Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

IV.

Some Reflections on the Colonial Conference.

Milner, G.C.B.

[ocr errors]

Leisurely America. By H. W. Horwill

[ocr errors]

By Viscount

NATIONAL REVIEW 323

MONTHLY REVIEW 333

The Enemy's Camp. Chapters VIII. and IX. (To be continued)

MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE 341

A Plea for the Popular in Literature. By J. A. Spender

NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER 348 V. The Modern Attitude Towards Belief in a Future Life. By Samuel McComb, M.A., D.D. LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW 358 The Peacemakers. By Captain Frank H. Shaw, F.R.A.S.

VI.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

CHAMBERS's JOURNAL 368

SPECTATOR 375

NATION 378 ACADEMY 381

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

FOR SIX DOLLARS, remitted directly to the Publishers, THE LIVING AGE will be punctually forwarded for a year, free of postage, to any part of the U. S. or Canada.

Postage to foreign countries in U. P U. is 3 cents per copy or $1.56 per annum.

Remittances should be made by bank draft or check, or by post-office or express money order, if possible. If neither of these can be procured, the money should be sent in a registered letter. All postmasters are obliged to register letters when requested to do so. Drafts, checks, express and money orders should be made payable to the order of THE LIVING AGE Co.

Single Copies of THE LIVING AGE, 15 cents.

[blocks in formation]

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

The close approach of what we are still unfortunately compelled to call the "Colonial" Conference is occupying the thoughts and pens of political writers of every shade of opinion. And certainly the subject is sufficiently important and many-sided to afford material for them all. In these notes I shall make no attempt to cover the whole ground, or to deal with the more picturesque and personal aspects of the Conference. I approach the subject frankly from the standpoint of an Imperialist whose interest is centred in the question how far, if at all, the Conference is going to promote the organic unity of the self-governing States of the Empire. And in that connection-and this, rather than guesses or prophecies, is my principal object-I may attempt briefly to restate the position which we Imperialists of the new school hold to-day, and to clear away some of the misunderstandings which exist with regard to

it.

There can be no doubt that the Conference will be the occasion of a very remarkable display, of friendly feeling. As far as mere hospitality goes, nothing will be left undone to make the gathering a complete success. Indeed, the very warmth of the reception which will be accorded to its members, the number of "functions" they will have to attend, of patriotic speeches they will have to listen and respond to, may materially enhance the difficulties, in any case great, which stand in the way of their arriving at any positive results in the serious business before them. One of the chief of these difficulties is the want of time. Three weeks in every four years is not nearly time enough to devote to the solution of the gravest

political problem which confrouts not only the United Kingdom, but all the members of the Imperial family. That is one of the reasons which make it so essential that the Conference should on this occasion, before it breaks up, create some permanent machinery for carrying on its work in the long intervals between its brief and widely separated sessions.

a

They

I have spoken of organic unity as the object to be arrived at. Let me define that object more precisely-indeed, with the utmost precision of which the circumstances permit. Some Imperialists, even of the most thoroughgoing type, are, on grounds of policy, averse to giving too definite a shape to their aspirations. adopt deliberately a certain diplomatic nebulousness. Personally I question the wisdom of this policy. No doubt it is impossible at this stage to frame cut-and-dried scheme of Imperial union. But it is one thing to have an open mind about methods, quite another to be, or to appear, vague and hesitating about the end we wish to attain. In order to convince, to win adherents, to create such a body of public opinion as can alone give the necessary impetus to any great enterprise of constructive statesmanship, we must be clear, and must be seen to be clear, with regard to our ultimate object. That is quite consistent with flexibility-and flexibility in this sense is essential-in the choice of means; with a readiness to take what we can get at any given momeut, although it may fall far short of what we think desirable or even ultimately necessary. I fancy that the most fervent Imperialist will be well satisfied if he gets even a small instalment of what he desires from the present Conference, always

provided that he is able to regard it as an instalment, a first step, though perhaps but a short one, on the road to his goal.

What is the goal? What is it that we, who call ourselves Imperialists, really have in our minds when we talk of "the consolidation of the Empire," of "Imperial unity," and so forth? It is, I take it, nothing less than this: that the several States of the Empire, however independent in their local affairs, however dissimilar in some of their institutions, should yet constitute, for certain purposes, one body politic; that, in their relations to the rest of the world, they should appear, and be, a single Power, speaking with one voice, acting and ranking as one great unit in the society of States.

I know that there are some, even among those fervently desiring the maximum of common action, who think that this ideal is no longer attainable. The great self-governing Colonies, they say, are already separate nations. The most we can hope for is that they and the Mother Country should remain permanently allied nations. With all due respect, I differ from this view.

