IMPERIAL FEDERATION FROM AN AUSTRALIAN POINT OF VIEW,
by John Douglas
THE question of Imperial Federation has never been raised in
a finer vein of patriotic feeling than it was by Lord Rosebery at Aberdeen in
an address which he delivered to the Trades Union Conference. He assumed that
leading statesmen were giving their attention to the subject as one which must
be discussed before long, and he arrived at the conclusion that those who
professed to lead opinion in this matter must take the people into their
confidence. If there really was to be federation, it involved immense constitutional
changes, and a basis of action must be found for this in the wishes and the
reasonable conclusions of the people themselves, of the many who feel, as well
as of the few who have to think and devise. He declined to specify or to
dogmatise how it was to be done, but he asserted that the more immediate
unification of the outlying portions of the empire with the central system of
government is expedient, and even necessary, if the British Empire is to
perpetuate its existence in correspondence with its achievements in the past.
To do this the federal principle must be recognised, and he declared for union
on that principle.
The Imperial Federalists are, if I understand aright,
influenced in the first place by a hope that they may re-create a united empire
on a grander and more substantial footing than the present one; and in the next
place they think that the empire will thus be prevented from entering upon a
period of decrepitude and decadence, from which nothing can save it unless we
have recourse to some sort of heroic reconstruction suited to the circumstances
of the times. Lord Rosebery to some extent adopts this view. While in Australia
be lately expressed himself strongly in favour of doing all in his power to promote
the lasting union of Australia with the mother country, and he does nothing
more than justify his intentions when he raises the question of Federation as
he has done. His speech at Aberdeen will be read with much interest in
Australia. It was the deliberate statement of one who, having been an
eye-witness of the immensity of the British possessions beyond the seas,
believes in the necessity for a constitutional reconstruction of the British
Empire, so as to bring the whole into more active and more sympathetic accord.
The Empire has to be reconstructed, he thinks, and the people have to think out
the question with their statesmen. He invites them to do so, and every really
patriotic man who prizes his inheritance in history as the best of his
political possessions is entitled to respond to the invitation. The present
writer responds to it in this spirit, and perhaps, so far as Australia is
concerned, he has some slight right to do so, for he has lived a life of active
sympathy and of intercourse with many of the leading men of Australia, whether
as explorers of new country or as explorers in the tangled paths of
experimental politics.
In order to arrive at an adequate conception of Imperial
Federation from an Australian point of view, it may be desirable, in the first
place, to trace briefly the causes which have led up to the movement in favour
of Australian Federation. Previous to 1870 very little had been done. Up to
that time the various colonies or states of Australia had been fully occupied
with their own internal affairs, industrial and political. The Franco-Prussian
war in that year showed what mighty catastrophes might still occur in the
history of nations. The necessity for union was felt. The great despotic powers
of Germany and Russia might combine, and at one time Russia openly declared
that she would no longer be bound by her engagements. Belgium, too, was
threatened. These European complications drew the attention of our leading men
to the possible position in which we might find ourselves, and the result was a
strong recommendation to federate, which came from a Royal Commission then sitting
at Melbourne. It may be well here to quote a few of the pregnant opening sentences
of that report, in order to indicate the spirit which then animated the
community.
Advantages of a Federal Union—On the primary question of
a federal union of the Australian Colonies, apart from all considerations of
time and method of bringing such a union about, there was a unanimity of
opinion. The indispensable condition of success for men and nations is that
they should clearly understand what they want, and to what goal they are
travelling, that life may not be wasted in doing and undoing; and as we are
persuaded that the prosperity and security of these colonies would be
effectually promoted by enabling them to act together as one people, under the
authority of a federal compact, they cannot, we believe, too soon come to an
understanding upon this fundamental point.
The difference in strength and prestige between isolated
communities having separate interests, and a national confederation with a
national policy, has been illustrated in the history of almost every great
State in the world, and conspicuously in the history of States of which we
share the blood and traditions. The effects of such a confederation, where it
is voluntary and equal, are felt throughout the whole complicated relations of
a nation's life, adding immensely to its material and moral strength. By its
concentrated powers it exercises an increasing gravitation in attracting
population and commerce. It multiplies the national wealth by putting an end to
jealous and wasteful competition, and substitutes the wise economy of power
which teaches each district to apply itself to the industries in which it can
attain the greatest success. It enlarges the home market, which is the nursing
mother of native manufactures. It forms larger designs, engages in larger
enterprises, and by its increased revenues and authority causes them to be more
speedily accomplished. It obtains additional security for peace by increasing
its means of defence; and by creating a nation it creates along with it the
sentiment of nationality a sentiment which has been one of the strongest and
most beneficent motive powers in human affairs. The method indeed by which
States have grown great is almost uniform in history. They gathered populations
and territory, and on these wings rose to material power; and with the sense of
a common citizenship there speedily came, like a soul to an inert body, that
public spirit by whose inspiration dangers are willingly faced and privations
cheerfully borne in the sacred name of country.
