colony's connection with the Empire. 4 New Zealand was, however, not the only colony which had difficulties with the Colonial Office. In Canada the governor-general intimated that " the time had perhaps come for Canada to consider whether she was not ripe for independence." 6 In Australia many people believed " that independ1

E. Fitzmaurice, Life of Lord Granville (London, 1905), vol. ii, p. 22; Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 47. * Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., pp. 549 et seq. • Ibid., p. 550. *Parl. Pap., 1870, L(C.83), pp. 63, 196-7. ' Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cxcix (1870), pp. 209-210.

26

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

ence was the ultimate destiny of their country." " A t the Cape of Good Hope it was openly stated in the Parliament that independence was impending in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." 1 Sir Philip Woodehouse, former governor of the colony said: In North America, we have unmistakable indications of the rapid establishment of a powerful independent State. In Australia it is probable that its several settlements, with their great wealth and homogeneous population, will see their way to a similar coalition. In New Zealand the severance is being accomplished under very painful circumstances.* From these developments it was no wonder that the Spectator, in an article on " The New Colonial Policy " (March 26, 1870) declared " that a deliberate colonial policy of no insignificant moment has been, at all events, provisionally adopted by the present Cabinet." 3 The anxiety, however, on the part of all the imperialists was greatly relieved when Lord Granville was transferred in the summer of 1870 to the foreign office. The story of the influence of practical statesmen regarding the separatist movement would be incomplete without a special mention of the parts played by the permanent officials in the Colonial Office during the period under review. The permanent under-secretaries during the period were Sir James Stephen (1836-1847), Herman Merivale (18471859), and Sir F. Rogers, afterwards Lord Blachford (1860-1871). Sir Henry Taylor was another important official of the Colonial Office. Although not a permanent under-secretary, the influence he exerted over colonial policy 1

Schuyler, Political

Science

Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 555.

' Hansard, 3rd series, vol. cc (1870), p. 1823. ' Spectator, vol. xliii (1870), pp. 393-4. Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 556.

Quoted in Schuyler,

Political

INTRODUCTION

27

was not much less than that of any of the secretaries mentioned. Stephen's influence with colonial secretaries was so notorious that he acquired for himself the nickname of ' Mr. Mothercountry,' and ' Mr. Over-Secretary Stephen.' 1 He was considered the virtual ruler of the colonial empire for twenty-five years while serving under a succession of secretaries of state.2 He had the conviction that emancipation or separation was the ultimate destiny of all the colonies. Before he resigned his office, he made an entry in his diary on the appointment of a governor-general of Canada to the effect that it might be the last to be made.8 Merivale was once a professor of political economy at Oxford. In his lectures on colonization and colonies he advocated free trade and attacked the old colonial system.4 He believed that the colonies would ultimately become independ1 Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 49. Stephen's position regarding colonies was defended by his two sons, Sir James Fitzjames and Sir Leslie. Their views are supported by Paul Knaplund, who is convinced that a study of the confidential notes, minutes, and memoranda written or dictated by Stephen during his office tends to lend support to the claim made by Stephen's sons. In his opinion, Stephen believed that England owed her strength and place to the colonies and that they should not be cast off. H e wished the connection between the colonies and England to be perpetual but thought that it should be voluntary. (See Paul Knaplund, " Sir James Stephen and British North American Problems, 1840-1847," The Canadian Historical Review, March, 1924, pp. 3-4, 19-20). Dr. Knaplund says that he can find nothing in Stephen's official record which would contradict his statement made at the Social Science Congress held in Liverpool, 1858: " Our colonies are among the most valuable of the many blessings which Providence has bestowed on our land." (See Paul Knaplund, " Mr. Over-Secretary Stephen," The Journal of Modern History, vol. i, pp. 40-66, March, 1929.)

' Autobiography of Henry Taylor ( N e w York, 1885), vol. ii, pp. 300301. Quoted in Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 549. • Leslie Stephen, Life of Sir James Fitzjames p. 494 Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 49.

Stephen

(London, 1895),

28

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

ent. Writing in the Fortnightly Review for February 1870, he admitted that " the object of our statesmen has been twofold : to encourage the colonies to prepare for independence for their own sake, and at the same time, to relieve the people of this country from the share which they formerly bore in contributing towards administration and defence." Goldwin Smith once said that Rogers shared his views on colonial policy.1 In his autobiographical notes Rogers wrote: I had always believed — and the belief has so confirmed and consolidated itself that I can hardly realize the possibility of anyone seriously thinking the contrary—that the destiny of our colonies is independence; and that, in this point of view, the function of the Colonial Office is to secure that our connection, while it lasts, shall be as profitable to both parties, and our separation, when it comes, as amicable as possible.2 In 1865 he wrote to Sir Henry Taylor: " I go very far with you in the desire to shake off all responsibly governed colonies, and as to North America, I think if we abandon one we had better abandon all. . . . I also go far with you in hating the talk about prestige." 11 Taylor's views were even more extreme. In 1852 he wrote to Lord Grey, then colonial secretary, that he regarded the North American colonies as " a most dangerous possession to this country, whether likely to breed a war with the United States, or to make a war otherwise generated more grievous and disastrous." He added: " I do not suppose the provinces to be useless to us at present, but I regard 'Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences

( N e w York, 1910), p. 169.

Letters of Frederic Lord Blackford, ed. by G. E. Marindin (London, 1896), pp. 299-300. Quoted in Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 548. 1

' Autobiography op. cit., p. 49-

of Henry Taylor, vol. ii, p. 241, quoted in Bodelsen,

INTRODUCTION

29

any present uses not obtainable from them as independent nations to be no more than the dust of the balance as compared with the evil contingencies." 1 In 1864 Sir Henry again wrote to his chief, the Duke of Newcastle: As to our American possessions, I have long held and often expressed the opinion that they are a sort of damnosa haereditas; and when your Grace and the Prince of Wales were employing yourselves so successfully in conciliating the colonists, I thought that you were drawing closer ties which might better be slackened if there were any chance of their slipping away altogether. I think that a policy which has regard to a not very far-off future should prepare facilities and propensities for separation.2 Finally, a brief mention should be made of the important literature advocating colonial independence during the period. Sir George Cornewall Lewis published his Essay on the Government of Dependencies in 1841. In that work he wrote: " If a dominant country understood the true nature of the advantages arising from the relation of supremacy and dependence to the related communities, it would voluntarily recognize the legal independence of such of its own dependencies as were fit for Independence." " It would, by its political arrangements," he added, " study to prepare for independence those which were still unable to stand alone." 8 His book was considered at the time as the standard treatise on its subject and exercised a great influence upon the public. He himself once held a cabinet seat as secretary of state for war in 1862. 1 May 6, Correspondences of Sir Henry Taylor, ed. by Edward Dowden (London, 1888), p. 200. * Feb. 26, Autobiography of Henry Taylor, vol. ii, p. 234, quoted in Schuyler, Political Science Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 549. 5

Ibid., p. 544; Bodelsen, op. cit., p. 39.

•JO

FEDERATION

OF

THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

J. A . Roebuck's The Colonies of England appeared in 1849: Arthur Mills' Colonial Constitutions came in 1856. Both Roebuck and Mills were prominent members in the House of Commons. Roebuck admitted " that the colonies under the present system were an unnecessary burden and a source of unprofitable expense." 1 But in the case of Canada, he believed " that independence was the only alternative to annexation to the United States." In his book Mills wrote: " T o ripen those communities to the earliest possible maturity—social, political, and commercial—to qualify them, by all the appliances within the reach of a parent State, for present self-government, and eventually independence, is now the universally admitted object and aim of our colonial policy." 2 The publication of Henry (afterwards Lord) Thring's pamphlet entitled Suggestions for Colonial Reform (1865) was immediately followed by Viscount Bury's work entitled Exodus of the Western Nations. Thring was an expert parliamentary draftsman and held important positions in the treasury and home office for many years. In knowledge of parliamentary legislation few men surpassed him. His views about colonies were far from being visionary. In his proposed scheme he attempted to define the relations between the mother country and the colonies at various stages of their existence. The plan included rules governing the occupation of the territories by new settlers, their subsequent organization as a colony with representative institutions, and the procedure by which a colony might declare its desire for independence.3 Bury, in his pamphlet, expressed his conviction that the separation of the colonies was inevitable and that it should 1

Bodelsen, op. cit., pp. 39-40.

2 Ibid., pp. 40, 44' Schuyler, Political

Science

Quarterly,

loc. cit., p. 542.

INTRODUCTION

31

be prepared for. " The wisest statesman," he said, " is not he who would by any shift postpone the inevitable day, but he who most clearly recognizes signs of maturity and seizes the right moment for separation." He approved Thring's prepared bill 1 for separation and proposed to supplement it by a treaty between Great Britain and a seceding colony.2 Another important writer was Anthony Trollope." In order to get more intimate knowledge of the various colonies he went to the West Indies in 1858, to Canada in 1862, to Australia in 1872, and to South Africa in 1878. The result of his study of these colonies was four voluminous books: The West Indies and the Spanish Main (1859), North America (1862), Australia and New Zealand (1873), South Africa (1878). In these books Trollope expressed the view that separation was not only bound to come, but that it would be a desirable event. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the decade 1860-1870 was the period during which the tendency toward separation was the strongest. A n imperialist reaction, however, had already set in before the close of the decade.4 There soon followed the movement for imperial unity which may be said to have begun in 1869 with the founding of the Royal Colonial Institute, having its motto of a " United Empire ". The same sentiment was aroused at the Social Science Congress held at Bristol in 1869. A number of papers on colonial questions were read at its meetings. The campaign thus begun progressed with great rapidity. Many important conferences and meetings were held the following years in London to discuss imperial problems, and to combat separatism. 1

Schuyler, Political

Science

Quarterly,

loc. cit., p. 542.

Quarterly,

loc. cit., p. 556.

' Ibid., p. 543* Bodelsen, op. cit., pp. 50-52. 4

Schuyler, Political

Science

32

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

Evidently the politicians of all parties had overcome their old pessimism, and were professing their new faith in the future of the Empire. B y 1871 the early imperial federation movement was in full swing. 1 T h e causes of the " rebirth of imperialism," as it was called, were varied. T h e rumor that the government was ready to cut off all the colonies led to widespread apprehension. 2 T h e growth of militarism and protectionism in Europe in the seventies also " caused the self-governing colonies and the tropical dependencies to be regarded in a new light, that is, as possible sources of raw materials and of soldiers." According to Mr. Hall, however, these were only the minor causes. In his opinion the fundamental cause was the influence of the masses enfranchised in 1867 on political and on colonial policy. " T h e very word colony was a word of hope, which caused many a wistful look and brought many a bright dream into the dullness of wage-earning England. T h e colonies were places which gave the freedom, the security, the opportunity, which England denied." 8 All these causes aided in the reaction against the separatist movement. The common object of the imperialists who led the new movement against separatism was imperial unity. But as to the means and method of carrying out this ultimate goal few of them agreed. O f the various proposals and schemes for imperial unity the most important were the schemes for " Imperial Union," " Imperial Co-operation " or " Alliance " and " Imperial Federation." It is, however, only with the last scheme that we will be concerned. 1

Hall, op. ext., pp. 53-54.

* Ibid. • Ibid., pp. 54-55.

INTRODUCTION

33

I I . IMPERIAL FEDERATION : THE FIRST

PHASE

(1871-1910) T h e history of the first phase of the federal movement may, for convenience of discussion, be divided into three periods. They are the period of early activities; the period of the Imperial Federation L e a g u e ; and the period of stagnation. A. EARLY ACTIVITIES

(1871-1884)

O v e r the genesis of the idea for the federation of the British Empire, there seems to be disagreement among the authorities. In 1854, Joseph Howe, 1 former member of the executive council and speaker in Nova Scotia, delivered a speech urging imperial organization and defense. Although he has been considered by many writers the originator of the idea of imperial federation, 2 Mr. J. R. Godley, 3 the eminent N e w Zealand colonist, had advocated an imperial congress for the British Empire in 1852, two years earlier than Mr. Howe. Mr. Godley, rather than Mr. Howe, therefore, may be credited with first advocating imperial federation. T h e idea of a " Mighty Confederacy " as visioned by Robert L o w e 4 of Australia in 1844 was undoubtedly too vague to deserve consideration. T h e Rev. Williams Arthur, 6 however, advocated, probably independently, the same idea in England as early as 1853. It would seem fair therefore to give him some credit for contributing to the movement, al' Francis P. de Labilliere, Federal Britain (London, 1894), p. 9. ' Imperial Federation, vol. iv, 1889, p. 28; S. Kennedy, The ( N e w York, 1914), p. 192.

Pan-Angles

• Labilliere, op. cit., p. 8; Hall, op. cit., p. 60. Godley was sometime income-tax commissioner in Ireland and under-secretary of war. 4 Ibid., p. 6. Lowe was member of Legislative Council for New South Wales, 1843-50; first M. P. for London University, 1868-80; chancellor of thie exchequer, 1868-73; home secretary, 1873-4, etc. s

London Quarterly Review, vol. i, 1853, p. 551.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

though his proposal was considered at the time only " a voice in the wilderness." The movement in the direction of imperial federation, however, did not assume any widespread nature until toward 1870. The public attention was for the first time brought to the subject by Edward Jenkins* 1 two articles which appeared in the Contemporary Review for January and April, 1871, openly advocating an imperial parliament for the whole Empire. The idea of imperial federation was proposed by R. A . Macfie, 2 a member of Parliament and a political writer, at the meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute at about the same time. In July of the same year, there was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel a conference on colonial questions at which Labilliere 8 presented a paper on " Imperial and Colonial Federalism", advocating an imperial federal parliament and executive.14 From this time on until the formation of the Imperial Federation League, the idea of imperial federation was supported by many influential statesmen and writers. Several important works on the subject also appeared during the same period. The most interesting, if not the most important, change of opinion on the part of statesmen is per1 Edward Jenkins was agent-general for Canada, 1874-76 and a member of the royal commission on copyright, 1876-77. He was also a member of Parliament, 1874-80. 1

Royal Colonial Institute Proceedings, vol. iii, 1871-2, p. 2.

