THE EMPIRE'S FUTURE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2896, 7 October 1916, Page 10

THE EMPIRE'S FUTURE

PROBLEMS OF THE GOVERNMENT FEDERATION, SEPARATION, OR ALLIANCE The problem of the future constitution of the .Empire was discussed at a meeting held in the Victoria College gymnasium last evening. The gathering, which had been arranged at the suggestion of the Round Table Fellowship. had placed before it three aspects of tho Empire, problem, mid the subject was then thrown open for general discussion. Tho chair was occupied by Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who explained that the meeting had its origin in the lecture given by Mr. Lionel Curtis in Wellington. The' study of tho Imperial problem was essential at the present time, and it was fitting that the University shoul.d- play a part in creating a sound public opinion, in preparation for the momentous decisions that would have to be made in the future. AN IMPERIAL COUNCIL. " The first speaker was Mr. G. Hogben, C.M.G., who had as his text: "That the preservation of the Empire will be beat secured in the future by tho maintenance of the present system, the Imperial organ being constituted upon tho lines of tho Imperial* Conference, together with a standing advisory committee of that conference."

Tho war, lie. said, was forcing the people of tho Empire to faco tho Imperial problem. The difficulty of the . problem arose from the complexity of , the construction of tho British Empire, which consisted of a central kingdom containing some partially diverse units, five self-governing Dominions, various Crown colonies, and many dependencies and protectorates. Tho constitutions of these colonies, dependencies, ;uid pro-, tectorates varied materially, and the control was not always directly in the hands .of the Imperial Government. The sovereignty of the self-governing ' Dominions vested nominally in the Imperial Parliament, but iu practice the Dominions were sovereign States as far as their internal affairs concerned. The sovereignty of India, for example, did vest in the Imperial Parliament, and it was at least doubtful if the people of that vast country would ever become qualified for dcmooratic selfgovernment. Their gvnius did not appear to lay in that direction. Mr. Hogben proceeded to argue that the real and vital unity ol tho Empire, the unity of sentiment and a common will, already existed, and did not require the form of constitutional unity, which might be impossible of attainment. Tho need of tho peoples of the Empire was a central executive, which would give effect to tho will and sentiment of the Empire's peoples without delay or friction. Tho remarkable denionstra-

tiou of-unity given by the Empire at tho outbreak of the war ha<l not been dependent upon the existence of an Imperial governing body, and such a body would nob have secured a greater nicasuro of co-operation or aroused more enthusiasm. The speaker proceeded to point oiit some of the difficulties that would arise in connection with Imperial tfixation, imposed by an Imperial body on -which a particular Stato would imvo merely a minority voice. Tho application of compulsion to ii. State by the Imperial body would, bo a step towards separation, and this argument applied > to i..ery function of government* AVonld New Zealand and Australia consent to the free admission of coloured immigrants ir their representatives in oti r Imperial Parliament had...been . out-voted _ concerning; the; terms of a treaty with-_-.au Eastern Power?, He agreed that an improved channel of communication between the Dominions and tho Imperial Government was needed, but that oould be secured by tho Imperial Conference and a Standing Committee. The depcwlencios of the Empire could be given representation on an advisory bodv of that kind, whereas they would not' be admitted to an Imperial Parliament 011 any satisfactory basis.