We cannot doubt that it is the destiny of the Australian
Colonies to pursue a similar career, and their duty to prepare for it. They
possess resources and territory which fit them to become in the end a great
empire. They are occupied by a population already larger than the population of
many Sovereign States; they yield a revenue greater than the revenue of six of
the kingdoms of Europe; and we believe that they share the sentiment which may
be noted as the most subtle and pervading of our century the desire to perfect
the union and autonomy of peoples of the same origin.
Fourteen years have passed since the date of this Royal
Commission Report, and all this while Australia has been feeling her way, step
by step, without presumption, but with a growing sense of responsibility. The
Federal Union now contemplated, and not far, as we believe, from its
accomplishment, can by no means be compared to the Canadian Federal Compact.
The autonomy of the different States proposing to enter the union is left
almost undisturbed. It would be difficult to say that the Confederating States
surrender any powers now possessed by them. They will be left as free to act
within their own borders, and to legislate, as they now are. They propose, however,
to take to themselves additional powers—powers which are perhaps inherent in
their constitutions, but which have not been acted on. Thus, if the union be
consummated and ratified by imperial legislation, the States adherent to it
will become one for some higher purposes of government purposes which may be
termed national. The Federal Council will indeed be a select body of the
consultative and administrative rather than of the parliamentary kind. It will possess
limited and defined powers, though it is hoped that it may lead up to a more
comprehensive union of the Canadian type. This, it has been considered, after a
good deal of consultation, is all that can be done just now. To attempt more
would have been useless, and the hope is that when once a union has been
effected the necessity for a closer union will be demonstrated. The Select
Council of Advice thus created will concern itself chiefly in those affairs of
Australia which may be termed external, or common in their application to all
the Australian colonies alike. This will at any rate give a common citizenship.
Thenceforward the people of Australia will be Australians in a political as
well as a geographical sense, and then will come to them the soul, as we may
hope, which was prefigured for them by the Melbourne Commissioners in 1870.
Possessed of that, we are assured that dangers are willingly faced and
privations cheerfully borne in the sacred name of country. It may, I think, be
assumed as certain that the Federal Constitution provisionally agreed to at
Sydney, scarcely twelve months ago, was as much as would be accepted, at the
present time, by the adherent Legislatures.
Four of these Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and
Tasmania—all of them being self-governing colonies—that is, colonies enjoying
the rights of responsible government—have heartily accepted the preliminary
articles of union. Western Australia and Fiji, both of them being still Crown
Colonies, have also accepted them, and that acceptance carries with it the
assurance that they too will shortly be admitted to the higher order of more
responsible Governments; Western Australia certainly will be, though Fiji may
still have to wait for some years. But, however that may be, there are six
Australian States or Colonies which stand committed to the Australian Union—New
South Wales hesitates. It has always been anticipated that there would be
hesitation in this quarter. The Legislative Assembly declined, by a majority of
one, on a motion of the previous question, to ratify the resolutions. This may
cause some delay, but it is scarcely probable that serious difficulty will
arise out of it. It is not likely to alter the determinations arrived at by the
assenting Colonies, and it is hoped also that it will not alter the decision of
her Majesty's Government as to the enabling Bill which will have to be brought
into Parliament. As regards New Zealand, friendly resolutions have been passed,
though nothing definite has yet been decided.
It must be admitted, however, that some not inexperienced
politicians in Australia, and especially in New South Wales, consider this
Federal Constitution as unpardonably defective. It no doubt embodies the
maximum of State rights with the minimum of Federal rights. The contention of
this section of politicians is, that it would have been better to have waited
and to have worked out the system of autonomous State Governments, until the
lapse of time, the improved state of railway communication, and the presence of
some real impending danger had drawn them together. When the hour had struck
the change would come. Victoria and New South Wales would then come together,
and possibly would effect a legislative union, merging the two Parliaments into
one, just as Upper and Lower Canada were united; and, if that were once brought
about, then the lesser stars of the Australian constellation would be attracted
into the orbit of the united colonies. Such has been the contention of those
who are not quite satisfied with the prospects of the proposed union.
Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the union of these two States alone
was in itself improbable. Their policy has been and still is diverse. Victoria,
restricted in territory, and mastered by an ambition to create a manufacturing
State by the processes of protection, was in no way inclined to surrender her
principles on this point. On the other hand, New South Wales, with an abundant
territory, rich in minerals, and especially in coal, rich also in pastoral
treasures, and with a splendid frontage of some six hundred miles to the
Pacific, looked to a future quite different from the special industrial
development of Victoria. The gradually growing preponderance which was hers by
virtue of her larger territory justified delay and a waiting game. It seems
quite possible that New South Wales may still prefer a waiting game. Perhaps
there is no great harm in this, for it is quite desirable that the weak points
of the present proposed Federal Compact should be understood. The objections to
it have scarcely been adequately stated in the Legislatures which have adopted
it. The general sentiment in favour of Australian autonomy sufficed to carry
the resolutions through, but in a movement of this kind something more than
general sentiment is necessary. It testifies, however, to the principle to
which reference was made by Lord Rosebery when he gave his adhesion to the
trades-union maxim of Strength for mutual objects with separate management for
separate objects. This he defined as the aim of trades unions, and as equally
applicable to federal unions.
So far, then, the movement in favour of Australian autonomy
has prospered. There have been no claims to the hegemony of any particular
State. The representative governing men of Victoria and New South Wales have in
this respect behaved very well. Either the one or the other of these States has
a population fully three times as many as South Australia or Queensland, and
yet they have expressed themselves as content to go into the Union not only on
an equality with them, but with Tasmania, where the disparity of population and
of resources is still greater. The same may be said of New Zealand. Victoria
undoubtedly has led the way. Her Premier, Mr. Service, has been very much in
earnest, and he has been zealously supported by Mr. Berry, the able leader of
the Victoria democracy. By both parties in Victoria, by the Upper House as well
as by the Lower House, the scheme proposed has been accepted as a reasonable
solution at the present time. In Queensland, again, Mr. Service, following up
the original impulse given by Sir Thomas Mcllwraith, has been ably assisted by
Mr. Griffith, the present Premier, who drafted the Federal Bill as it now
stands. The action, also, of those leading men has been aided by the present
condition of politics in the Colonies. In all of them party politics are
dormant, and the time has been specially favourable for co-operation among
public men.
But other causes have also been at work which have operated
towards union. For a whole generation Victoria and New South Wales, or rather,
perhaps, I should say Melbourne and Sydney, have been almost inaccessible to
one another by land. Mr. Service admitted the other day in Sydney that he had
lived for thirty years in Victoria, and yet never once until then had he been
in New South Wales. The railway systems of the two countries had, all this
while, been approaching one another, but it was only a few months ago when a
junction was finally effected, and then, when the railway bridge over the
Murray at Albury was opened, there was a great fraternisation. Now there is
constant and even rapid communication. The traveller leaves Sydney on the
evening of one day and reaches Melbourne at twelve o'clock on the following
day. In another two or three years' time there will be a still further railway
development. Adelaide, by that time, will be connected with Melbourne, and possibly
Brisbane with Sydney, though in this latter case the link between Sydney and
Newcastle is progressing but slowly. So much for internal territorial union.
Externally, other causes have been at work which have tended in the direction
of union. A good deal is said nowadays about the expansion of England, some
saying that England is expanding too rapidly, others saying that England does
not expand rapidly enough. Latterly, Australians have been hearing a good deal
about French expansion in the Pacific, and the manner of it has seriously troubled
them. Nothing has so moved them, since the days of their own emancipation, as
the prospect of the Recidivist Law. This external menace helped them, however,
to look at the question of federation with a friendly feeling.
There was also the stirring incident of the annexation of
New Guinea. It had been much talked about. British men-of-war had visited the
coast, and more than one naval captain had, on their own responsibility, hauled
up a British ensign on a provisional flag-staff, and had saluted it in token of
respect to this preliminary form of assertion. For ten years at least it had
been the subject of correspondence with the Colonial Office. Public meetings
had been held about it in the capitals of Australia. Dr. Lang, the veteran
exponent of Australian rights, had held forth at these meetings. Secretaries of
State and Governors had been well addressed. D'Albertis, the Italian, and
McKlucho-Macloy, the Russian traveller and anthropologist, had explored
portions of the coast. There had been fugitive and unsuccessful explorations for
gold by Queensland diggers. Meanwhile some small New Guinea annexation had been
effected. It fell to my lot to recommend the annexation of all the islands in
Torres Straits on the coast of New Guinea. This was carried out with the
sanction of her Majesty's Government. These movements, however, had attracted
the attention of foreigners. At one time we heard of Menotti Garibaldi
meditating an Italian settlement. Then came the abortive project of the Marquis
de Ray in those seas. After this the German papers began to discuss the
capabilities of New Guinea, and there was talk of a German settlement. I hardly
know why we in Australia should object to be associated with the Germans in the
Pacific. Indeed, we are already associated, for Germany has for all practical
purposes annexed Samoa, and Germany will probably occupy New Britain, for
already German subjects have acquired a footing there. We like our German
colonists: they are most frugal and industrious. A fair proportion of Germans,
in fact, in the Pacific would do no harm. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that
we in Queensland prefer very much to see the British ensign flying in New
Guinea, which is almost in sight of our settlement at Thursday Island. So when,
following up the discussions about New Guinea in the German newspapers, a
German corvette came out to cruise along the coast, some of us got a little
anxious about the big island on our starboard bow. Moresby, no doubt, had
annexed it some years before, and, so far as the hauling up of flags can annex,
it was annexed. Sir Arthur Gordon also, at Fiji, had, as High Commissioner in
the Pacific, given in his suggestions for protecting and practically annexing
portions of the coast. Were we to let an opportunity slip, and might it not be
as well to have another flag-flying and another proclamation? So, at any rate,
thought Sir Thomas McIlwraith, then Premier of Queensland, and his
recommendation was sanctioned by Sir Arthur Kennedy, who was then Governor. A
despatch was written to the Secretary of State, telling him what was proposed
to be done, and then Mr. Chester, the resident magistrate at Thursday Island,
was instructed to carry it out without further delay, fearing that the German
vessel might anticipate us.