' Labilliere, an Australian lawyer, was among the earliest advocates of imperial federation; one of the founders of the Imperial Federation League; and member of the Council of the Royal Colonial Institute (1874-81). H e was the first to suggest the annexation of Eastern New Guinea in a long letter addressed in 1874 to the secretary of state for the colonies, a copy of which was sent, with a covering despatch, by the Earl of Carnarvon to each of the governors of the Australian colonies. H e also published two volumes of Early History of the Colony of Victoria in 1878. 4

Labilliere, op. cit., p. 21.

INTRODUCTION

35

haps the view expressed by Lord Beaconsfield, who in 1852 considered the colonies a millstone around the neck of Great Britain. 1 In 1872, he was speaking in favor of " Imperial Consolidation" and a " representative council." * Earl Russell is another important statesman who seems to have expressed his opinion in favor of imperial federation sometime before 1873. In his Recollections and Suggestions from 1813-1873, 3 he said: " I am disposed to believe that if a Congress or Assembly representing Great Britain and her dependencies could be convoked from time to time, to sit for some months in the autumn, arrangements reciprocally beneficial might be made." Mr. Edward Blake,4 one of the most distinguished public men of Canada, and then a member of the British House of Commons, also advocated imperial federation in 1874. He declared : I took, three or four years ago, an opportunity of speaking, and ventured to suggest that an effort should be made to reorganise the Empire upon a Federal basis. I repeat what I then said, that the time may be at hand when the people of Canada shall be called upon to discuss the question. Sir Julius Vogel of New Zealand, another eminent colonial statesman, wrote in 1877 supporting the cause of imperial federation. 5 But the greatest impetus given by prominent statesmen to the federal movement during this early period is perhaps the address delivered in Edinburgh in 1875 by 1

Williamson, op. cit., p. 619.

* Labilliere, op. cit., pp. 21-22. ' Ibid., p. 14. 4

Ibid., p. 10.

Sir Julius V o g e l , " Greater and Lesser Britain," Canadian 1877, vol. xii, pp. 232-246. 5

Monthly,

FEDERATION

36

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

W . E . Forster 1 who was destined to lead the Imperial Federation League during the early part of its life. In his address may be found this striking passage: " May not we and our Colonists together, by the exercise of some mutual forbearance, by willingness to incur some mutual sacrifice, hope to transform our Colonial Empire into a federation of peaceful, industrious, law-abiding commonwealths." Aside from the support given by various statesmen both in the mother country and in the colonies, the discussions at public meetings together with writings appearing in different magazines and special works on the subject did much to advance the federal cause. A t the Social Science Congress held in October, 1872, at Davenport, Jenkins and Labilliere again presented papers on imperial federation. 2 In the same year, the idea was strongly supported by an article which appeared in Frazer's Magazine, written by a colonist of twenty years' standing." The valuable work on imperial federation by Mr. Jehu Mathews * was published in the same year. In 1874 the subject of imperial relations was ably presented by C. W . E d d y 6 at the Glasgow meeting of the Social Science Congress. In the following year Labilliere presented his important paper on " The Permanent Unity of the Empire " at the meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute. 1 Labilliere, op. cit., pp. 26-27. Forster was member of Parliament, 1861-86; under-secretary ior the colonies, 1865; and chief secretary for Ireland in Gladstone's ministry, 1880.

* Ibid., p. 21. 'Ibid. * Jehu Mathews, A Colonist on the Colonial Question (Toronto, 1872). Jehu Mathews, author and journalist, was for many years on the editorial staff of the Toronto Mail. He was a contributor to The Canadian Monthly and National Review (Toronto, 1872-78). In 1890 he wrote a series of papers for the Imperial Federation League under the title, What is Imperial Federationt 5

Royal

Colonial Institute Proceedings,

vol. vi, 1874-5, P- 5-

INTRODUCTION

37

The opening of the influential journal Colonies1 in 1875 to correspondence bearing upon the discussions of imperial federation lent much encouragement and brought forward many valuable contributions to the federal cause. Finally, Sir Frederick Young's 2 important work, Imperial Federation, chiefly summarizing the result of discussions published in Colonies appeared in the following year. The publication of John Robert Seely's Expansion of England in 1883, which subsequently became a classic on British colonial questions, immediately before the formation of the Imperial Federation League, represented the culmination of imperialistic enthusiasm in this period.8 B. T H E I M P E R I A L FEDERATION L E A G U E

(1884-1893)

The final fruit of the imperial federation movement during the early period was the institution of the Imperial Federation League 4 in 1884. The organization was promoted by a small committee formed at the suggestion of Mr. Labilliere and Sir John Colomb.5 The committee soon se1

Frederick Young, Imperial Federation

Sir author took a of the 2

(London, 1876), passim.

Frederick was vice-president of the Royal Colonial Institute and of a number of books on colonial problems. For many years he very active and prominent part in promoting the permanent union mother country and the colonies.

• See Bodelsen, op. cit., pp. 149-170. Seeley was Professor of Latin at University College, London, 1863; Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, 1869-95; and author of the Growth of British Policy, 1895 and Lectures on Political Science, 1895. 4 Labilliere, op. cit., pp. 28-30; Lord Brassey, Papers and Addresses, 1880-1894 (London, 1894), pp. 7 - 1 1 ; A . L. Burt, Imperial Architects ( O x f o r d , 1913), pp. 216-225; A . F. Hattersley, The Colonies and Imperial Federation ( Pietermaritzburg, 1919), pp. 58-80; W . E. Worsford, The Empire on the Anvil (London, 1916), pp. 19-42; Hall, op. cit., pp. 67-9.

» Sir John was captain of the navy (retired, i860) ; chairman of appeals commission under local government (Ireland) act, 1898; member of Parliament, 1886-92 and 1895-1906; and author of numerous publications on imperial defense.

38

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

cured the support of Mr. W . E . Forster and was enlarged to include many prominent colonists such as Sir Daniel Cooper, Bart., (New South Wales), R . R . Dobell (Canada), William Gisborne (New Zealand), and S i r Samuel Wilson (Victoria). At a conference held at the Westminster Palace Hotel on November 18, 1884 under the presidency of Mr. Forster, the Imperial Federation League was formally established and a general committee was appointed to conduct the affairs of the League. The motion for the founding of the League was proposed by the Marquis of Normandy, seconded by Lord Knutsford, and supported by Mr. Edward Stanhope. The second resolution appointing the committee was moved by S i r John A. MacDonald, the premier of Canada, and seconded by Sir William F o x , former premier of New Zealand. 1 The purpose and goal of the League was soon made clear by the resolutions 2 finally adopted: 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 invites the support of men of all political parties. Although the League was organized chiefly to advance the cause of imperial federation, its ultimate goal was not confined to a federation in the real sense. It did not actually aim at the establishment of a federal parliament. This was frankly stated by Mr. Forster at the opening of the confer1

Labillierc, op. cit., pp. 28-30.

s

Worsfold, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

INTRODUCTION

39

ence. Thus he declared: " W e do not by any means bind ourselves to a particular form of Federal Parliament. It may be effected by representation in the Imperial Parliament, or it may be a Council of Representatives of the Colonies." The term " Imperial Federation," was intended " to convey the notion that ultimately, hereafter, there must be a union, in some form or other, of England with her Colonies, on terms of perfect equality to the Colonies as well as to England." 1 In spite of the fact that many prominent men became members of the League and supported the federal movement, there were serious disagreements among the leaders as to the method of attaining the goal. They avoided the conflict of their opinions only by confining themselves to the advocacy of generalities. Thus declared Mr. W . H. Smith: 2 " They were not there to discuss the details of any scheme of federation, but only to insist on the principle of unity. Federation at present meant only an aspiration." s Mr. Hall * has well pointed out that " by treating Imperial Federation as if it were synonymous with the much wider and more general concept of Imperial Unity the League was able to rope in many who were not strictly federalists." According to him there were, in fact, three conflicting parties within the League: ( i ) Those who took a broad view and urged full parliamentary federation as the only practical means of securing the general government of the Empire—this was also the free trade group; (2) the military party who looked on federation primarily as a means of securing contributions from the Colonies 1

Worsfold, op. cit., p. 21.

* Smith was First Lord of the Admiralty in Lord Beaconsfield's Government, 1877-1880 and one of the founders of the League. 5

Hattersley, op. cit., p. 59.

4

Hall, op. cit., pp. 68-9.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

for the English army and navy; (3) the preferential trade group who, whilst regarding anything like parliamentary federation as impracticable, desired to secure Imperial unity by means of commercial bonds supplemented by some sort of consultative Council. Despite the defects of the organization, the League during its existence from 1884 to 1893 accomplished much 1 in promoting the cause of imperial federation. First of all it educated the public opinion of the Empire to the meaning of the idea and the need of imperial unity by means of meetings, lectures, publications, etc. It also sent a special advocate, in the person of Dr. Parkin, to various parts of the Empire for the same purpose. Under the leadership and inspiration of the League different branches were organized throughout the whole Empire to promote the same cause.2 The journal Imperial Federation, issued monthly by the League for the years 1886 to 1893, also did great service in educating the public. These eight volumes not only constitute a storehouse of information upon every aspect of the problem of imperial unity, but also represent all shades and phases of oversea British opinion on the subject of imperial federation. It was through the effort of the deputation of the League sent to the prime minister, Lord Salisbury, on August 11, 1886, that the first colonial conference was called by the government in 1887 to discuss imperial questions. The League also played an important part in promoting the Ottawa Conference of 1894. The recognition of the necessity for a periodical conference was another achievement of the League. The words of its president, Lord Rosebery, uttered in 1889, told what the League had been working on. He said: 1

Worsfold, op. cit., pp. 38-34.

' Ibid., pp. 23-35.

INTRODUCTION

41

I have always felt since [the meeting of the Conference of 1887], that the existence of what is called Imperial or National Federation depended upon the periodical continuance and renewal of those Conferences. Now I have ventured to lay that view before the League, and they have cordially concurred with me in taking it up. They are prepared to limit and define their exertion, for the present at any rate, to the promoting, and maintaining, and stimulating of those Imperial Conferences. 1 On J u n e 1 7 , 1 8 9 1 , the L e a g u e sent another deputation to the premier, L o r d Salisbury, to urge the convocation, at the earliest timely date, of a Conference of the self-governing countries of the Empire, to consider the question of securing to them a real and effective share in the privileges and responsibilities of a United Empire, under conditions which are consistent with the present political constitution of the United Kingdom and with the self-government possessed by the Colonies. 2 In taking up the challenge of the premier, that " schemes should be proposed " before anything could be done, the L e a g u e appointed a select committee to work out definite proposals by which imperial federation might be realized. T h e scheme submitted by the committee dated J u l y 1 8 9 2 was, in the opinion of M r . W o r s f o l d , a remarkable document which brought nearer an organic union of the Empire than any earlier or subsequent plan f o r its attainment formulated before the outbreak of the war. The advances of the last twenty years—the institution of the periodical Imperial Conference, the constitution of the Imperial Defence Committee, improved means of communication, the appointment of leading Colonial jurists to the Judicial Com1

Worsfold, op. cit., p. 31.

* Ibid., pp. 31-2.

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

mittee of the Privy Council, the leges by the Dominions to each dom, and the establishment of anticipated, and transcended, by

EMPIRE

grant of reciprocal trade priviother and to the United Kingan Imperial penny post — are its recommendations.1

The scheme was laid before Mr. Gladstone, who had succeeded Lord Salisbury as prime minister, by a deputation of the League on April 1 3 , 1893 but was rejected by the Premier on the ground that its proposals did not constitute the " definite scheme " for which Lord Salisbury had asked. In view of the fact that the leaders would not agree to any more definite scheme, because of the diverse elements within the organization, the League was dissolved on November 24, 1893. Apart from the work of the League there were efforts of individuals who either within or without the League played such important parts in advancing the cause that they deserve to be specially mentioned here. In addition to the familiar names of Labilliere, Jehu Mathews and Sir Frederick Young, who wrote or spoke constantly on the subject of imperial federation, there were a number of influential writers whose articles appeared from time to time in the columns of various magazines. Among them were Sir Samuel Wilson, Frederick Wicks, E . Guthrie, C. Ransome, N. D. Davis and M. H. Hervey, with whose suggestions and schemes we shall deal further in the following chapters.2 The paper read by Sir G. F. Bowen, 8 at the meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute in 1885, supporting the proposal for imperial federation, greatly helped the movement. Since the author was a statesman of thirty years' experience in colonial government, his opinion carried weight. 1

Worsfold, op. cit., p. 37. ' Cf. infra, chaps ii and in. ' Sir George Ferguson Bowen, " The Federation of the British Empire ", Royal Colonial Institute Proceedings, vol. xvii, 1885, p. 282.

