The Daily News. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1916. THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION IDEA.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 August 1916, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1916. THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION IDEA.

Advocates of Imperial Federation appear to be growing in number in New Zealand as well as in other parts of the Empire. The statesmen of the Mother Country have little attention to spare from the war, but they show a tendency to dally with ideas that were regarded by them as positively revolutionary when propounded by Sir Joseph Ward five years ago. Here in New Zealand public men generally have not given much thought to the problems of imperial organisation and government, though the Hon. J. Allen took occasion, in the closing -hours of last session, to invite, their consideration of subjects that were bound to become of pressing importance immediately after the end of the Great War. But Mr. Lionel Curtis and other enthusiasts 'have labored to promote interest in this problem of Empire, and there are signs that their work has not been in vain. Students of this question should not lack some knowledge of the voluminous Blue Book containing the "minutes of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference in 1911. It was on the first day of the Conference that Sir Joseph Ward, sitting at the Foreign Office with Mr. Asquith, Mr. Harcourt, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Andrew Fisher, General Louis Botha, Sir E. iP. Morris ..nd other renrescntativca of the self-

governing dominions, moved as follows: "That the Empire had now reached a stage of Imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the self-go-veniiug parts of the Kiupirc, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial llovcrmncnt on all ipiestions affecting the interests of his Majesty's dominions oversea." The discussion that followed was full of interest and significance. The New Zealand Prime Minister was thinking ahead of the time, and he did not press his motion after he had heard the views of lib companions at the Conference table. I But what he said then is finding its echo 'in very many quarters to-day:

"In this great concern of Imperial defence must not there be some kind of partnership between all parts of our Empire? I hope it will not be regarded in any way as rudeness for me to say that England, witnessing the magnificent growth in strength, wealth and numbers of these oversea dominions, will not forget that she does not, as in the earliest days of their existence, possess them. They are no longer Crown colonies. They create with her an Empire, and, allowing for power and numbers, they belong to that Empire just as she does. It is a family group of free nations. England is the first among the free nations. Changes during the last three-quarters of a century demand, in my opinion, that the old relation of 'mother to infants' should cease. The day for partnership in true Imperial affairs has arrived, and the question which- now emerges is, upon w.hat basis is that partnership to rest? It certainly cannot rest upon the present relationship. No partnership deserves the name which docs not give to the partners at least some voice in the most vital of the partnership concerns, and what I am endeavoring to bring out is this: How is that voice to be 'heard, and how is it to be made effective?"

Tlie scheme sketched by Sir Joseph Ward was the creation of an Imperial Parliament of Defence "for the purpose of determining peace or war and dealing with contributions to Imperial defence, foreign policy as it affects the Empire, international treaties so far as they affect the Empire, and such other Imperial matters as may by agreement lie transferred to such Parliament." lie suggested that the basis of representation in this Imperial Parliament should be one member for each 200,000 of white population. Great Britain would then have 220 members, Canada 37, Australia 25. South Africa 7, New Zealand 0 and Newfoundland 2, making a total of 297. This Parliament would appoint an Executive. Then there would be, in addition, an Imperial Senate, consisting of 12 elected members, two from each of the States represented in the other Chamber. Sir Josepli suggested that during the first ten years of its existence the "Imperial Parliament of Defence" should have no power of taxation, but he indicated clearly enough his belief that its financial status would have to be assured, and the Conference was quick to see that the British and Dominion 'Parliament-! would be subordinate, inevitably, to the Imperial body. The point evidently loomed very large in their minds, and the tone of the discussion is indicated in the following extract from the official report:

Sir Joseph Ward: What I want to bring about is a uniformity of system for. the preservation of the whole of our overseas interests.

Sir Wilfrid Lauricr: That is to say, the Imperial Council should compel us. Sir Joseph Ward: We should fix a basis upon which a contribution should be levied for sea defence in the general interests of the. whole. Mr. Asquith: Your suggestion is that the Imperial Council, unless it is to be a mere academic thing, is to have the power of imposing that obligation? Sir Joseph Ward: Quite so. Mr. Asquith: Even on a dissentient dominion ?

Sir Joseph Ward: Mr. Asquith, at the present moment, if England goes to war, ail the oversea dominions are directly affected by the results, and that could happen without the slightest reference to either an assenting or a dissenting dominion.