An Imperial Parliament, Mr. H. F. Von Haast, who was the second speaker, supported the following proposition: "That the preservation of the Empire will be best secured in the future by the creation of a supremo Imperial Parliament, having control of Imperial affairs, Imperial defence, and the Imperial dependencies, with full .power of taxation over all the self-govern-ing Dominions and dependencies for these purposes." . He said, lTrst, that he preferred 'the name "Commonwealth" to "Empire,"' which savoured' too much of autocratic control. Every part of the Commonwealth should have the widest possible freedom of development within itself, but there must be a central controlling authority for Imperial affairs. It had been said there were three courses open to the Empire, Ho believed there were but two courscs, federation on the oiic hand, and separation and suicide on the other hand. The present system of compromises, contributions,' and conferences spelled impotence. An Empire without a controlling authority could 'not be efficient or safe, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom could not be regarded as a full Imperial Parliament, since it- did not represent those British communities living in the self-govern-ing Dominions. The war had proved already that defence must be the common affair of the whole of tho selfgoverning Dominions. The people of tho United Kingdom could not bear tlie whole burden of defence, and the Dominions could Hot bo content to make contributions without having a voice in expenditure, or remain without any voice on vital questions of foreign policy. Mr. Von Haast proceeded to argue that the Empire needed a true Imperial Parliament, representing the United Kingdom and the iionumons, and possessing supremo powers in all Imperial matters, including defence and foreign ■ policy. This Imperial Parliament would create an Imperial Cabinet, while tho domestic affairs of the United Kingdom and the Dominions' would remain in the hands of local Parliaments. Representation in ithe Imperial Parliament would be on the basis of white population. Powers of direct taxation would be possessed by the central governing body, but in practice the local Parliaments M ould be assigned quotas and left to provide the money in their own way. Only in tho event of default would the Imperial Parliament require to use its oier-rid-in<* powers by "putting in a receiver." Adniittedlv there wore difficulties. But the British race had a_ genius for solving difficulties, and witli the need for the creation of a workable system of government for the Empire, the means would be evolved. Mr. Von Haast mentioned that the reorganised "Kmnire would need a written constitution, which need not be rigid in form. The alternative to the proposal lie was supporting was the maintenance of a svstem that left the whole control of Tmnerinl dofenee and foreign affairs in the hands of the peonle of the United Kiivdom. He believed that svstein would mean tho separation of self-gov-erning Dominions, which 'would not be content to remain lucre appendages of tho United Ivingdomas far as the vital issues of foreign affairs were concerned. 11l conclusion, the sneaker argued that the evidence of history was in favour

of federation as a solution of problems of government. A Scheme of Alllanoes. Mr. P. J. O'liegan, who was the third, speaker, proposed: "That the preservation of the British Commonwealth in the future can best be scoured by a system of alliances among the selfgoverning Dominions, each Dominion being a sovereign and independent State." He said that such a system of alliances would fulfil the objects the British people had in view with the least possible resistance to the existing order. His proposal accorded best with the realities of the Empire problems. The keystone of British colonial policy, as stated by Sir Charles Lucas, was to leave tho colonies severely alone as far' as their local affairs were concerned—particularly when the coloiiiies were in the wrong. Sir. Asquith hacl said that the Imperial system was "local dominion, absolute, unlettered and complete, with loyalty to a common head, and spontaneous and unforced co-operation for common interests and common purposes." Mr. Balfour had said that the Empire depended upon "thevco-operation of absolutely independent Parliaments." What would be the position of New' Zealand if it had surrendered powers of taxation to a Ministry sitting in London, and containing one New Zealand Minister? The proposals of Mr. Lionel Curtis were impracticable and unhistoric. Mr. Curtis had called in the aid of Milton, who had spent twenty years advocating republican principles, and of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, who had been in favour of elective Governors, and had said that the United State's of America were still British colonies. Ho was confounded by his own arguments. John Robert Godley, one of New Zealand's greatest men, had said that ho would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a board in London. "The peoplo who landed on Petone beach more than seventy years ago," said Mr. O'Eogan, "did not come here

to extend the British Empire; they camc here to found a sovereign and independent State." Bright and Cobden

had not been onposed to colonics; they had been opposed to control of colonies by the United Kingdom, and they had been supported by the opinion of 'the leading public men of their day. Tho speaker added that he believed in the principle of nationality, but he did not favour mechanical national unity. Empires were accidents, nations were the reali-

ties. Yet Mr. Curtis wanted to make a mechanical Empire of the British Empire, in which only one-eighth of the people spoke the English langage ; while he would leave outside that Empire the 100,000,000 English-speaking inhabitants of the United States. In conclusion, Mr. O'Eegau said that every man

loved one country. Now nations had been born in the British' Dominions, and

the rights of those little nations could not bo over-ridden by a scheme of the kind sugestcd by the Federalists. All attempt to do so would spell disruption. Proposals Discussed. In the course of general discussion, Mr. Smith said that if the war had proved one thing it had been that the free institutions of tho Dominions,could be protected only by a protective organisation. If tho Empire did not possess the strength of unity it would not long retain the "rights" its people now enjoyed. Mr. H. Holland supported Mr. O'Kegan's proposition. He said the ideal to bo pursued was not segregation, but a union of freedom wide enough to take in any community advanced enough ta wish to do so. He dtli not believe there was anything to be gained by the creation of small republics, nor did he believe that any nation was capable of governing another nation effectively. "

Several, other speakers gave their views; and "the : original speakers then made brief -speeches in replj'.', Tho three propositions were put to the meeting, which endorsed Mr. Von Jlaast's motion, which received 45 votes, as against 27 for Mr. O'Rcgan's proposal and 3 for Mr. Hogben's pro-