INTRODUCTION

43

The appearance of James Anthony Froude's 1 Oceana in 1886 and Sir Charles W . Dilke's 2 Problems of Greater Britain in 1890 did no less than Seeley's Expansion of England in educating the public to the value of the Empire and in arousing interest in imperialism. In 1886, the London Chamber of Commerce offered a prize for a best essay on the plan for the federation of the colonies and the mother country. Both Seeley and Froude acted as judges. The fact that 106 papers were submitted for the contest clearly indicated that the public was awake to the problem. A s a result, a book entitled England and Her Colonies was published in 1887, containing five selected essays on different schemes for the federation of the Empire. In 1890, Imperial Federation by G. R. Parkin 3 (later Sir George R. Parkin) made its appearance. In it the author urged a consolidation of the Empire through the channel of federation. Although Parkin's book embodied the views of an influential advocate of imperial federation, it contained no defi1 Froude, the chief disciple of Carlyle, was considered one of the greatest writers of English prose in the nineteenth century. He published many interesting books on English history and literature. He was the editor of Frazer's Magazine, 1860-74 and extensively visited various British colonies during 1874-5 and 1884-7. He took the chair as Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, 1892-4. * Sir Charles W . Dilke held many important government positions. He served as under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, 1880-82; president of the local government board, 1882-85, etc. He published his first book on colonies, entitled Greater Britain, in 1868. • Parkin was principal of Upper Canada College, 1895-1902; organizing representative of the Rhodes Scholarship Trust since 1902; president of the Royal Geographical Society, 1912; and knighted, 1920. He visited most of the British colonies and delivered an unlimited number of lectures on behalf of the cause of imperial federation with great success. Thus, his biographer wrote of Sir George: " For thirty years few public men were so often upon the platform as he." Cf. Sir John Willison, Sir George Parkin, London, 1929.

44

FEDERATION

OF

THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

nite proposal for the change. There appeared, however, at about the same time, two other interesting monographs which did present definite schemes, the details of which we shall scan. Arch. McGoun's 1 A Federal Parliament of the British People published in 1890, and Thomas Macfarlane's 2 Within the Empire published in 1891, both advocated a federation of the Empire. It is interesting to note that all the three authors were loyal colonists from Canada. This period may therefore be said to represent the zenith of the early federal movement. C. T H E PERIOD OF S T A G N A T I O N A N D T H E W O R K I N G OF T H E IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

(1893-I9IO)

A f t e r the dissolution of the League, its city branch, which changed its name to the British Empire League, and the oversea branches still remained in operation. In addition to these branches there arose two independent organizations advocating respectively " preferential trade " and " imperial defense " : the " United Empire Trade League " (1891) and the " Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee ". s Their efforts, however, were not very successful, due to the collapse of the main league. A period of stagnation in the movement was bound to ensue. 1 McGoun was for many years professor of law at McGill his alma mater. H e was long identified with the imperial movement; was vice-president of the Quebec Imperial League and of the British Empire League in Canada; and several monographs on imperial problems.

University, federation Federation author of

' Macfarlane was a prominent scientist. H e was appointed a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, 1882 and became president of its chemical section. In 1886 he was chief analyst to the inland revenue and customs departments. H e was long identified with the imperial federation movement f r o m 1885, and wrote and published many articles and papers on the subject. ' W o r s f o l d , op. cit., p. 42; J. S. E w a r t , The Kingdom (Toronto, 1908), pp. 164-5; Hall, op. cit., p. 70 n.

of

Canada

INTRODUCTION

45

" With its dissolution," in the words of Mr. Hall, 1 " the early federation movement practically came to an end, though it was nursed back again into a feeble life by the efforts of Joseph Chamberlain (colonial secretary, 1895-1903) to secure federation via the market place, and by the temporary stimulus of the Boer war." Its end was said to have come finally at the Colonial Conference of 1902. But one writer, 4 at least, felt that the dissolution of the League did not mean the end of the movement. In fact the federalists never gave up their hope. Mr. Chamberlain 8 thought imperial federation a matter so important and so complicated that it could not be accomplished immediately. " It does not follow ", he declared, " that on that account we should give up our aspirations." He believed that the federalists should not try to do everything at once, but should approach the goal in a different way, following the line of least resistance. It was necessary at first to establish " common interests " and " common obligations." Having done this, it would be natural that some sort of representative authority should grow up to deal with the interests and the obligations thus created. In spite of the unfavorable conditions, many advances toward the idea of imperial unity were made during this period. The institution of the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1904, an imperial organ for coordinating the defense policies of the Empire, and the imperial conferences held in 1897, 1902, and 1907 respectively, brought important results. The Committee of Imperial Defence was substantially the work of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Com1

Hall, op. cit., p. 70 n.

G. B. Adams, " Rise of Imperial Federalism," the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894 (Washington, 1896), pp. 25-27. 2

• R. Jebb, Imperial Conference

(London, 1911), vol. i, p. 305.

46

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

mittee. 1

T h e constitution of such a committee greatly im-

proved the situation with respect to the defense of the E m pire.

There were at least three advantages: the removal of

the army and navy from the arena of party politics; the handling of defense questions generally from an imperial, as against a merely national, point of v i e w ; and the representation of self-governing colonies in the deliberations. T h e contributions of these imperial conferences toward imperial unity may be briefly described.

A t the Conference

of 1 8 9 7 , Mr. Chamberlain, the colonial secretary, advocated three important things: an imperial council,

preferential

treatment within the Empire, and colonial contributions to the imperial navy. 2

In response to Mr. Chamberlain's ap-

peal Cape Colony made an annual contribution to the cost of the royal n a v y ; and in the following year Canada granted a preference of 1 2 ^ per cent to countries of the British E m pire.

But nothing was accomplished by his advocacy of an

imperial council. A t the Imperial Conference of 1 9 0 2

8

M r . Chamberlain

again advocated an imperial council which was again rejected by the representatives.

But other important progress

was made along the lines of preferential trade and imperial defense.

All colonial representatives agreed to recommend

the proposal for preferential treatment to their respective governments.

A s a result " preferential treatment to United

Kingdom products was accorded by N e w Zealand and South A f r i c a in 1 9 0 3 , and by Australia in 1 9 0 7 ; while a much higher rate of preference than that granted in 1 8 9 8 , an average of 2 8 per cent, was granted in the same year by Canada." * 1

The Australasian naval agreement made at the Col-

Worsfold, op. cit., p. 45.

* Jebb, op. cit., pp. 322-6. * Ibid., pp. 354-7, 360, 366-7; Worsfold, op. cit., pp. 52-4. 4

Ibid.

INTRODUCTION

47

onial Conference of 1887 was amended, raising the annual contribution of Australia and N e w Zealand and increasing the strength of the squadron. Cape Colony and Natal also increased their annual naval contributions while Newfoundland made a new annual offer. Other subsidiary questions such as an imperial court of appeal and imperial communications, were also discussed at the conference with some success. A resolution was also passed for holding imperial conference at intervals not exceeding four years. Although Mr. Chamberlain did not succeed in his advocacy of an imperial council at the two conferences, his successor Mr. Lyttelton as colonial secretary made another attempt at imperial organization. In a circular despatch of April 20, 1902, 1 sent to the colonial governments, he made suggestions for changing the title of the imperial conference to imperial council, and for installing a permanent secretariat and commission of inquiry to attend to whatever unfinished business might be referred to it by the council and to prepare subjects for discussion at the coming meetings. W i t h the principle and details of these proposals the governments of the Cape, Natal, and Australia declared themselves to be in complete accord. New Zealand postponed her reply, while Newfoundland and Canada strongly voiced their opposition. Meantime an influential committee under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Pollock made public the result of an investigation of imperial organization (press of March 14, 1907). Their proposals were similar to those contained in Mr. Lyttelton's circular despatch. They also advocated a permanent secretariat for giving the conference continuity, and an efficient intelligence department for collecting information and preparing subjects for discussion at future conferences. A t the Imperial Conference of 1907

2

Mr. Deakin again

1

W o r s f o l d , op. cit., pp. 54-61.

2

Ibid., pp. 65-7; Jebb, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 69-70, IOI, 102-3, 115-125.

48

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

advocated an imperial council. He was supported by delegates of New Zealand and Cape Colony. But Canada was opposed to the suggestion as she had been before to the proposal of Mr. Lyttelton. Mr. Deakin's proposal for a permanent secretariat to serve as a link both between the conferences and between the governments was also supported by Sir Joseph Ward and Dr. Jameson, who represented New Zealand and Cape Colony respectively. The final result of the discussion, a compromise for the proposal of Mr. Deakin, was to change the Colonial conference to the Imperial conference and to establish a secretariat in the Colonial Office. Other achievements in the direction of imperial unity which resulted from the conference were: the recognition of the importance of subsidiary conferences, the constitution of the Dominion Division of the Colonial Office, the recognition of the improved status of the colonies by thereafter styling them " Dominions ", the reconstitution of the membership of the conference, the appointment of dominion judges to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the reduction of cost and improvement of inter-imperial communications of all kinds, etc. In spite of the eclipse of imperial federalism during this period, efforts were made by individual advocates to keep alive the interest of the public. Several interesting books were published on the subject. Labilliere's Federal Britain appeared in 1894, embodying chiefly his early writings. Granville C. Cuningham 1 reaffirmed his faith in imperial federation in 1895 by publishing his monograph, A Scheme for Imperial Federation. It contained his series of articles contributed to the Westminster Review in 1879 with an introduction by Sir Frederick Young and his own brief postscript. 1 Cuningham was a prominent Canadian civil engineer and held the positions of chief engineer and managing director of various railways in Canada and England.

INTRODUCTION

49

In 1896 T . A . Spalding 1 published his Federation and Empire exposing the advantages and disadvantages of a federal system for Great Britain which in many respects hold equally true for a federal system for the Empire. Although articles appeared in various magazines from time to time, no important book was written on the subject until 1910 when P. A . Silburn 2 published The Governance of Empire proposing a scheme for federation of the Empire. I I I . I M P E R I A L FEDERATION : T H E SECOND P H A S E (SINCE 1 9 1 0 )

The history of the second phase of the federal movement may be sub-divided into two periods: the period of the revival of federalism and the Round Table group; and the period of the decline of federalism and the progress of imperial conference. A . T H E REVIVAL OF FEDERALISM AND T H E ROUND TABLE GROUP

(1910-1917)

The new federal movement may be said to have begun in the latter part of 1910. This was the time when groups of men belonging to all political parties were formed in various centres in Great Britain, in India and in various dominions for studying the imperial problem.3 They were known as the " Round Table g r o u p " under the leadership of Mr. Lionel Curtis. The Round Table, their organ, was started at the same time. But the new enthusiasm for federal union 1 Spalding was a prominent lawyer and author of the House of Lords: a Retrospect and a Forecast, etc.

* Colonel Silburn served as staff officer of the Transvaal; secretary of the national defence commission; member of the legislative assembly of Natal; he was the author of The Colonies and Imperial Defence. ' L. Curtis, The Problem of the Commonwealth (Toronto, 1916), p. v (preface).

50

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

was greatly aroused by Sir Joseph Ward, the premier of New Zealand, who at the Imperial Conference 1 held in 1911, proposed a scheme for an imperial parliament of defense. Although Sir Joseph's proposal was rejected because the representatives of a majority of the dominions were opposed to any fundamental change of the constitution, the federal cause was kept alive by the activities of the members of the Round Table group.2 Then came the European W a r and all the important imperial issues of foreign policy, imperial defense and so forth, were forced to the fore. All these furnished new impetus to the agitation for a federal union. The campaign for imperial federation was carried on from 1911 to 1917 in each self-governing state of the Empire with extraordinary ability and vigour by the Round Table group.' Although The Problem of the Commonwealth, published in 1916 by Mr. Lionel Curtis, leader of the Round Table group, does not claim to represent the view of any individuals except himself, it discloses the opinion and principles of the group generally. Besides, Mr. Curtis did emphasize the fact that the conclusions he arrived at in his book were mainly based upon the criticisms he received from, and the materials collected by, the members of the Round Table group. In his book Mr. Curtis strongly advocated the establishment of an imperial parliament and an imperial executive for managing imperial affairs. In his opinion the imperial conference was not an adequate means of co-operation. Rather, he thought that the only way for the dominions to secure control over imperial foreign policy was through their representation in a federal parliament to be created for the whole Empire.4 1

Proceedings

of the Imperial Conference,

' Hall, op. ctt., p. 204. »Ibid. 4

Curtis, op. cit., passim.

1911 (Cd. 5745).

INTRODUCTION

51

Although many dominion statesmen had been demanding a change of the then existing constitutional relations in order that they might secure better control over foreign policy, f e w of them really wanted a federal parliament such as was advocated by the Round Table group. 1 On the other hand the most influential of them objected to this idea. 2 T h e result of the debate on the future constitution of the Empire at the Imperial W a r Conference of 1 9 1 7 was the adoption of a constitutional resolution 8 which dealt a death blow to the federal cause. Since this constitutional resolution has a close bearing upon the new federal movement, it warrants quotation in full as f o l l o w s : The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and f o r such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. T h e resolution seems to lay down the principle that any 1

H a l l , op. cit., pp. 1 6 1 - 2 .

* Ibid., pp. 200-204. • Ibid., pp. 176-7.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

future constitutional readjustment should be based upon " continuous consultation " and " concerted action," pointing evidently to the ideal of " an intimate society of equal and autonomous states " rather than to imperial federation. In Mr. Hall's opinion, the resolution was the result of much private discussion and was carefully constructed to shut out completely the solution of imperial federation. 1 Although the federal movement came to an end in 1917, many things had been achieved during this period in improving imperial relations. Some of the constitutional developments were diametrically opposed to the idea of federation and would not have met with the approval of the federalists, but they all contributed to the development of machinery for empire governance and imperial unity and had been due directly or indirectly to federal agitation. Although the Imperial Conference of 1911 rejected Sir Joseph Ward's proposal for imperial federation, it accomplished much along the lines of an imperial court of appeal, the common enforcement of judgments, improvement of trade and postal communications, etc.* The most important constitutional developments during this period were the admittance of the dominions into the secrets of British foreign policy and the institution of an Imperial W a r Cabinet. A t the meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence 8 in 1911, Sir Edward Grey, then British foreign minister, made a complete review of British foreign policy and exposed all its secrets to the dominion representatives attending the meeting. " The representatives of the Dominions ", in the words of Mr. Fisher, prime minister of Australia, " have been admitted, as it were, into the interior, into the innermost parts of the 1

Hall, op. cit., p. 177.