Mr. Asquith: We cannot get a contribution to the Navy without the assent of the dominion. Sir Joseph Ward: But you can involve them in war, Mr. Asquith: Is the proposal that it should be in the power of this new body to impose an invitum, against a particular dominion, a policy of contribution to which that dominion would not voluntarily assent? General Botha: And fix the amount? Mr, Asquith: And fix the amount. Mr. Fisher: By a benevolent revolution, I suppose. Sir Joseph Ward: If the proposal is to establish an ineffective, nominal Council . . it is far better to drop the whole thing. ... I am not foolish enough not to realise that the proposals I am making are surrounded with very great difficulties.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Fisher, General Botha, Sir Edward Morris and Mr. Asquith, followed by Sir Joseph Ward, who had explained his schenfe in detail, and they condemned his proposal with striking unanimity. The objection urged in each instance was that an Imperial Parliament, or Imperial Council, would restrict the authority of the existing Parliaments of the Empire. The representatives of Canada, Australia, South Africa and Xcwfoundland wished' their States to retain full powers of self-government, even in matters of defence, of an Imperial controlling authority. Mr. Asquith plainly stated his views thus:

Sir Joseph Ward, in a .speech the ability and interest of which we all acknowledge, which must represent the expenditure of a very great deal of time and thought, has presented lis with a concrete proposition; but it is a proposition which not a single representative of any of the other dominions, nor I as representing for the time being the Imperial Government, could possibly assent to. . ■■. . It would impair, if not altogether destroy, the authority of the Government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion o* treatisa the de-

duration and maintenance of peace, or the declaration of war. . That •authority cannot be shared, und the coexistence »ide by side with the Cabinet of the United Kingdom of tliU proposed body, clothed with the functions and the jurisdiction which Sir Joseph Ward proposed to invest it with, would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government. That is from the Imperial point of view. Now from the point of view of the dominions, I cannot do better than repeat in my own words what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So far as the dominions are concerned, this new machine would impose upon the dominions, by the voice of a body in which they would be a .standing minority (that is part of the case), a policy of which they might all disapprove, of which some of them at any rate possibly and probably would disapprove, a piMicy which would in most cuscs involve expenditure, and an expenditure which would .have to be met by the imposition on a dissentient community of taxation by its own Government. We cannot, with the traditions and history of the British Empire behind us, either from the point ■of view of the United Kingdom, or from the point of view of our selfgoverning dominions, assent for a moment to proposals which are so fatal to the very fundamental conditions on which our Empire has been built up and carried on.

The New Zealand Prime Minister replied briefly before withdrawing his motion. "In niy judgment," he said, "there is no proper recognition of the change that :s taking place in the oversea dominions. This is not a question of the dominions seeking in any way to weaken the great old-British Constitution, which has done so much for all of us; it is a suggestion for their active co-operation." All this may seem old history to an Empire which has been accumulating experience at breathless speed during the last twen-ty-four months,, but its hearing upon recent discussions ought not to be overlooked. The proposal put forward by the Imperial federationists of to-day bears a very close resemblance to the scheme propounded by Sir' Joseph Ward five years ago. Mr. Lionel Curtis, whose work, "The Problem of the British Commonwealth," is likely to be the accepted text-book on the subject, suggests the establishment of national Parliaments, English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh, in the United Kingdom, and the creation of a representative Imperial (Parliament, containing elected members from all parts of the Empire. This Imperial Parliament would have authority in Imperial matters, and Mr. Curtis accepts the inevitable corollary:

"There is one inexorable condition which it lies not in the power of man to avoid. You cannot have an Imperial Government responsible to dominion electorates without making dominion electorates responsible to the Imperial Government for providing the revenue needed for the execution of the functions entrusted to it. . . .

It must haVe power to charge the resources of all the communities to whom it is answerable with whatever cost is necessary for their common defence."

The Imperial Parliament, says Mr. Curtis, would have full power to coerce a dissentient dominion. Its estimates would be "a first charge on the consolidated fevenue of each dominion.'' In the event of any "miscarriage," the Imperial body would secure from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth "the right to collect the Customs' or any other existing taxes in order to cover the default of the dominion Government." Sir Joseph Ward had no proposal as drastic as that, and it is easy to imagine what Mr. Asquith, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the others would have said if he had gone half as fa'r. But what will be the reply of the next Imperial Conference if the question discussed in 1911 is brought forward again?