Page images
PDF
EPUB

be prepared to lose our freedom, since oppression and slavery are the lot of the weak. We must sink back to the position of being hewers of wood and drawers of water for other nations. There is no middle course: we must either continue the economic national struggle or give up our possessions and our place in the world. Life is a struggle and an exploitation: peace comes only with death. Those who dare not face this truth dare not face life. "Those who will not be hammer must assuredly be anvil." The history of England is the history of every organism, a struggle for existence carried on collectively and only half-consciously, yet guiding its upward destinies through a thousand years. If we are to continue this upward course we must continue to struggle: if we accept the advice of the broken-hearted, the mean-spirited, the despairing, then we must accept also decay and look forward to extinction.

IAN D. COLVIN

THE BRITANNIC COMMONWEALTH

The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.

They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine. (Resolution No. IX, April 16, with the writer's italics.)

In the April number of this Review I was allowed to convey a warning against the fashionable idea that the Imperial Conference, then about to meet, was likely to take some important step in the direction of Imperial Federation, for which the ground had been carefully prepared in London. As I pointed out, English Imperialists had entertained precisely the same sanguine expectation when the Imperial Conference met in 1902, on the top of the Empire rally in the South African War. Their hopes were disappointed then because they had misjudged the nature of the impulse which had brought Canada and Australasia into the war. "The desire for closer and permanent union of the Empire was common ground. But in the Dominions it was autonomist, idealizing voluntary co-operation by means of conference and concerted action; whereas in Britain it was centralist, idealizing majority rule by means of a central Parliament." So history repeats herself. But until the belated arrival of General Smuts there was found no Empire statesman combining insight with courage to challenge the prevailing mood by telling the leaders of British opinion that Imperial Federation was a mistaken conception.

The decision of the Imperial Conference is embodied in the capital Resolution quoted above, which was moved by the

Canadian Premier, Sir Robert Borden, after private consultation with the others, and passed unanimously. Speaking in support of it, General Smuts declared:

...

One theory, one proposed solution of our future constitutional relations is negatived by this Resolution . . . and that is the Federal solution. The idea of a future Imperial Parliament and a future Imperial Executive is negatived by implication by the terms of this resolution.

66

That interpretation by itself is decisive; because federal union is impossible if any one of the great Dominions will not have it. But General Smuts, differing from some other statesmen who have resisted the centralist policy, has put forward an alternative plan to satisfy the instinct for union of the Britannic peoples. Not only in the Conference chamber, but in a series of striking speeches outside, he has sketched the framework of what he calls the British Commonwealth of Nations.* He bids us realize that the British Empire, as seen in the present war, is not a single State at all, but a system of States, a community of nations,' and not a stationary system, but a dynamic system, evolving all the time towards new destinies." So profound is the national diversity of communities so widely sundered by the sea that, he is convinced, unified government in any degree could only prove disastrous. You do not want to standardize the nations of the British Empire. You want to develop them into greater nationhood." Already the Empire is seen to be the only “league of nations that has worked successfully; and as a league of free nation-States it should be allowed to develop. Its appropriate organization can only be built up gradually by new experiment, and not by seeking precedents from the history of federalism. Two institutions, General Smuts suggests, of obvious utility, exist already-namely, the Crown, which is common to all the nation-States, and the Imperial Conference as their embryo organ of consultation and concerted action. How to develop the latter is the immediate constitutional problem, as indicated by the terms of the Resolution.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This conception of the future of the Empire is no longer novel, having long since been formulated and even explored in some detail by the present writer. It was always implicit in the evolution of the Imperial Conference, which has been shaped in

* He intimated that a better title is needed. As regards the adjective, apart from the sentiment of the Dominion peoples, "British" has long been disputed by Scots and Irish. Why not "Britannic," especially if, as General Smuts holds, one of the enabling conditions of the commonwealth is the institution which is already known officially as His Britannic Majesty ?

† Particularly in The Britannic Question (Longmans, 1913, price ls.), in which the problems raised by the Resolutions of the recent Imperial Conference, including that of India's position, are discussed by anticipation.