* Proceedings op. cit., p. 69.

of the Imperial Conference,

• Curtis, op. cit., p. 108.

1911 (Cd. 5745) ; Worsfold,

INTRODUCTION

53

Imperial households." 1 The practice and the success of the Imperial War Cabinet 2 during the war period made valuable contribution to the imperial machinery and gave hope for the future institution of a successful imperial executive. Although the imperial federation movement during this period centred around the Round Table group, there were individual writers and statesmen who advocated imperial federation although they had not identified themselves with the group. With no attempt to draw a line between the members and non-members of the Round Table group, mention may be made here of several important books and articles written with the sole purpose of advocating the cause of imperial federation. Sir John G. Findlay, attorney-general of New Zealand and her representative at the Imperial Conference of 1911 as Sir Joseph Ward's colleague, published in 1912 his book entitled The Imperial Conference of ipn From Within, defending Sir Joseph's views expressed at that conference. In the same year, another book, The Problem of Empire Governance by Charles E. T . Stuart-Linton, presented a detailed scheme for imperial federation. Sinclair Kennedy's The Pan-Angles (1914) advocated federation not only of the British Empire, but of all the English-speaking people in the world, including the United States. The most important books are, however, those written by Lionel Curtis " and William Basil Worsfold, 4 chiefly ex1

Curtis, op. cit., p. 108.

* Hall, op. cit., pp. 167-76. * Curtis served in the South A f r i c a n w a r ; was assistant secretary to the Transvaal for local government; member of the Transvaal legislative council; Beit lecturer on colonial history at O x f o r d ; secretary to the Irish conference, 1921; adviser on Irish affairs in the Colonial Office, 1921-24; and author of Dyarchy, 1920. * Worsfold lectured on economics and literature for the Oxford E x tension Delegates and London Joint Board, 1891-1900, and was editor of

54

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

pounding the views of the Round Table group. Mr. Curtis' first book, The Problem of the Commonwealth, mentioned above, was followed by The Commonwealth of Nations which appeared in 1916 and which was to be the first of a series of three volumes on the subject. Worsfold's The Empire on the Anvil was published in the same year. These books, by Curtis and Worsfold, although not identical in views, were the ablest presentations of the idea of imperial federation, and greatly influenced public opinion. Immediately following these publications, two other interesting monographs made their appearance: Pan-Britannic Imperialism ( 1 9 x 7 ) by Walter Eves Wismer and Notes on the Constitutional Reconstruction of the Empire ( 1 9 1 7 ) by the Right Honourable J. A . Murray MacDonald. 1 Both presented schemes for the federation of the Empire, to which we shall return later. Although MacDonald's monograph was brief, it presented most able arguments for imperial federation on constitutional grounds. B.

BRITISH

FEDERALISM SINCE

I9I7

T h e federationists had pinned their great hope in the convening of a constitutional conference to settle all the difficult problems regarding imperial organization, to which they had been calling attention for the last forty or more years. But the door was closed to any future discussion of imperial federation at some hoped-for conference when the decisive views of the statesmen were expressed in the constitutional resolution of 1917. A t the same time, a rival school which stood for freedom and co-operation had gradually established firmer foothold. Professor Williamson, the author of the Johannesburg Star, 1904-5. He was the author of a number of books on South Africa, Egypt, and other colonies. 1 MacDonald was a member of the London school board for Marylebone in 1897 and 1900. A f t e r 1916 he was a member of Parliament.

INTRODUCTION

55

the History of British Expansion, has emphasized the fact that the year 1917 may " be taken as marking a distinct check to federation and the transference of the rival policy of the Britannic Alliance from the stage of discussion to that of accomplishment." 1 Moreover, during the years immediately following the adoption of the constitutional resolution and before the convening of the next conference, various political parties and the press in the dominions and in Great Britain 2 had openly declared against the idea of federal union. These statements and resolutions did a great deal to prevent further progress of the federal movement. H. D. Hall, writing in 1920, stated that because of the defeat of 1917, and of subsequent blows, imperial federation was further from realization than at any other time in its history.3 A t the beginning of the Conference 4 of Prime Ministers and Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and India of 1921, Mr. Hughes, the representative of Australia, expressed his apprehension over the motives behind the demand for calling a constitutional conference. In his opening speech at the conference, he declared: " We have all the rights of self-government enjoyed by independent nations. That being the position, what is the Constitutional Conference going to do? The proposal to hold a Constitutional Conference is causing considerable anxiety, at any rate in Australia." 5 In his opinion, material progress had kept pace with constitutional developments, and on that basis, he urged that matters be left as they were. As a result of discussion between representatives attending the con1

W i l l i a m s o n , op. cit., p. 624.

2

H a l l , op. cit., pp. 205-8.

5

Ibid.,

4

Proceedings

5

Ibid.,

p. 204. of

pp. 22-3.

the Imperial

Conference,

1921

(Cmd.

1474).

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

ference, the problem of convening a constitutional conference was finally shelved by the following resolution: 1 The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions, having carefully considered the recommendation of the Imperial War Conference of 1917 . . . . have reached the following conclusions: (a) Continuous consultation, to which the Prime Ministers attach no less importance than the Imperial War Conference of 1917, can only be secured by a substantial improvement in the communications between the component parts of the Empire. Having regard to the constitutional developments since 1917, no advantage is to be gained by holding a constitutional Conference. (b) The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and the Representatives of India should aim at meeting annually, or at such longer intervals as may prove feasible. The situation of the federal movement during this period may also be told by the attitudes of the federationists themselves. Some who had once strongly advocated imperial federation had changed their opinions. Lord Milner 2 had been one of the foremost federationists, but in 1 9 1 9 he was in favor of " partnership." Sir John Findlay, the prominent statesman of New Zealand, who supported the cause of imperial federation in 1912, 8 also altered his view and stood for the idea of continuous consultation in 1921. 4 In spite of all disappointments, the Round Table group 1

Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1921 (Cmd. 1474), p. 9.

* Speech by Lord Milner, secretary of state for the colonies, July 9, 1919 (quoted in Hall's British Commonwealth of Nations, 1920, pp.

197-8).

»Sir J . G. Findlay, The Imperial Conference of 1911 From Within (London, 1912). 4

The United Empire, vol. xii, 1921, pp. 515-24.

INTRODUCTION

57

still kept up their activities. Although they were more quiet after 1917, they were no less persistent in their views than before. In 1920 the Round Table declared: That all the experience of the war and of the peace has not shaken in the least the fundamental conviction with which they commenced this Review. . . . They have always believed, and they still believe, that sooner or later, after the equality of status of the Dominions had been fully recognized, necessity and not propaganda would force a conscious movement towards constitutional unity. . . . The Round Table Review . . . has never disguised its conviction that a co-operative system, however successful and adequate it might be for a time, would eventually break down, and that the nations which composed it would then of their own free choice have to agree to some form of constitutional unity as the alternative to the dissolution of the Commonwealth.1 Again it asserted in June 1923: The Round Table does not believe, however, and never has believed, that the existing system of Imperial organization was really satisfactory or could work well except under such exceptional circumstances as those of the Great War. It has always advocated that the status and powers and responsibilities of all the self-governing nations within the Commonwealth should be the same. But it admitted that: It does not consider, under present circumstances, with the German menace gone, with the necessary pre-occupation of the Dominions with the problems of their own internal development, with the disparity in population of Great Britain and the overseas nations . . . that organic reconstruction of the constitution of the Commonwealth is practicable.2 1 1

Round Table, vol. xi, pp. 11-12, December, 1920. Ibid., vol. xiii, pp. 484-5, June, 1923.

FEDERATION

58

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

A few months later, its tone, however, seemed to be more moderate. It said: it is not, then, surprising if in 1921 the Imperial Conference saw no need to attempt any precise definition of inter-Imperial relations. It was, no doubt, felt that more harm than good was likely to arise from any such attempt, and there was no desire for a more centralized system. Nothing less than a supreme crisis, such as the War or the Peace Conference, would commend an Imperial Executive body to public across the seas. There were, of course, obvious risks in leaving the position vague.1 A s f a r as the records show, it seems that Australia was the most persistent among all the dominions in blocking the solution of constitutional problems at the three imperial conferences held successively after the adoption of the constitutional resolution of 1 9 1 7 . Mr. Hughes' opinions, emphatically expressed at the Conference of 1 9 2 1 , have been mentioned above. Mr. Bruce, the successor to Mr. Hughes, said in 1923 in the columns of The World To-day. 2 . . . . It is clear that whatever Imperial unity may mean, it cannot be taken to mean Imperial Federation . . . a federation under one supreme Parliament of the Self-governing States . . . of the whole British Empire, countries separated in some cases by the length and breadth of world-seas, is, as far as any of us can see today, an impossibility. At the Imperial Conference lately concluded, while what is called the constitutional question was not discussed, the tone of all the debates revealed that the notion of Imperial Federation had been abandoned by all, and was left well behind us. It has been made perfectly clear that the political development of the Empire, by positive choice of all interests concerned, will go forward as it began, under no hide-bound con1 1

Round Table, vol. xiv, p. 4, December, 1923. World Today, vol. 43, p. 15, December, 1923.

INTRODUCTION

59

stitution. The British people in the Dominions could not tolerate government by any super-Parliament. A t the Imperial Conference of 1926, Mr. Bruce, again representing Australia, asserted that although it was profitable to take stock of the developments within the Empire, any attempt to establish a constitution for its future progress would be disastrous. " If we had had it [Constitution] in the past," he said, " either it would have had to be torn up or it would have destroyed the Empire." But on account of the dissatisfaction of South A f r i c a with her status in the Empire as implied in her representative General Hertzog's opening speech 1 at the conference, discussion of the question of dominion status formed a chief part of the program of the Imperial Conference of 1926. The final results, however, as embodied in the report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee, 2 indicate a tendency toward more freedom and independence for the dominions rather than toward imperial federation, while writers still seem not to agree as to whether the achievement has strengthened or weakened the ties between the dominions and the mother country. In spite of the unfavorable situation in which the federal movement found itself after 1917, important constitutional developments took place during this period. The resolutions 3 adopted by the Imperial W a r Cabinet after a debate in the Imperial W a r Conference of 1918 regarding the channels of communication gave fuller recognition of dominion status. In 1921, prime ministers of the dominions and the representatives of India freely participated in the open dis1

World

Today,

vol. 43, pp. 23-5.

2 Summary of Proceedings 2768), pp. 13-29. ' Extracts

from Minutes

of

the Imperial

of Proceedings

1918 ( C d . 9 1 7 7 ) , PP- 155-65.

Conference,

of the Imperial War

1926

(Cmd.

Conference,

60

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

cussion of foreign relations at the imperial conference. 1 They were also invited to cabinet meetings called to deal with imperial and foreign questions of immediate urgency, in particular the Silesian question and President Harding's invitation to the conference at Washington. In the opinion of one writer, henceforth it would be the Imperial Conference, and not just the British Cabinet as in the past, which would be responsible for the direction of foreign policy, and decide other important questions of the Empire.' Furthermore, the representation of the dominions at the Paris Peace Conference and their independent status in the Assembly of the League of nations; the resolutions adopted at the Imperial Conference of 1923 regarding negotiation, signature, and ratification of treaties 8 ; and above all, the recommendations of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee 4 adopted at the Imperial Conference of 1926 dealing with various constitutional matters, were all intended to accord the dominions an entirely equal status and to give them a share in the control of the foreign policy of the Empire. If all these constitutional changes have met the needs of the British Commonwealth, then they have removed one of the most important reasons for the necessity of imperial federation, that is, the control of foreign policy. The value of these developments, therefore, cannot be too much overestimated in their influence upon the federal movement. Although British federalism has been at the lowest ebb 1 Summary of Proceedings of the Conference of Prime Ministers and Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India (Cmd.

1474). 1 D. A. E. Veal, " Imperial Conference, 1921," Empire Review, vol. 35, P- 399, September, 1921. • Summary of Proceedings

of the Imperial

Conference,

1923 (Cmd.

of the Imperial

Conference,

1926 (Cmd.

1987). PP- I3-S* Summary of Proceedings 3768), pp. 13-39.

INTRODUCTION

6l

since 1917, occasionally one may still hear questions asked in the parliaments in Great Britain and the dominions regarding this subject. Here and there, one may read books and articles written by a few individuals who continue their advocacy of federation in spite of their meagre and fruitless efforts toward its realization. In Professor G. B. Adams' The British Empire and a League of Nations, published in 1918, this great cause of imperial federation received sympathy from an American authority on British politics, although his emphasis lay chiefly on the cause of world peace rather than on that of imperial unity. But the most persistent advocate among imperial federationists is perhaps to be found in the person of G. C. Cuningham. We have seen in the preceding pages that Cuningham advocated imperial federation as early as 1879 and that he republished his articles in 1895. But in 1919 he wrote another book entitled Wake up, England! Although one may find difference of details between his schemes proposed in 1879 and in 1919 respectively, his faith in the principle of imperial federation remained unchanged during those forty odd years. It is perhaps only natural that in the British House of Lords one should find the last resort of imperialism. The honor falls upon a British lord to be the latest, if not the last, to propose a definite scheme for imperial federation, while many other writers have gradually turned their views against it, instead of favoring it. The latest definite scheme for imperial federation was put forward by Lord Raglan 1 in The Nineteenth Century in 1922, while in 1923, Lord Strathspey 2 published his book entitled The Case for 1 Lord Raglan was major of the army, 1919; Aide-de-camp to the governor of Hongkong, 1912-13; and with the Egyptian army, 1913-19. 1 Lord Strathspey was member of Wandsworth borough council, 191323, and member of various House of Lords committees.

