and commercial centre. Whether we are right, or whether we are wrong, no doubt makes a difference to the tactics of the immediate future, but it can make no difference in the desire which we all must have to work in common for the great end of the emancipation of our fellow-men. The mere fact that you and I are meeting here to discuss in a friendly manner the deepest social and economical problems, however cursorily, is a proof that men are learning to sink differences of opinion in the sincere desire to find a base of agreement in view of the silent anarchy of to-day, and the furious anarchy which, unless some serious and important measures are immediately taken, threatens to overwhelm the civilised world tomorrow. The equality of men and the enfranchisement of women, which to-day are spoken of by many as a dream, are becoming really a necessity for the advance of civilisation. Only by and through an International Socialist feeling, and a brotherhood amongst the workers of the world, can we hope for the happy future which thousands of the noblest of our race have longed to see.

6

G. With all your sentiments I heartily agree. We who seek to substitute for the present social order one in which poverty should be unknown are not the men who threaten society. They are really the dangerous men who insist that injustice must continue because it exists. Nothing but good can come from a free interchange of opinion. Every man who looks at civilised society to-day must feel that the order that exists, and which you have so graphically described, is not that order which the Creator has intended. The only question between us is as to the best way of substituting for it that order of things which will give free play to the powers and full scope to the aspirations of mankind. And questions of method are as yet but secondary. The great work is to break up the pitiable contentment of the poor,' and arouse the conscience of the rich, to spread everywhere the feeling of brotherhood. And this your Socialists are doing. These are indeed world-wide questions. We on the other side of the Atlantic have the same social problems to solve that are forcing themselves upon you here. The great change in public feeling that I have observed since my visit here a year ago proves to me that you in England are indeed taking hold of these questions with a determination to solve them. In my opinion, the greatest of English revolutions has already commenced, and it means not merely revolution in England, but one which will extend over the whole civilised world.

HENRY GEORGE.
H. M. HYNDMAN.

The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake

to return unaccepted MSS.

THE

NINETEENTH

CENTURY.

No. XCVII.-MARCH 1885.

THE UNITY OF THE EMPIRE.

I.

'I do not say that we are trying by federation to make the Empire one commonwealth in relation to Foreign Powers, because at the present time it is one commonwealth.'-Right Hon. W. E. FORSTER, Nineteenth Century, February 1885, p. 201. 'Why can't you let it alone ? '-Lord MELBOURNE.

Ar a time like the present, when the unity of our Empire is a patent fact; when Colonial and Old Country troops are converging from East and West to a common base of military operations, a writer who allows to appear even an appearance of disunion among those who desire the continuance of a firmly united Empire incurs a grave responsibility. I entreat the Federation League to accept the following pages as the warning, not of an enemy, but of a friend. It is not without serious deliberation that I have arrived at the conclusion that the remonstrance is necessary.

First let me begin by a profession of faith. If, in these pages, I argue against the new plan proposed by the Imperial Federation League, I desire to say at once that I do so because I am in favour of continuing the Imperial Union which now exists, and which has not heretofore needed, and does not now need, the aid of any league at all. I object to the methods but not to the object of the League. The professed object is to promote the unity of the Empire. I agree with that; but the federation which the League proposes is to be established on the ruins of our presently existing Constitution, which I VOL. XVII.-No. 97.

D D

look upon as an object of reverence to be jealously maintained. Even if it were necessary (which I do not admit) to amend the British Constitution, in order to strengthen the Empire, I should still object to the means advocated by the League: because I think the new constitution they want to establish would, in no long time, break our Empire to pieces; and I believe that the existing Union, which, from year to year, in modern times has been growing stronger, and is likely to increase in strength if it is let alone, will dwindle away if it is tampered with.

This statement of faith is put on record at the outset because the advocates of the League declare loudly that those who are not with the League are against Imperial Union. I categorically deny it. Imperial Federation now exists; all I entreat of them is, to allow it to continue.

I look upon this League as another instance of that craze for overlegislation which never can rest without tinkering our Institutions. Rent, wages, contracts-all the relations between man and man-must be matter of State interference. The existence of any matter not directly regulated by statute is a direct challenge to make one. All our Institutions are now upon their trial,' said a Radical speaker, a few years ago. It is quite true that they have been put upon their trial; and this present proposal outdoes all former proposals, for it sets aside, absolutely, the Prerogative of the Crown and the powers of the two Houses of Parliament in favour of a brand-new Constitution. Let those who disbelieve this statement read the paragraph which begins at the foot of page 208 of the February number of this Review, and which is quoted and commented on at page 395 of the present number.

The League is of quite recent formation; and it has been fortunate enough to enlist Mr. Forster as its president. He has thrown himself into the work with characteristic energy and singleness of purpose.

