TRUE IMPERIALISM.

Grey River Argus, 11 April 1911, Page 1

TRUE IMPERIALISM.

<*. WHY UNIONIST iBMPERIALJJSM HAS FIAJLED. (By iH. W. Massingham, in London ■ "Leader.") Which is the true Imperialist party? I have always had my view on this matter, and many political events of the last few years have confirmed it., The 1 IConservajtrvfe party has never in any true modern or British sense been Imperialist. And when it readopted Protection, with Imperial Preference as a basis, it took a step which .bound it, facts being that they are, to a course of anti-ilimperialist policy. Its aim then, as always, was to strengthen the formal connection between the centre and the circumference of the British States. But it started on a false historic 'analogy, if indeed it ever thought historically at all. It imagined that these islands could ever be to the communities which flowed away from them what Rome was to her colonies and dependencies, and that such a development would fee a 'good thing even if it were possible. We may say, if we please, an analogy between Rome and her Empire and England and her Indian Empire. There ,as with Rome, 'the 'tie is a military one, the administrative association is strict and doubly centralised, and differences of race and civilisinig factors, and the existence of a permanent military problem, thought out atJHome and controlled by Imperial officers, intervene to emphasise the dominance 'of the power. A DROWNED REPUBLIC. But our colonial problem is different in character from that of Rome or of our Indian Empire. There is no effective military tie between Great Britain and Canada, or Great Britain and Australia. The moment we try to creajte one, it baffles our efforts, and leads to the development of practically independent services. Nor is the administrative bond other than a loose -one.' The real colonies >are independent and selfgoverning ; they iare essentially nations. They do the real work of man agement for themselves ; we provide them with the machinery which enables them to avoid the trouble and difficulty of setting up a Monarchy or a Republic. In essence, Australia and Canada are go.vgrned under Republican fdrm.F and sentiment ; in form our .Crowned Republic provides them with a most happy and convenient 'hiea'dship. As in government, so in character. The colonists are like us, and yet different. There is a distinct Canadian type ; a still more easily recognisaible Australian type; a quite different African type. And the tendency of their devoloping institutions is to set up independent forms. Unionist Administrations favoured this tendency as .much as Liberal ones, though they do it with more reluctance. Australia, under Mr Joseph Chamberlain, largely freed herself from the supreme legal authority of the Privy Council. All the attempts to unify the fleet under Imperial control have failed. The colonies are very much attached to the Motherland. But they are .grown up. Apd they will igo their own way. iMR CHAMBERLAIN'S FAILURE. This is the moral of 'all the great colonial events that this generation and its predecessor have witnessed — the unification of Australia, Canada, and South Africa ,and now the great act of Canadian" commercial reciprocity with the States. All these are essentially developments iof what we may broa.dly call the spirit of (Liberalism. iMr Chamberlain has to bow to it in the Australian case. 'Being an impatient, illogical, and with all his cleverness and knowledge of some sides of the' colonial character, an essentially unthikning man, he tried to 'break it by way of the South African war, and in the case oflmperial Preference. In both case events took their refuge on the heedless and mis taken m.an who 'tried to bend them in the way he wished them to go 'rather than in the way they were 'bound to gio. .South Africa settled her own national destiny. Canada is now settling", her own commercial "destiny in the way in which Goldwin Smith ■ and \all competent observers ( of Canadian problems always foresaw that she should settle it. The Imperialists .shriek that all is lost. So it is for their cause, which never could have won. They want to ;build an Empire which would he a curse to the world. They want the colonies to serve us, not , themselves — especially for any vague, ambitious, ill-conceiv-ed, illnomened policy which the hatreds ox jealousies of the hour may inspire. I THE PAN-BRITANNIC FALLACY. I This false image of pan-Bfitannic power has been .rudely shattered durin,g the last few days. Now that it is seen that Canada wants American trade, images the immense 'birthright which has always been hers, and in spite of sectional jealousies and the difficulties attending a partial diversion of her economic development into a new channel, visibly accepts and marches forward to the achievement of her natural destiny, a ' spirit • .of ill-disgusted hate and chaigrim arises in the heart of the British Imperialist, who usually cairns a rather insulting monopoly of Imperial, sentiment. How dare Canada consult her own interests ? iHow dare she interfere with our designs for, her good? Bang — ibamg — splutter — splut t.er — go off all the igreat Imperial guns — turned, by a sad mischance, on the ranks of their own .allies; Lib-v

eralism looks on perfectly unmoved. It is always prepared fo ithis devolopment. Its economic views teach it cannot Ibut benefit us while even on' the narrow and immediate 'ground of Britsh^Canadian trade, it is clear that we shall do better under the new system than under the old. JNew Col-^ onists will be wanted to force the new growth that will spring from the throwing down of the 'barriers that man made for his own disadvantage across the American-Canadian frontier. We shall supply some of them, the States others. iNew corn lands will be opened up for culture; new economies of production will 'keep prices down; new machinery will be wanted for the new industries ; and we, with our unrivalled capacity for cheap production, ..our- close ties of ibldod with Canada, and our well-es-tablished trade and snipping routes and conveniences, will get a very lax^ie share in the coming trdae. Again will Free Trade foe justified; ajgain will Liberalism come to its own. ..-'•", THE EMPIRE OF T^E FUTURE. No; the future is not. to protective, militarised Imperialism of a bastard Roman type. The modern world is not built for, it. It' is too civilised ; it wants so much more than the neoProtectionists can give ft;, it has interests which :go ibeyond frontiers and State boundaries, and stretch out to a true internationalism. Nor is this inconsistent with the unity of the Empire, so long as y the true conceptions and the 'true. 'limitations of that unity prevail. It is the characteristic of a false policy that we expect too much from it. The Protectionist imperialists are like children. They are angry with the ground that hurts them when they trip jivi'tn heedless feet upon it.-