62

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

Colonial Representation. From the debates of the British House of Lords, 1 one may find that Lord Strathspey is among the very few members of the British Parliament who today still believe in the possibility of federalizing the British Empire. 1

Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, vol. iv, 1923, pp. 228, 692-3.

C H A P T E R II A N A L Y S I S OF S C H E M E S A N D P R O P O S A L S FOR I M P E R I A L FEDERATION : THE FIRST

PHASE

IMPERIAL federation as the term is here used is to be distinguished from those regional federal unions such as the federations of Canada, of Australia, etc. by the fact that it means a federation of the whole British Empire rather than federations within the Empire. For lack of a better designation, the adjective " imperial " is here used only in the sense of " general " or " at large," with no intention of suggesting a superior status for Great Britain. Although most advocates of such schemes have suggested that federation should be confined to the self-governing parts of the British dominions, the problem must be studied from the point of view of the whole Empire. A s the purpose in this chapter is a study of the schemes proposed, rather than of the arguments as to the desirability of the ideal itself, the following pages will deal only with the specific points and the concrete details of the various plans. Federation in the strict sense implied at least a federal parliament and a federal executive. Hence, a scheme, in order to be federal, should present the most important features of a federal state, namely, a federal parliament, a federal executive, and, possibly, a federal court. Further, since the various parts of the British Empire do not possess identical political status, a federal system applicable to some may not be applicable to others. Hence the qualification of members to be admitted to the federation is another important question. Again, India, owing to her large population 63

64

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

and territory and importance in other respects, presents a special problem and is perhaps one of the most difficult questions to be solved in connection with any system of federation for the British Empire. In order to facilitate comparison, the various schemes considered below will be presented in chronological order and under similar sub-headings. They will cover the most important essentials regarding (a) the imperial parliament, such as ( i ) number of houses, (2) mode of creation, (3) basis of representation, (4) method of election, ( 5 ) imperial revenue, and (6) separation of federal from local powers; (b) the imperial executive; (c) the federal court; (d) the units to be federated; and (e) the question of India. Some schemes are not complete enough to include all the above points, yet because of the authority of their proponents, they cannot be disregarded. Sundry other suggestions touching different phases of the federation will be found in the following chapter. F R A N C I S PETER DE LABILLIERE'S S C H E M E

1

1. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—The author had no definite conviction whether a unicameral or bicameral system was the more suitable for the imperial parliament, but believed that " were the people of the Empire directly the electors of the Imperial Parliament, it would be more necessary to have a second chamber than if the Parliaments were the electors." 2 In his opinion, " the Britannic constitution could dispense with a second chamber more easily than could that of any other federal union." * He argued that one of the chief functions of a second chamber was the protection of property 1

Labilliere, op. cit., passim; cf. supra, p. 34 n.

* Ibid., p. 66. • Ibid., pp. 67-68.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

65

interests such as those of capital and ownership of land. Such a second chamber was not needed because all the property interests in a federalized empire would be controlled by the dominions or provinces themselves. 2. Mode of Creation.—The author was in favor of a moderate reform bill which, while not increasing the number of members, would effect a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons so as to provide adequate representation of the colonies, and which would place colonial lifepeers in the House of Lords. The provincial concerns of the United Kingdom would be placed entirely in the hands of a provincial parliament and executive, while " the Old Imperial Parliament would continue to be the Legislature of the Empire, confining itself exclusively to Imperial affairs." 1 3. Basis of Representation.—It was thought that " an ' equitable basis' of representation could not be fixed with mathematical accuracy as regards population, wealth, and extent of territory, although it might be approximately adjusted." In order that some of the colonies might not feel that they had been left out of the imperial system, " representation might have to be given to them, though they would not be entitled to it according to the scale adopted with regard to the larger Dominions." 2 The author suggested that the basis of representation should be decided by an imperial convention of representatives of the United Kingdom and of the self-governing dominions and colonies of the Empire chosen by the various parliaments." 4. Method of Election.—There might be two methods of electing members of the imperial parliament: by the various parliaments or by the people directly. Although the 1

Labilliere, op. cit., pp. 68-9.

'Ibid., p. 193. 5

Ibid., p. 229.

66

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

former system had many advantages with regard to allotment and the calibre of members and their cooperation with the local legislatures, the more democratic system was to be preferred. 1 " The questions of the franchise and electoral division, by which the members of the Imperial Lower House should be chosen, would be best left to be arranged in each province of intercolonial federation by its Parliaments." 2 In case there should be an imperial senate as an upper house, its membership might be constituted by reforming the existing House of Lords. It was suggested that " a certain proportion of its present hereditary peers could represent the United Kingdom in this great Imperial Senate as life members—half might be chosen by the House of Lords." 3 Representation for the colonies should also be provided.' It was proposed that the tenure of the members of the imperial lower house should not exceed three years, and that the parliament should contain at least two hundred members." 1 Labilliere, op. cit., p. 65. T h e system of direct popular election " would have the more than countervailing advantage, of bringing the Imperial Federal Parliament into direct touch with the inhabitants of the whole Empire, making them feel that its central Government was thoroughly their own. . . . It would be able directly to impose Imperial taxes; whereas, if elected by the Legislatures, it could do no more than fix the amount of the subsidies by which they should make up the revenue of the Empire."

»Ibid., p. 66.

»Ibid., p. 67.

* Ibid. " The Crown might have power to confer the supreme distinction of a hereditary peerage of the Empire on any of its subjects. The Colonial members of the Senate could be created for life, by the Crown on the nomination of the Colonial Executives, and although only life legislators, might have titles derived from places in their Colonies. A certain number of Colonial statesmen from each colony or Inter-colonial Federation, who had made up a given number of years' service as responsible ministers, might be entitled to seats in the Imperial Upper House." 6

Ibid., p. 66.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

6 7

5. Imperial Revenue.—The federal parliament should have power of imposing taxes directly upon the people for imperial purposes. There should be no grievance on the part of the dominions against the exercise of a power of direct taxation by a true imperial parliament, in which they themselves were fairly represented. Care should be taken that the burden of taxation be equally distributed and that the sources of revenue to be reserved for imperial purposes be specified by the constitution. The author believed that a very few items such as tobacco, wines and spirits and income tax " would be quite sufficient for the purpose, and everything else could be left to be taxed by the provincial Parliaments." 1 It was believed that sentiment rather than reason was behind the opposition to the power of direct taxation by the imperial federal parliament. A s the people's confidence in the parliament grew, it should not be difficult for them to grant it a power so important to the functioning of a real federal parliament. Considering the future growth of wealth and population of the Empire, the burden of imperial taxation would become really infinitesimal and, practically, would not be felt by the people.2 6. Separation of Imperial from Prozrincial Powers.—Labilliere's suggested separation might be summed up as follows: 3 1 Labilliere, op. cit., pp. 193-4. The colonies " need suffer no curtailment of their powers, except in so far as certain rights of general taxation might be reserved to the Parliament of the Empire. Suppose, for example, tobacco, wines and spirits were thus set apart, they alone would yield a very large Imperial Revenue. A n income tax not to exceed 3d. in the pound, would also bring in considerable sums from all quarters of the Empire. It can be easily seen that if it were desirable to limit the taxing powers of the Federal Parliament, ample margin could be given it to enable it to raise, even from a very few items, sufficient revenue for purposes of peace and war."

* Ibid., p. 201.

® Ibid., passim.

68

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

A. Imperial Questions: Defense, revenue and expenditure, foreign affairs, extensions of the Empire, India, naturalization. B. Provincial Questions: Church establishment, education, land laws, taxation and tariffs, internal defense, Irish home rule, intercolonial federation, alterations of provincial constitutions, native races. C. Questions which might be left either to the imperial or provincial governments: Laws of marriage, domicile, wills, coinage, copyright and patent laws, railways, steamers, and telegraphs, emigration, final court of appeal, reciprocity. II. IMPERIAL

EXECUTIVE

Labilliere believed that the imperial ministry should consist of a premier, ministers of foreign affairs, war, and marine, and a legal advisor. There should also be a minister of the interior, if not the premier, to transact with the colonial governments the business now conducted by the secretary for the colonies. It should be provided in the constitution that the ministers be responsible to the parliament, and hold office only during the existence of the parliament from which they received confidence and power. It should be further provided that no imperial ministry should be without an Australian, Canadian, and South African member.1 I I I . FEDERAL COURT

There should be a supreme court, to which at least all questions affecting the imperial constitution could be referred, although the author did not explain how such a court should be constituted. 2 1

Labilliere, op. cit., p. 230.

* Ibid., p. 231.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

69

IV. UNITS FOR FEDERATION

Besides allotting a proper number of members to the British Isles, to each colonial dominion, and, where there was no inter-colonial federation, to each self-governing colony respectively, Labilliere proposed that the constitution should provide for representation of the crown colonies: Malta, Mauritius, and Jamaica might each be given a member. T h e other W e s t Indian Islands and the W e s t A f r i c a n colonies should be further grouped and reprensentatives duly provided for. It was possible that upon the basis of numerical allotment and standard of population and wealth that might be determined upon for the Empire at large, these smaller colonies might never be entitled to representation; exception, therefore, should be made in this event so as not to leave any colony out of the imperial system. 1 V. QUESTION OF INDIA

It was contended that the problem of India should not be allowed to stand in the way of the federal union of the Britons in the British Isles and beyond the seas. India would be governed by an imperial federal parliament and executive just as well as, if not better than, by the existing imperial parliament. Indeed, the possibility of maintaining British supremacy over India would be improved by a federal government of the Empire rather than by some other imperial machinery. 2 It was thus thought better to leave the question of giving representation to India in the imperial federation to future consideration and decision." 1

Labilliere, op. cit., p. 230.

' Ibid., pp. 193-3. • Ibid., p. 228.

7Q

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

JEHU MATHEWS'

EMPIRE

SCHEME1

I. I M P E R I A L P A R L I A M E N T

1. Number of Houses.—There should be a federal legislature consisting of two chambers. The lower house should consist of representatives returned on one uniform system by the British Islands and the colonies, and provision should be made for colonial representation in the upper house also.2 2. Mode of Creation.—Mathews proposed two kinds of parliaments. One sort was to be national only; in addition, there was to be a parliament which would be both national and federal. The existing imperial Parliament as a federal legislature for the Empire and as a national legislature for the United Kingdom might discharge its duties in each capacity in different sessions respectively, with the colonial representatives attending only those sessions convened for legislation on matters concerning the whole of the Empire. There were also to be two ministries responsible to the imperial parliament acting in two distinct capacities respectively.8 As an alternative, Mathews suggested the creation of an absolutely new federal legislature. The existing imperial Parliament would then become the local legislature of the British Islands, either remaining in its present form or being divided into three legislatures, for England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively. Although the first of these suggestions involved less constitutional change and was easier of realization, Mathews favored the second as he believed that much good could be 'Jehu Mathews, A Colonist on the Colonial Question passim. Cf. supra, p. 36 n.

(London, 1872),

* Imperial Federation, vol. i, p. 72, 1886. Mathews, op. cit., pp. 96-100, 104; cf. Wan-hsuan Chiao, in Great Britain ( N e w York, 1926), passim. s

Devolution

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

derived from the formation of local legislatures as a result of the creation of a new federal parliament. 1 3. Basis of Representation.—The most equitable system would be one based upon both population and taxation. Since representation according to population implies absolute equality, and taxation according to property implies relative equality, Mathews argued that it would be unfair to arrange burdens according to the system of relative equality, and privileges according to that of absolute equality. 2 4. Method of Election.—No particular method was advocated for electing members of the lower house of the imperial parliament. But it was emphasized that the upper house should be made " a Chamber of Statesmen." One part of its membership should be representative and elected by the peers in the British Islands and by the colonial legislatures in the colonies. Another part should be nominated by the crown unconditionally, while a third part should consist of men who had filled certain offices in the Empire, as had been suggested by John Stuart Mill in his hypothetical scheme for an upper chamber of the United Kingdom. 8 5. Imperial Revenue.—Mathews proposed that unlimited power of taxation should be given to the federal legislature and that each member of the federation should be liable only for a definite proportion of the federal expenditure. This guarantee was necessary in order to protect it from being overtaxed. T h e proportion, however, should be re-adjusted after the decennially recurring census. T h e federal revenue should, in the first instance, be raised from the customs duties of the several members of the federation collected by federal officers. A n y excess should be returned to the local 1

Mathews, op. cit.

' Ibid., pp. 104-5; Imperial Federation, vol. v, 1890, p. 203. 1

Mathews, op. cit., pp. 108-113; Imperial Federation, vol. v, 1890, p. 204.