Men who have all their lives been working, quietly and without fuss, to promote the steady development of Imperial Union, were at first puzzled, and perhaps somewhat amused, by this sudden outburst of enthusiasm. Before they well knew what was afloat a great organisation had been planned. A meeting (at which admission was by ticket, and from which all persons not specially invited were excluded) passed Resolutions, forming a League; Committees, Secretaries, Honorary Secretaries, Vice-Presidents, and all the familiar machinery of organisation were appointed. The inevitable hat went round, and the papers began to ring with the great things the League was going to accomplish. The quiet workers, of whom I spoke-men, for instance, like the Agents-general for the various Colonies-were placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. By the necessity of their position they were deeply interested in anything which could foster the unity of the Empire: the objects of the League were excellent, the means to be employed were at first left judiciously vague; and it was generally agreed by the older hands, that although they were not quite clear that the new organisation was wanted, it would be unwise

to discourage it. Many of them joined it; but before long an opinion arose among some of the most practical and influential colonists sojourning in England, and among English political men of all parties who understand Colonial matters, that the League were going too fast, and were in fact likely to do more harm than good; besides, to put the matter mildly, among the leaders, always excepting Mr. Forster, there were some who would not have been chosen as leaders by any other process than self-election.

I must here make a strictly necessary explanation respecting the Empire Club, the name of which has been freely mentioned of late. That body is strictly non-political. It only exists to promote, in its own humble way, the unity of the Empire. It counts among its members large numbers of gentlemen from various colonies; among them, eight governors, nine ex-governors, seven agents-general for the colonies, seven premiers of the colonies, five ex-premiers, seven chief commissioners, many chief justices and other legal dignitaries, as well as almost all English statesmen, of all shades of politics, who have devoted attention to colonial affairs. The meetings of the club are of a social not a political character. Doubtless, most various opinions prevail at its gatherings, and are freely expressed: such free expressions are cordially welcomed, and such weight is attached to them as belongs to the individual influence of the speaker. It is obvious that such a body, so variously constituted, cannot authorise anyone to speak in its name.

It, however, happens that the doubts respecting the wisdom of the Imperial Federation League, first acquired publicity by speeches made at a dinner of the club, by three persons, one of whom was myself, and two were Agents-general for the Colonies. That expression of opinion was, perhaps naturally, though quite erroneously, treated by the press, and as I understand by the League, as the opinion of the Empire Club. I desire distinctly to say that such is not the case. I hold no brief for the Empire Club, and the opinions here set down, unless where the contrary is expressly stated, must be attributed to myself alone. It does not, however, follow that I stand alone in my opinions.

Just at the time when the speeches of which I have just spoken were made, Mr. Forster published his article. We have in it the authoritative teaching of the League and the development of its policy, as formulated by its president. To do him justice there is no hesitation about it; it is subversive of the present order of things, and if I plead strongly against it, it is because I feel that, against an antagonist so strong and bold, the only hope of safety lies in equal boldness. It is always a pleasure to encounter Mr. Forster whether one agrees with him or not. He always writes like a gentleman and a statesman. He thinks before he speaks; whether he is right or wrong, he is always in favour of what, in his opinion at least, is true

and good; and he is unfeignedly attached to the Imperial Idea,' which has been so much maligned. For all this I honour him. I read his article with a sincere wish to find myself in accord with the writer, for I have been a worker in the same field for more than thirty years. Moreover I had the honour of being the founder and first president of the Colonial Institute, where the Imperial Federation League has been invented. So that I entertained a paternal curiosity to see what my bantling was doing. The result has been to a considerable extent disappointing. Wishing as I do with all my heart to draw closer the ties which bind Great Britain to her colonies, I cannot but fear that the proposals of Mr. Forster would have quite an opposite effect.

Mr. Forster occupies a peculiar position in politics. Though his strong good sense and his feeling of what is due to England's honour separate him from the party now in power, there is a side of his political character which is purely Radical, and which renders him unwilling to range himself under any Tory banner. What with 'Fourth parties' and' corner men' there is no room for another independent flag. There is for a man of such energy as his no alternative but to go forth into the wilderness.

With no political work immediately at his hand, and with inexhaustible energy which friend and foe know him to possess, he has wandered through dry places, seeking rest, and found-the Imperial Federation League. He has given characteristic enthusiasm to the study of Imperialism: but it is a necessity of the case that he is in this matter of Colonial policy necessarily a novice. He has arrived at conclusions logical enough as deductions from reading, and from the outward seeming of things, but which are yet contradicted by experience. He starts with a main proposition which is not tenable. I venture to think that if he had looked it in the face for twenty years, instead of one or two, he would not hold it so strongly as he does. When he says (p. 201) that, 'in giving our colonies selfgovernment we have introduced a principle which must eventually . . dissolve the union, unless counteracting measures be taken to preserve it,' I respectfully join issue with him. I say that you may logically prove that this ought to be true, if you like, but practically it is less true than it was twenty years ago; moreover it is becoming less true every year. If by eventually' Mr. Forster means a hundred years hence, I will not stop to contest the point: practical statesmen deal with the immediate future: but I do say that influences have come into play during the last twenty years, and are becoming stronger day by day, which, as far as we can now see, render disruption more and more improbable.

In ordinary matters it would be impertinent in me to question Mr. Forster's experience. But in this matter I may fairly claim to be a veteran, where he, comparatively, is a novice. It is thirty years since I began to know a great colony,-not as a traveller, but as a