The idea of alliance is not adequate. It is not really at all appropriate to the circumstances of the case. An alliance is the voluntary combination of wholly distinct and separate States, of communities which, but for such voluntary agreement, would be mutually foreign to one another. That certainly is not the relation of the several States of the Empire to one another to-day, nor need it ever become their relation, however great their individual growth and development. For, in the first place, they are all subject to one Sovereign. That no doubt is not in itself conclusive. Over and over again in history, wholly separate States-Austria and Spain under Charles V., Great Britain and Hanover

from 1714 to 1837, &c. &c.-have owed allegiance to the same Sovereign. But what at once differentiates the relation of the States of the Empire to one another from that of even the most closely allied independent States is the fact that every man of European race who is born under the British flag is entitled ipso facto to full citizen rights in every State of the Empire. This is wholly inconsistent with political separateness, and it is an element of the case which is of vast importance.

True it is, and we ought to rejoice at the fact, that the great Colonies have attained, or are fast attaining, the proportions and dignity of nations, and that they have, as nations, a growing sense of individuality, a character, a pride, and a tradition of their own. But nationhood does not necessarily involve a wholly separate and selfcontained existence. There may be, there are, cases in which several nations form a single State, or a Stategroup, possessing political unity. To take only one instance which is quite close to hand, the Scotch are surely entitled to be regarded as a nation. Yet they are politically merged with the English, and merged to a degree which no one contemplates in the case of the Canadians or Australians. And if distinct nations can and do constantly form a single body politic, is there any case in which such union is more easy, more natural, and more likely to prove enduring than where the united peoples, however various their growth, have still for the most part sprung from a common stock, and possess for the most part a common language and a vast common stock of moral, political, and social ideas?

It is indeed difficult to classify what, for want of a better term, we call the British Empire. It fits into no recognized category, and cannot be accurately described by means of our ex

isting political vocabulary. We are face to face with a new situation, with a relationship of communities which has no precedent in history. To make it a success we require novel institutions. Even to give an adequate account of it we almost require a novel terminology. Whoever attempts to describe it is perforce driven to the use of analogy and metaphor. The phrase "a family of States," though lacking in precision, is perhaps best calculated to convey a conception corresponding to the facts. It is a family of separate households, but with interests inextricably intermingled, and its salvation lies in a family partnership somewhat similar to one of those business partnerships of related "houses," situated in different countries, which play so great a part in the world of finance. They each look after their own interests, and in a sense are independent of one another, yet their intimate relationship and constant co-operation, the very practical "preference" which they give to one another, constitute a combination of enormous power. A common origin is at the root of it, the immense mutual advantages which it offers are the cement which keeps it together.

But, metaphor apart, is there anything impracticable in a twofold citizenship and a twofold patriotism? Every German is familiar with the idea of a "narrower" and a "wider" Fatherland. He is a patriotic Prussian, Saxon, Bavarian, but he is a patriotic German to boot. I can see no greater difficulty for any subject of the British Crown in feeling a similar double allegiance-allegiance to his own country and allegiance to the Empire as a whole. And the example of the Germans is in one respect particularly instructive. Time was when Germany was little more than a geographical expression, when it had even less political unity than the loosely

compacted British Empire has at the present time. It was the sentiment and the desire of unity which made the mighty political fabric which we see to-day. German patriotism created the German Empire, and a similar patriotism could surely consolidate

our own.

No doubt we all need to cultivate that patriotism. But in embryo the feeling of the wider citizenship is already there. Only we must not expect it to take, in the case of the younger nations, the form of prerogative attachment to the Mother Country. How often have I heard Colonists use expressions such as this: "We don't understand what you mean when you talk of our being loyal to England or to Great Britain. We think of our own country first. But we are loyal to the King and to the Empire." There is the whole thing in a nutshell. They have got the idea of the wider patriotism, but it is Imperial not British patriotism. Time was when the great majority of Colonists still thought and spoke of the Mother Country as "home." Now in the vast majority of cases the land in which they live is "home," whether that land be theirs by adoption, or, as is the case with an ever-increasing proportion of their number, by birth. Those of them who are of British race may still have a sentimental affection for the old country as the land of their fathers. they no longer think of themselves as belonging to it; they own no allegiance to it, they do not feel themselves to be citizens of it. When they call themselves British citizens, they are thinking of that greater political unit of which the old country and their own country are both alike parts. They are "loyal to the Empire," to the "wider fatherland" which embraces the United Kingdom but is not identical with it or subordinate to it. They cherish the conception of a union in

But

« ElőzőTovább »