72

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

government, while a possible deficit should be made up by such other taxes as the federal legislature might see fit to impose.1 6. Separation of Federal from Provincial Powers. No detailed allocation of powers between the federal and the provincial governments was made, but it was thought that the federal authority must at least control diplomacy, armaments, finance, and commerce.2 In the federal system he suggested, Mathews argued there would be no danger of encroachment upon local autonomy. Although there might be the imposition of a maximum rate of customs for imperial revenue, each colony would, under certain limits, be allowed to arrange its own tariff. There would be no interference with local independence.8 II. IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

In case the imperial parliament were so constituted as to act as both federal and national legislature, it would be necessary to have two ministries, one for the federal, and the other for the local government. Each, of course, would be responsible only to the legislature for which it acted as the executive, and to the crown acting as head of both local and federal executives.4 III. FEDERAL COURT

If the imperial parliament could not remain as at present practically omnipotent in the sphere of government, it would be necessary to establish a supreme court, similar to that of the United States, to act as arbiter between the several authorities of the Empire. But the author apparently did not ' M a t h e w s , op. cit., pp. 91-2; Imperial 227, 251, 276. 1

Ibid., p. 203.

» Ibid., pp. 92, 145. 4

Ibid., p. 97.

Federation,

vol. v, 1890, pp.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

believe that such a polity would be accepted and did not more fully express his opinion about it.1 IV. UNITS FOR FEDERATION

Representation in the federal legislature should be confined to the British Isles, British America, Australasia, South Africa, and the West Indies, with perhaps Mauritius, and such other lands within the Empire as might be colonized by emigration from Great Britain. All other parts of the Empire would remain in their present position of dependencies, because of their incompetency to fulfill the conditions on which the federation would be based.2 V. QUESTION OF INDIA

India was to be treated like the other crown colonies. Since India was unable to conduct a local representative government, it was held that she was not qualified to participate in a federal representative government. GRANVILLE C. CUNINGHAM'S SCHEME

3

I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—The imperial parliament should have two chambers. 2. Mode of Creation.—The existing House of Commons should be made the lower house of the true imperial parliament by relieving it of the conduct of all local affairs. It should then be made representative of all the self-governing parts of the Empire by the admission of colonial representatives on the same footing as the representatives of Englishmen at home. The House of Lords should be turned into the 1

Mathews, op. cit., p. 116. ' Ibid., p. 95• " The Federation of the English Empire", Westminster Review, vol. H2, 1879, PP. 313-34; Cuningham, Wake Up, England I (London, 1919), P- 97- Cf. supra, p. 48 n.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

upper house of the parliament a f t e r having been duly reformed. A s to local affairs, the author at first thought, when he wrote in 1879, that there should be a local parliament of a single chamber for the United Kingdom, while the veto power of the crown in council might serve to perform the function of a second chamber. But in 1 9 1 9 he proposed that England, Wales, Scotland, the North of Ireland ( U l s t e r ) , and the South of Ireland should each have a parliament. T h e imperial parliament would then stand in the same relation to these local parliaments as the dominion parliament of Canada stands toward its provincial parliaments. 1 3. Basis of Representation.—In 1879 Cuningham suggested that the imperial house might be composed of 300 members of which 50 should be allotted to the colonies, colonial representation to increase with the increase in colonial population. T h i s measure, he asserted, would retain pretty nearly the proportions in which the members were then allotted. T h e distribution of seats in the imperial parliament would be as f o l l o w s : 2 Great Britain : England Scotland Ireland Colonies : Australia New Zealand Cape Settlements West Indies Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland Total

185 25 40

250

15 5 5 5 20

50 300

T h e local house for the United Kingdom would be constituted as follows: 1

Cuningham, op. cit.

* Westminster

Review, loc. cit., pp. 321-2.

ANALYSIS

OF

SCHEMES

England Scotland Ireland

AND

PROPOSALS

75 250 35 65

Total

350

But forty years later Cuningham proposed an imperial house of 400 members, apportioned approximately upon a population basis. The distribution of seats would be as follows: Great Britain Canada Australasia Africa Other scattered places Total

300 25 25 25 25 400

As many matters concerning the United Kingdom alone would be dealt with, the oversea members should form a much smaller body in the imperial house than the members for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom should play a dominating part in the house; the proposed apportionment would make it impossible for the oversea representatives to combine to outvote her.1 4. Method of Election.—The members of the lower chamber were to be chosen by popular election according to the electoral districts duly marked off in the various countries. In the upper chamber, a number of life peers, say twenty, might be given to the colonies. Since the Church of England was a local matter, bishops would no longer, ex officio, be entitled to seats in the upper imperial chamber.2 Members from the oversea dominions would be elected on the franchise in vogue in the dominions while the United Kingdom franchise for the imperial house would be such as ' Cuningham, op. cit., pp. 104-5. 2

Westminster

Review, loc. cit., p. 321.

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

might be established by the house itself. 1 They should be elected for five years. 5. Imperial Revenue.—In 1879 Cuningham thought that it would be impossible for the imperial government to assume the whole burden of the national debt, without also assuming the collection of some local tax. He then suggested, therefore, that the imperial government should assume four-fifths of the charges on the national debt and should collect the greater part of the British excise duties as an imperial revenue. The local government of England should bear the remaining one-fifth of the national debt charges until the time when enough could be raised from the imperial customs to defray the necessary expenses. A uniform fiscal policy should be maintained in all parts of the Empire at least so far as British goods were concerned; and the customs should be collected by imperial officers.2 But forty years later Cuningham thought that the imperial parliament should retain the control of customs and all direct and indirect taxation over the United Kingdom (delegating such rights of taxation as might be necessary for the local governments). The oversea dominions would have to contribute to the imperial revenue, annually or periodically, in an amount to be arranged between them and the imperial parliament. The self-governing colonies should have full freedom to raise their revenue by whatever means seemed best to them. But the amount to be contributed by the crown colonies would be fixed by the imperial government.* 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.—In 1879 Cuningham gave the following list of subjects as the proper business of the imperial government: maintenance of 1

Cuningham, op. cit., p. 103.

1

Westminster Review, loc. cit., p. 323.

* Cuningham, op. cit., pp. 106-7.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

the royal family, control of the army and navy, relations with foreign powers, inter-provincial relations with various parts of the Empire, marine and shipping affairs, customs and finance, postal affairs, and justice. But in his somewhat modified scheme of 1919, there was no longer a parliament for the United Kingdom, but provincial parliaments for England, Wales, Scotland, and North and South of Ireland respectively. .He then deemed it fitting that, at least so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, the imperial parliament should retain all powers not specifically delegated to the provincial parliaments. S o he added the following to the list : 1 Public debt and Property; Regulation of Trade and Commerce; Raising of Money by any mode of taxation; Borrowing on Public Credit; Railways, Roads or Canals; Currency and Coinage; Banking and the Incorporation of Banks, and issue of Paper Money; Savings Banks; Weights and Measures; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Interest; Legal Tenders; Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Patents of Invention and Discovery; Copyright; Naturalisation of Aliens, and de-naturalisation of British subjects; and laws relating to Aliens ; Marriage and Divorce ; Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction but including the legislation for the Procedure in Criminal Matters; the establishment, maintenance and management of Penitentiaries. T h e powers delegated to the provincial parliaments were to embrace: land laws, education laws, maintenance of the people, administration of justice, and matters of merely local or private nature in the province. 2 W i t h the rights of self-government of the oversea dominions, however, the imperial parliament was to interfere as little as possible. T h e dominions were to retain all rights 1

Cuningham, op. cit., pp. 100-1.

* Ibid., pp. 98-99.

FEDERATION

7«

OF

THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

of legislation over marriage and divorce; the criminal l a w ; customs and finance; the post office; banking, etc; naval and military affairs. 1 In order to preserve a proper control over provincial and local legislation, the veto power of the crown in council should be maintained. 2 II. I M P E R I A L E X E C U T I V E

T h e ministry of the day was to be drawn from the members of the imperial house and the house of lords. Cuningham held it evident from the large sphere of business with which the imperial government would have to deal that the imperial cabinet could not very well be limited to a small size. I I I . F E D E R A L COURT

Cuningham did not advocate a federal supreme court for the whole Empire, but he believed that supreme courts of appeal should be established in various parts of the Empire. T h e power to appoint judges to these courts would be retained in the hands of the imperial government. Each of these courts would be a final court for its respective locality. 8 I V . U N I T S FOR F E D E R A T I O N

In Cuningham's earlier scheme, only self-governing colonies and the W e s t Indies were mentioned as qualified for the federation. But in his later plan, he gave twenty five seats to various scattered places which might be taken to include some important colonies or dependencies. 1

Cuningham, op. cit., pp. 103-4.

* Westminster Review, ioc. cit., p. 318. " A l l measures passed by the Local House would require the assent of the Viceroy before they could become law. But any measure of doubtful constitutionality could be ' reserved' by the Viceroy, in which case the Bill would be remitted for the consideration of the Queen in Council, and either passed or vetoed. A l s o any measure passed by the Local House, and assented to by the Viceroy, could be annulled if vetoed by the Queen in Council within two years f r o m the time of assent." * Ibid., p. 322.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES AND

PROPOSALS

V. QUESTION OF INDIA

Cuningham considered India an important and splendid part of the Empire.

It w a s necessary, he held, that she be

given representation in the imperial parliament.

But he ar-

gued that since India w a s not a self-governing community and did not stand in the same position to the United K i n g dom as other dominions, her status should be considered and agreed upon in the imperial parliament a f t e r its formation. 1 SAMUEL WILSON'S SCHEME

2

I. I M P E R I A L P A R L I A M E N T

1. Number

of Houses.—The

consist of two houses.

imperial parliament should

T h e r e should be separate parlia-

ments of t w o houses f o r Ireland and Scotland respectively." 2. Mode

of

Creation.—The

" perfect"

federal system

would be realized through gradual constitutional evolution. T h e r e would be four stages of development.

First, a coun-

cil of agents-general would be established to advise the minister of state on colonial matters.

N e x t , there would be

created in both houses imperial committees f o r imperial interests and grand committees f o r local interests.

Then,

colonial representatives would be given seats in both houses and placed on the imperial committees.

Ultimately,

the

grand committees would be allowed to sit and legislate in L o n d o n , Dublin, and Edinburgh f o r local affairs.

Thus a

perfect separation of local from imperial matters would ultimately be effected. 4 i Cuningham, op. cit., p. 107. * S i r Samuel W i l s o n , " Imperial Federation," National Review, vol. iv, 1884, pp. 380-6; Samuel W i l s o n , " A Scheme f o r Imperial Federation," Nineteenth Century, vol. x v i i , 1885, pp. 590-8. S i r Samuel went to Melbourne in 1852 and w a s successful in various business enterprises. Since 1875 he had represented the western province in the upper house of V i c t o r i a and w a s knighted the same year. »Ibid.,

p. 594-

1

Ibid., p. 595-

FEDERATION

8o

OF THE

BRITISH

3. Basis of Representation.—The

EMPIRE

system of representa-

tion should be based upon both taxation and population taken together.

Each member might represent a popula-

tion of about 460,000 English-speaking people.

T h e num-

ber of representatives would be adjusted f r o m time to time according to changes in wealth and population.

O n this

basis the distribution of members would be approximately as follows:1 England Scotland Ireland Canada Australia and Tasmania New Zealand Cape Other Colonies

55 members in each house 9 11 12 8 2 1 2

Total

100

4. Method, of Election.—The

members representing each

division of the Empire would be elected by both houses of the local parliaments.

It was suggested that liberals and

conservatives should have an equal number of representatives in the federal parliament.

Members of the upper house of

the imperial federal parliament should be elected exclusively f r o m each of the upper houses of the local legislatures, and those of the lower house f r o m the lower houses of the local parliaments.

Members w h o had been elected to the upper

house should have the status of life-peers. 2 It was also thought that a larger proportionate number of representatives would probably in the first instance be desirable in the rapidly-growing and more important colonies. 5. Imperial Revenue.—The

colonies should directly con-

1

Wilson, National Review, loc. cit., p. 384.

1

Ibid.

• Ibid., p. 385.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

8l

tribute nearly their full quota of taxation to the imperial expenditure required for defensive purposes. The contributions should be based upon their wealth and population. 1 II. IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

N o definite plan for the organization of an imperial executive was proposed, but foreign relations, peace and war, national defense, etc. were emphasized as the chief business of the imperial government. III. UNITS FOR FEDERATION

Representation in the federal parliament would be confined to those divisions of the Empire that possessed representative institutions. IV. QUESTION OF INDIA

India was purposely left out of discussion in the author's scheme. He intimated that a small share of representation might, in the first instance, be accorded to India if it were deemed wise. But at the time he considered such a grant premature. It was proposed to " treat India as a great dependency in statu pupillari until the time arrives when she may finally claim a right to representative government in both local and Imperial Parliament." 2 FREDERICK W I C K S ' S C H E M E * I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—There should be one true imperial house or a federal council. 2. Mode of Creation.—The boldest scheme would be to establish an entirely new imperial chamber, entitled the " federal c o u n c i l " which would deal with all imperial af1 5

Wilson, op. cit., p. 386; Wilson, Nineteenth Wilson, National Review,

* Frederick Wicks, Considered," National

Century, loc. cit., p. 593.

loc. cit., p. 386.

" The Confederation of the Empire Review, vol. viii, 1886, pp. 66-76.

Practically

82

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

fairs. 1 The alternate scheme would involve the admission of colonial representatives into the House of Commons and the separation of imperial from parochial affairs in the Parliament. There should be created provincial assemblies, say, five in Ireland, seven in Scotland, two in Wales, one in the extreme north of England, six in the Midlands, and four or five in the south and east of England. T o these provincial assemblies would then be delegated the power of regulating local affairs, acting under the control of the home office, the local government board, and the board of trade.2 3. Basis of Representation.—Each colony should elect one or two members, or one member for every 100,000 population, as representatives to the federal council.8 4. Method of Election.—Members of the federal council might be elected by popular vote or the local assemblies in the colonies might elect delegates from among their own members. The latter method would not only be simpler but would be likely to produce the best delegates.4 All the other details of election should be left to the colony itself. The colonial legislatures should have power to decide whether their delegate in the federal council should continue to have a seat in the legislature or whether he should vacate that seat by reason of his selection for the imperial parliament.5 5. Imperial Revenue.—Since the object of confederation implied many high purposes, Wicks argued that the matter 1 Wicks, op. cit., p. 68. F. Wicks started the first daily paper in Wales as early as 1861 and joined the editorial staff of the Globe, 1863, and the gallery staff of The Times, 1866. He was author of The British Constitution and Government, etc.