[ocr errors]

the main by the Dominions, though subject always to reactionary manipulation in the Colonial Office. But General Smuts has been the first among Britannic statesmen to adopt the idea definitely; and, further, not as an awkward "half-way house to Imperial Federation which was the most that English Imperialists generally would concede to it--but as itself the higher ideal, more desirable as well as more practicable than any scheme of federal union. If, as must be probable, the judgment of the recent Conference reflects the set tendency of Dominion nationalism, the great experiment of the Britannic Commonwealth as a permanent alliance of nation-States is really to be tried. To those who cherish the ideal of a world-wide league of nations the Britannic Commonwealth should stand always as the great exemplar; an actual working model of what is attainable under the most favourable conditions, including a certain community of tradition, language, social ideas, and political institutions which would be lacking in any wider group.

";

From the standpoint of the Dominions the principal question is that of how to effect "continuous consultation ; in other words, how to convert the Imperial Conference from an intermittent to a continuous institution. There is no need to complicate the matter by playing with the misleading distinction between the old Imperial Conference and the new "Imperial Cabinet" the latter being really, as I showed in the previous article, identical in all essentials with the former. Mr. Lloyd George's official suggestion that the Conference should meet annually is neither adequate nor new. It was first put forward some years ago by the Australian Government. But other Dominion Governments felt that it would be impossible to guarantee the annual and simultaneous attendance of the Prime Ministers or their principal colleagues; and the unfortunate inability of Australia herself to be represented at the recent Conference is a warning of what might be expected in less serious times. Probably there is no novel plan remaining to be proposed. The most hopeful -though the Dominion Governments have generally shied at it before-seems to be the following. The Imperial Conference could become continuous if each Dominion Government would appoint a responsible Minister to reside in London. At the present time Sir George Perley actually occupies a similar position. Being a responsible member of the Canadian Government he is qualified to sit in the Imperial Conference as required. The circumstance that he is also discharging the duties of High Commissioner for Canada suggests that the High Commissionership might hereafter be absorbed in the larger function, with the provision of a permanent Under-Secretary to look after the

financial business of the office. By means of the cables the resident Ministers could keep in daily touch with their respective Governments oversea. But the working of the system would be greatly facilitated, no doubt, by more frequent visits than hitherto of the Dominion Premiers themselves.

[ocr errors]

From the British standpoint the proposal raises a different difficulty. The intention is, as General Smuts indicated, that the senior Government-which would enjoy a position of "primacy' without supremacy-should continue to act executively for the whole Empire in all those matters, particularly Foreign Affairs, where unified action is necessary. But it means that in future the British Foreign Secretary would be executing a policy in behalf of a group of States, not his own State only. He and his Government would no longer be solely responsible for the foreign policy of the Empire. He might even find himself executing a policy to which they had only assented under pressure, for the sake of Britannic unity, not believing it to be the best for Britain's particular interest. So the question arises whether the British Government could any longer be held collectively responsible, even in theory, for the policy of the Foreign Office. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary ought henceforth to be appointed by the Government of the day for a fixed period, during which he would be accountable directly to the British Parliament, and removable only by a vote of no-confidence in him personally, without affecting the position of the Government. Whether the Dominion Ministers in London should have a similar constitutional position would be a matter for their own States to decide. Incidentally, such an arrangement seems calculated to promote the changes which so many desire in the conduct of foreign policy. General Smuts himself looks forward to "a simpler, and probably in the long run a saner and safer policy for the Empire as a whole"; and he adds: "Naturally it will lead to greater publicity nations in future will want to know more about the way their affairs are conducted." Publicity, beginning with free parliamentary discussion, should certainly be easier when the fate of a Government cannot be affected by it. But "simplicity" of foreign policy is a problem with deeper roots, which will be probed later on.

[ocr errors]

More difficult, and ultimately more vital, is the problem of India. At the instance, no doubt, of the Indian representativeswho had no status in the Imperial Conference under the constitution which it had adopted in 1907-the following Resolution was unanimously accepted and will certainly rank hereafter as of capital importance:

That the Imperial War Conference desires to place on record its view that the Resolution of the Imperial Conference of April 20, 1907, should be modified to permit

« PreviousContinue »