» Ibid., p. 70. * Ibid., p. 72. 4

Ibid., p. 72.

5

Ibid.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

83

of the division of burden should never be determined on strict lines. He thought, however, that representation would be useless unless associated with real power. 1 In one part of the scheme it was suggested that if the federal council were to assume full imperial authority it should have power to tax both the home country and the colonies for the purposes of offense and defense, and for the diplomatic service.2 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.—The federal council should have jurisdiction over all subjects concerning the national defenses, the dockyard establishments, the coast defenses both in Great Britain and in the colonies, the diplomatic and consular services, and all expenditures connected with foreign relations.8 II. IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

The chief members of the imperial executive would be ministers of navy, war and foreign affairs who would sit in the federal council, together with the first lord of the treasury, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and the secretary of state for India. There should also be added a minister of marine in order to separate the marine department from the board of trade.4 W I L L I A M GRESWELL'S SCHEME 1. IMPERIAL

PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—There eral council. 1

5

should be a supreme fed-

Wicks, op. cit., pp. 72-4.

' Ibid., p. 68. 1England

• Ibid.

* Ibid.

and her Colonies (London, 1887), pp. 1-41. Greswell was sometime professor of classics at the Cape University, South A f r i c a . The scheme was contained in his essay which won the first prize offered by the London chamber of commerce for the best plan f o r the federation of the colonies and the mother country.

84

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

2. Mode of Creation.—The supreme federal council should be formed in either of two w a y s : it might be an enlarged privy council, changing its character from a closed to an open chamber; or it might be a perfectly new institution consisting of members chosen by elective bodies. 1 I f the former plan were adopted, there should be, Greswell proposed, fair and equitable representation of all parts of the Empire. T h e author did not believe that there would be much difficulty in selecting qualified men from various parts of the Empire to be members of the reformed council. He pointed out that the materials for a supreme council of the Empire might be derived f r o m the following sources: 2 (a) (b)

the nucleus of the privy council, the Canadian, and possibly a South A f r i c a n and Australasian privy council, ( c ) the ranks of colonial governors, ex-governors, agents-general and ministers, ( d ) the defense and loan board of the Empire, ( e ) the heads of a possible imperial emigration bureau, federalized post office, federalized chambers of commerce, and all other distinguished and representative men acquainted with the wants of the Empire.

3. Basis of Representation.—Greswell appeared to advocate a population basis of representation. He argued that in order to establish a most fair and equitable basis of representation, it might be necessary to consider not only the population of a particular colony, but its revenue and indebtedness, and the general question of its solvency. Roughly speaking, however, the numerical basis might be considered as the best. T h e whole mass of colonists would 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 39.

»Ibid., p. 38.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

85

demand a proportionate share in the government of the Empire. 1 4. Methods of Election.—All the cabinet ministers of the parliamentary colonies should be regarded as ex officio members of the supreme federal council, while the rest of the members would be selected by any method found suitable; or in the case of a new institution, the members would be elected by qualified elective bodies. 5. Imperial Revenue.—Without suggesting a plan of his own, the author endorsed a system which, with the least possible friction, would enable the colonists to contribute their quota on a fair and equitable basis. He emphasized the fact that all the colonies had come to the English money market for loans at a rate of interest of one or two per cent higher than the imperial government had to pay for its loans. If the colonies could raise their necessary loans through the assistance of the imperial government and pay interest at the same, a saving of at least one per cent would be effected.2 This saving of interest at one per cent, based upon the usual amount of annual loan raised by the colonies, Greswell estimated, would amount at the time he wrote to something like £50,OCX) in the first year which might be set aside as an imperial defense fund. If emergency arose, this fund might immediately be used to raise and pay the interest on £1,000,000 sterling in order to defray the necessary expenses which might be required for defensive measures in one year, if a war broke out in the first year." 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.—Although Greswell did not specify in detail the powers of the supreme federal council he proposed to establish, he agreed 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 30.

' Ibid., p. 26. * Ibid., p. 27.

86

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

that in case a strictly imperial parliament were created, a certain class of subjects would be withdrawn from the control of the present Parliament of the United Kingdom, and handed over to the supreme parliament. These subjects would include: 1 revenue and expenditure f o r extra local purposes; defensive forces of the monarchy; intercolonial, home, and foreign trade; external and foreign communications, postal services, telegraphs, etc.; external and foreign affairs generally; coinage, currency, moneys of account, weights and measures; external and maritime a f fairs and courts of appeal; naturalization; national lands; census; and national and other public debts. II. F E D E R A L COURT

Regarding the means of check upon the federal power, Greswell cited the example of the federal court in the United States. But he thought that the case in the British Empire was somewhat different, as the crown had a constitutional veto which might be utilized as the guardian of imperial liberties, acting through some such judicial committee as that of the privy council. 2 III. U N I T S FOR FEDERATION

Greswell argued that the following nine parliamentary colonies should be admitted into the imperial federation on the same footing as the United K i n g d o m : Canada, Newfoundland, Cape Colony, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand. They were to be distinguished from ( a ) colonies with representative legislatures and crown executives, as Natal, Western Australia, British Guiana, and the Leeward Islands, and ( b ) crown colonies governed by officials under the control of the secretary of state for the colonies, as Ceylon, Mauritius, Hong K o n g , Labuan and Fiji. 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 30.

* Ibid., p. 38.

ANALYSIS

OP SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

87

IV. QUESTION OF INDIA

A fair and equitable representation should also be provided for the Indian Empire. The feudatory princes of India and rajahs of the East should be given places suitable to their rank and importance in the federal government.1 J . C . FITZGERALD'S S C H E M E

2

1. I M P E R I A L P A R L I A M E N T

1 . Number of Houses.—A parliament of two houses was recommended. 2. Mode of Creation.—Federation would be realized by the incorporation of the outlying communities of the Empire into a single legislative system. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords were to be reformed to meet the new requirements, and subordinate parliaments provided for the several parts of the United Kingdom.8 3. Method of Election.—The manner of electing members to the reformed house of commons was to be left to the colonies and to be passed upon by their legislatures. Sitting members could retain seats after dissolution until new members were returned.4 For the reformed house of Lords, members were to be chosen by election and appointment. Each lord was to vacate his seat after ten years.5 4. Imperial Revenue.—Fitzgerald proposed that recommendations for contribution to imperial expenditure be laid before the parliaments of the colonies.6 The amount 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 39.

* Ibid., pp. 42-72. Fitzgerald was from Wellington, New Zealand. His scheme was one of the five essays selected for publication by the committee of judges of the London chamber of commerce. See supra, P- 438

Ibid., p. 71.

* Ibid., p. 51. 4

Ibid., p. 50.

* Ibid., p. 52.

88

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

of the actual contributions of the colonies at the time and other important factors should be carefully studied, he held, in order to determine a fair basis upon which the colonies should contribute toward imperial expenditure. 1 5. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.— Fitzgerald strongly believed that no constitutional power of direct taxation should be given to the imperial parliament. T h e colonies should have exclusive authority to tax the communities of which they were composed. N o federation of the component parts of the Empire would be within the range of practical politics, if there were no absolute guarantee of full independence of the colonies regarding this matter. 2 II. U N I T S FOR FEDERATION

T h e scheme for federation should be confined to only those colonies which at present fulfilled its requirements. Other parts of the Empire might be brought into the common fold when they had reached the full growth of their political status. 8 III. QUESTION OF INDIA

Although Fitzgerald was averse from extending electoral privileges to any population of the Empire which they might, under their present conditions, be incapable of using with any benefit to themselves, he attached much importance to the status of India. He had the conviction that the present status of India was only transitional. Unless her interests were more closely identified with those of Great Britain, the British Empire in India could not be permanently maintained. 4 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 65.

* Ibid. »Ibid., pp. 59, 72. 4

Ibid., p. 60.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

F. H. TURNOCK'S SCHEME

89

1

I. I M P E R I A L P A R L I A M E N T

1. Number of Houses.—There council of a single chamber.

should be an imperial

2. Mode of Creation.—Above all the local parliaments of the United Kingdom and the colonies, there should be created a superior legislature to legislate on all matters of imperial concern, and such matters as were not delegated to the other legislatures. 2 3. Basis of Representation.—Representation in the imperial parliament should be based upon population, one member for 100,000 inhabitants. The distribution of members would be approximately as follows : Great Britain Canada and Newfoundland Australasia South A f r i c a West Indies Total

360 52 35 17 15 479

4. Method of Election.—Turnock considered that there were three modes of electing members to the imperial parliament : ( 1 ) one member to be elected by each constituency; ( 2 ) members to be elected by the local parliaments; ( 3 ) members to be elected by representatives at a convention called for the purpose. T h e first two methods he dismissed as impracticable and objectionable. T h e third also had some defects, but, failing the first, Turnock held it to be the only true way to secure fair representation for the colonies in imperial matters. 1 England and her Colonies, op. cit., pp. 89-126. Turnock was from Winnepeg, Canada. The scheme was contained in his essay selected for publication by the committee of judges of the London chamber of commerce. See supra, p. 43. 1

Ibid., p. 112.

go

FEDERATION

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

Members elected to the imperial parliament should forfeit their seats in the colonial house.1 There should be no property qualification for members.2 The imperial parliament could be dissolved after either five or seven years. A shorter period might be preferable." 5. Imperial Revenue.—Turnock suggested that the imperial revenue should be raised by assessing the population of each of the local federations at so much a head. The amount thus assessed should be paid into the imperial treasury by the respective federal parliaments. The imperial government would make its estimates according to the needs for the year and would set up a uniform rate of assessment based on the population each local federation had at the time of the taking of the last preceding census. This method was to be applied only to Great Britain, Canada, Newfoundland, Australasia, South Africa and the West Indies. India and the dependencies would be treated differently.4 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.— In Turnock's proposal, the various local parliaments had entire freedom to adopt whatever fiscal policy they might deem most suitable to their interests. They might, subject to the approval of the imperial parliament, enter into commercial treaties one with another, while treaties with foreign states would be made by the imperial executive responsible to the imperial parliament.5 II. IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

The following were the members suggested for the imperial cabinet: 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., pp. 114-5.

' Ibid., p. 116. »Ibid., p. 115.

'Ibid., pp. 118-9. 5

Ibid., p. 117.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

President of the Council Chancellor of the Exchequer Secretary of State for Great Britain " " " Canada " " " Australia " South A f r i c a " " " West Indies and Dependencies " India " " " Foreign Affairs War " " Admiralty Members of the cabinet were to be chosen from, and be responsible to, the imperial council or imperial parliament. 1 III. U N I T S FOR FEDERATION

T h e whole Empire was to be divided into seven groups as follows:2 ( 1 ) British Isles ( 2 ) North American Colonies (3) Australian Colonies

( 4 ) South African Colonies ( 5 ) West Indian Colonies (6) India and Ceylon

( 7 ) Other Dependencies Except the last group, T u r n o c k proposed that all should have representation in the imperial parliament.

W h e n any

dependency had acquired the requisite number of inhabitants, it should be permitted to send its due quota of representatives to the imperial parliament, and should then pay its share of taxation like the rest. 3 IV. QUESTION OF INDIA

In view of the importance of India, it would be impossible to refuse her representation in the imperial 1

England

and her Colonies,

' Ibid., p. 98. s

Ibid., p. 119.

op. cit., p. 116.

parliament.

FEDERATION

OF

THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

Since India could not be given representation on the same basis as the others, her government might be allowed to send, say, twenty members to the imperial council. A s India's representation was not based upon population, she should not be taxed according to her population. It was suggested that she should pay into the imperial treasury a percentage upon the revenue, and maintain her own army. 1 A plan for improving the status of India was also put forward. It was held that the machinery of government now existing in the Indian empire was in accord with the proposed imperial federation scheme. Each province had its governor and council, and over these again was the viceroy and superior council. In order to prepare India for the proposed imperial federation, the membership of the provincial and national councils should be made, as far as possible, elective. 2 C. V . SMITH'S SCHEME

3

I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—The bicameral system was to be retained after reconstruction of the existing Parliament. 2. Mode of Creation.—The construction of a new imperial constitution of rigid type or the incorporation of the colonies into the then existing English constitution were two alternative methods of creating a true imperial parliament. T h e latter method was by far the more obvious to adopt and the more easy to accomplish. 4 1 J

England and her Colonies, op. ext., p. 116. Ibid., p. 112.

'Ibid., pp. 127-160. Smith was from Cambridge, England. H e was a barrister and fellow of King's College. T h e scheme was contained in his essay selected f o r publication by the committee of judges of the London chamber of commerce. See supra, p. 43. * Ibid., p. 129.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

Separate councils should be created for England, Scotland, and Ireland to deal with local affairs and their upper houses were to be elected by the municipal councils of boroughs and quarter sessions of counties for five years. Theoretically, the central parliament should have the same " power of interfering with and, if necessary, abrogating all the proceedings of the councils, and even the councils themselves." 1 Representatives from the United Kingdom were to be reduced to one-fifth of the original number.2 3. Basis of Representation.—Each member in the parliament of the Empire would represent 250,000 population. On this basis, the distribution of seats would be as follows: 3 England, Scotland, and Ireland Canada Newfoundland Guiana West Indies and Bermudas Cape Colony and Natal Australia New Zealand Total

140 20 I 1 4 7 13 3 188

The number of seats for peers of the United Kingdom in the existing House of Lords should be reduced in order to provide room for representatives from India and the colonies.'4 4. Method of Election.—Members of the lower house of the imperial parliament should be elected directly by the people. It would be, however, impracticable to adopt a uniform franchise throughout the Empire. " It [the franchise] should be identical in each province with the local franchise 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 145. Ibid., p. 148. ' Ibid., p. 149. 4 Ibid., pp. 150-151. 1

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

in vogue in the province for the right of election to the lower house of the local legislature." 1 5. Imperial Revenue.—In proposing a plan for imperial revenue, Smith cited the precedents of three federal countries: the United States, Germany, and Canada. He concluded, however, that the federalized British Empire of the future should follow the model of Germany. 2 The chief sources of imperial revenue should be the proceeds of certain customs and excise duties, the stamp duties and posts and telegraphs throughout the Empire, and miscellaneous items. Any deficit should be made good by contributions from the different provinces of the Empire, according to their population. India should be exempted as long as it had a separate military establishment and was not proportionately represented in the imperial house of commons. The income of the crown lands in the United Kingdom should be included in the imperial revenue which would hereafter bear the charges of the crown and the civil list.' 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.— Some powers which had been delegated to colonial legislatures should be reassumed by the central imperial parliament: ( 1 ) New imperial fiscal arrangements, (2) Control over the postal service and over the great lines of communication, (3) New provisions for the defense of the Empire. Smith held that the fact that the colonies were to be represented on equal footing with Great Britain in the imperial 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 150.

• Ibid., pp. 152-3. The American system did not contemplate any levy of contributions from the constituent states, while that of Canada depended upon borrowing to make up the deficit. Neither of them seemed to be applicable to a federalized British Empire. 3

Ibid., p. 153.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

95

parliament would give to that parliament a moral right as well as a legal power to intervene, if necessary, in certain colonial affairs for the general welfare of the Empire at large. T h e same consideration would induce the colonies to acquiesce in limited intervention of this character. 1 II. IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

In Smith's proposal, the imperial executive, which should also remain the executive of the United Kingdom, would depend for its continuance in office on the will of the imperial parliament at Westminster. It was not necessary to create local executives such as were possessed by the great colonies for England, Scotland, or Ireland. There should be as little alteration of the existing constitution as possible. W i t h the exception that the functions of the president of the local government board and the educational functions of the vice president of the privy council would be superseded by the new order of things, the home duties of the central government of the day would remain practically the same. 2 III. FEDERAL COURT

In the opinion of Smith, the two present ultimate courts of appeal, the House of Lords and the judicial committee of the privy council, would before long be amalgamated and become the court of final appeal of the Empire. 3 1

England

and her Colonies,

t

op. cit., p. 157.

Ibid., pp. 157-8. These arguments hardly seem sound. What should the executive, endowed with this double responsibility, do if it had the confidence of the imperial parliament in imperial affairs, but not in the affairs of the United Kingdom? These two distinct roles would naturally come into conflict. Further, should the colonial representatives participate in a vote of confidence respecting the executive's responsibility toward the United Kingdom? The author stopped short of considering these difficulties. * Ibid., p. 195.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

IV. QUESTION OF INDIA

T h e principle of an equitable representation, Smith argued, did not prevent the creation of a certain circumscribed franchise which would make it possible to give India her due share of representation in the imperial parliament. Some of her prominent citizens might be elevated to imperial peerage and given seats in the upper house. Under any circumstance, India was to be given such representation as to make her feel that she was an integral part of the Empire. 1 N . D . DAVIS' SCHEME

2

I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number of Houses.—The imperial legislature should consist of one chamber to be called a council of representatives. T h e system of local legislatures might be left to colonies themselves. There might be either one or two chambers but they would deal only with local affairs. 2. Mode of Creation.—The imperial government should formally invite the several colonial legislatures to delegate from their own bodies representatives w h o should meet together in London, there to confer with representatives delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom upon the question of federation. 3. Basis of Representation.—The extent of representation should depend upon the amount of financial contribution to the federal government by each colony. Small colonies could combine to send one representative. 1

England and her Colonies, op. cit., p. 150.

N. D. Davis, " A Short Plan of Imperial Federation," West Indian Quarterly, 1887, pp. 41-50; N . D . Davis, Colonial Consolidation, 1890, Passim. Nicholas Darnell Davis was postmaster-general of British Guiana, 1876-81; comptroller of customs, 1881-98; and acted as deputy governor of British Guiana on various occasions. 2

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

4. Method of Election.—The manner of election should be left to the colonies themselves. It was deemed more desirable, however, that members of the imperial parliament should be elected by the local legislatures. Members of the legislatures, after having been elected as representatives to the imperial parliament, should be allowed to retain their local seats. 5. Imperial Revenue.—The federal parliament should directly raise revenue through the imposition of taxes, but the required amount should be voted in the lump by the legislatures of the component states of the federation. 6. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.—The chief business of the federal government should be: defense, reciprocal arrangements for trade development within the Empire and state-directed emigration. Other business would be: ( 1 ) imperial communication by steamship, etc., (2) currency, ( 3 ) naturalization, (4) patents, (5) copyright, ( 6 ) uniform commercial, penal and civil codes, ( 7 ) quarantine, (8) weights and measures, and (9) land transfer for the Empire. Decisions of the council of representatives should be binding upon all subordinate legislatures, whose function it would be to find the funds necessary for carrying out the measures adopted by the supreme body. II. I M P E R I A L E X E C U T I V E

The executive of the Empire should be chosen from the council of representatives. The important ministers would be the secretary of state for the colonies, the secretary for foreign affairs, the lord high treasurer, etc. III. U N I T S FOR FEDERATION

The federation should be confined to self-governing dominions.

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

IV. QUESTION OF INDIA

India should be considered apart from the dominions in the scheme of imperial federation. PROFESSOR C . R A N S O M E ' S S C H E M E

1

I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Basis of Representation.—Population should be adopted as basis of representation. Each member to the imperial parliament should represent 250,000 inhabitants. Special arrangements should be made in the case of sections where the mass of the inhabitants is neither British nor European. 2. Method of Election.—The method of election should be decided in each case by the section or sections of the Empire concerned. 3. Imperial Revenue.—The imperial parliament should have power to raise imperial revenue and to appropriate it to specific purposes. 4. Separation of Imperial from Provincial Powers.—The imperial government should have power to deal with: (a) foreign policy and foreign relations of the Empire; (b) interimperial relations and crown colonies; (c) equipment of the imperial army and navy, and their operations; and (d) means of internal communication by ocean posts, telegraphs, or otherwise. Subject to the veto of the crown acting by the advice of the imperial cabinet, each local parliament should have exclusive and complete control over all its affairs, except those which were reserved for the imperial government. 1 Cyril Ransome, " A Federal Constitution for the British Empire," Imperial Federation, vol. v, 1890, p. 381. In reply to the challenge of the Bishop of Manchester, Professor Ransome presented this scheme, which he made public through the correspondence columns of some of the leading papers in Lancashire and Yorkshire. This scheme which was an amplification of his " A Charter of National Unity " previously published, received support from the English newspapers such as Leeds Mercury and Liverpool Daily Courier.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES AND

PROPOSALS

n . IMPERIAL EXECUTIVE

T h e imperial ministry should consist of a minister of finance;

a minister of f o r e i g n a f f a i r s ; a minister of w a r ; a

minister of naval a f f a i r s ; a minister of c r o w n colonies and dependencies (the holders of these offices to be ex-officio members of the c a b i n e t ) ; a minister of internal communications, and such others as might be f r o m time to time found necessary.

T h e y should be appointed by the crown, and

responsible to the imperial parliament. III. FEDERAL COURT

An

imperial court of

appeals should be created.

Its

duties should b e : ( I ) to determine all questions of dispute as to the interpretation of the constitutions, or as to the distribution between local and imperial a f f a i r s ; ( 2 ) to determine disputes between different sections of the E m p i r e ; and ( 3 ) to determine appeals against the decisions of sectional courts. ARCH. MCGOUN'S S C H E M E 1 I. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

1. Number

of Houses.—The

imperial parliament should

have t w o houses: a lower and an upper house. 2. Mode

of Creation.—The

H o u s e of Commons and the

H o u s e of L o r d s of the existing Parliament should be so reconstituted as to give representation to self-governing dominions and to be as representative as possible of the whole Empire.

T h e r e should be formed at an early date, in several

parts of the United K i n g d o m , local legislatures, or municipal institutions with greatly extended powers, while meantime the general parliament of the United K i n g d o m should continue to exist. 2 1 Arch. McGoun, A Federal Parliament of the British People (Toronto, 1890). See supra, p. 44 n.

* Ibid., p. 6.

IOO

FEDERATION

OF THE

BRITISH

EMPIRE

3. Basis of Representation.—The house of commons should be representative of all the self-governing parts of the Empire, essentially on a basis of relative population; while the upper house should contain representatives from every part of the Empire, whether self-governing or not, in proportion to their contributions to imperial revenues.1 McGoun believed that although representation should be given to the colonies largely inhabited by African and Asiatic races, their number in the popular house could not be large. It was deemed sufficient to give such colonies double the number of representatives they would be entitled to according to their white or European population.2 Upon the establishment of local legislative bodies, the membership of the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be diminished to one-half of its present size. A t the time McGoun wrote, representation was one member for approximately every fifty thousand inhabitants. In the event of the membership being reduced to one member for every one hundred thousand inhabitants, McGoun pointed out that the proportion would be about the same as that which the membership of the Reichstag in Germany bore to the population of that Empire. 8 1

McGoun, op. cit., p. 6.

* Ibid., pp. 9-10. " Every colony which has a separate government, directly responsible to the Imperial authorities, should at least have one representative with or without voting power, with at least one additional member whenever the number of the white or European residents exceeds the standard number entitled to a representative in the self-governing countries. But the guiding principle should be that any inhabitant of a selfgoverning British country should not lose his right to representation for himself or for his children when he goes to any British country whatever. T h e right of representation should only be given to those of other races who are of assured fidelity to the Empire and are deemed fit to be admitted to the full privileges of responsible government in their own countries." ' Ibid., p. 6.

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES

AND

PROPOSALS

IOI

T h e distribution of seats in the imperial house of commons according to the 1 8 9 0 basis (census of 1 8 8 1 )

would

be as f o l l o w s : 1 Country England Wales Scotland Ireland Total The Channel Islands The Isle of Man Heligoland Gibraltar Malta and Gozo Cyprus

Population 1881 24,613,926 1,360,513 3,735,573 5,174,836 34,884,836 88,806 54,089 2,000 23,992 2 155,289" 7,065 *

Total Province Ontario Quebec Nova Scotia New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Manitoba and the Western Territories British Columbia, over Newfoundland Total 1

Members 465 30 72 103 670 2 2 1 1 1 i 8

Population 1881 1,923,000 1,359,000 440,000 321,000 109,000 122,000 50,000 179,000

Members 38 27 8 6 2 3 2 4 90

McGoun, op. cit., pp. 10-13. Of whom 18,361 are civilians, and 5,611 military. * Of whom 149,782 are civilians, including about 2400 " English and foreigners"; and 5,509 military and other families. The Maltese are of a race somewhat akin to the Arabs. 4 Of whom 5,149 are Christians, and 1,916 Mohammedans. 1

FEDERATION Colony

OF THE BRITISH

EMPIRE

Population 1881

Victoria N e w South W a l e s South Australia Queensland W e s t e r n Australia Tasmania N e w Zealand

862,000 75i,ooo 280,000 214,000 30,000 116,000 490,000

F i j i Islands

127,000

Members 17 15 5 5 i 3

9 55 i

Total

56

Cape and Dependencies . Natal W e s t A f r i c a (including S i e r r a Leone and Gambia), Gold Coast, Lagos and St. Helena

1,155,344 (246,626 E u r o p e a n ) 378,562 ( 28,483 W h i t e )

600,000 (small white population) Mauritius and Seychelles 359.874 (116,212 Christian) India 253,891,821 (202,920 English-speaking) (219,944 European Language) (367,377 Christian) (doubling only the English-speaking population) Straits Settlements 423,384 (10,703 W h i t e ) Ceylon 2,759,738 ( 4,836 E u r o p e a n ) Hongkong 160,402 ( 7,990 Europeans and Americans) Total Country Bermudas Bahamas Turks-Caicos Jamaica British Honduras Windward Islands St. Lucia St. Vincent Grenada Grenadines, etc Barbados Leeward Islands

10 2

i 3

10 1 1 1 29

Total

Population

Whites

13,948 43,521 4,778 580,804 27,452

521 14432 375

38,551 40,548

2,693

42,403 171,860

16,054

5,384

Members I I

1 2 I

ANALYSIS

OF SCHEMES AND

Virgin Islands S t Christopher Nevis Antigua Montserrat Dominica Tobago Trinidad British Guiana

5.287 29,137 11,864 34.964 10,083 28,211 18,051 153,128 244,530

Total Falkland Islands

PROPOSALS 52 209 1

1 1

9.635

1499,120 1,533

11 1

T h e full membership on the basis of the then existing membership of the H o u s e of Commons, or its reduction to half its size, would b e :

Other European places

South A f r i c a . . Mauritius, etc. . East Indies . . . . Hong Kong . . . . West Indies Falkland Islands Total1

.

465 or 233 30 15 72 " 36 103 52 8 6 90 it 47 56 " 34 12 " 6 4 12

"

i