The news of this exciting little demonstration created quite
a flutter of interest in the British Parliament when it was announced. It was
thought rather amusing that the youngest of the Australian self-governing
Colonies should undertake to annex one of the largest islands in the world.
This act of annexation was not approved by her Majesty's Government, and the
claim became dormant. Nevertheless, it really effected the object we had in
view. Henceforth it will be recorded in our history as a dashing exploit
carried out at the instigation of one who had a comprehensive grasp of the
situation. From one end of Australia to the other the unauthorised proclamation
was applauded. The national sentiment was gratified. We had taken up another
bit of new country, as the squatters say. At any rate we had secured a sort of
primary title, whatever it was worth. It did not matter whether it was approved
or not: it would be approved all in good time. And so it has turned out, for a
protectorate has been proclaimed, and protection means ultimate occupation,
But this flying of the flag effected another good purpose.
It afforded her Majesty's Government an opportunity of pointing out what
responsibilities were incurred by annexation. Who was to pay for it, and who
was to pay for the protection of the natives? If the Australian Colonies were
really in earnest about the flag-flying, would they back it up? Would they
unite for the purpose? Here was an inducement. The refusal to annex was
justified by the opening thus provided to encourage federation. Meanwhile the
movements of the French in the New Hebrides were intently watched. The
missionaries of the Protestant missions connected with the New Hebrides got
anxious. If we did not look out, France would annex the New Hebrides. The
Solomon group would follow, and then there would be nothing left in the Pacific
worth speaking about. No more new country to be taken up! This taking up of new
country reminds me of a story told of a settler named Gellibrand, who came over
from Tasmania to take up country in the western district of Victoria. He
ascended to a high hill-top, and from that vantage ground, over-looking one of
the finest stretches of country in Australia, he made his proclamation. All
that I see,' said Mr. Gellibrand, I claim for myself, and all that I do not see
I claim for my son John. This was his primary title to occupation. The Crown
Lands Commissioner of those days did not confirm the title to the full extent,
but Mr. Gellibrand got a very fair slice. It was probably not quite in this
sense that the Colonies represented at the Sydney Conference asked Great
Britain to annex the whole of the Pacific islands. But they undoubtedly wished
it to be understood that they objected to anyone else annexing. The reply made
by her Majesty's Government to this comprehensive demand has virtually been to
this effect: ‘Gentlemen, let us protect the present proprietors, the native inhabitants.
It is true they are only savages, and it may be that you will inherit their
possessions, but let us protect their rights as long as they last.’ Here also
we have another inducement to federate. It will add to the responsibilities of
Australia, and it may be assumed that it will provide some additional
guarantees for the moderation of our demands. It is easy enough to pass
resolutions at public meetings. Shall we act on them when we are bound to
respond to the weighty obligations involved? It is an excusable function of
young communities to expand into sympathetic utterances for the taking up of
new country. When the responsibility of occupying and maintaining that country
comes upon us, it will wholesomely limit our ideas to what is absolutely
necessary for our economical and our profitable possession.
I have thus rapidly sketched the moving causes in the
direction of Australian Federation. There has been, first and foremost, the
gradually growing sentiment in favour of Australian nationality. Then there has
been a more serious sense of external responsibilities beyond the horizon of
our immediate vision. And, so far as the French are concerned, let me say that
for many years we have been excellent friends with them, so far as we were
acquainted with them. We have sometimes endeavoured to attract French wine-growers
to our shores. Some have come, though not many. They are capital colonists, and
better agriculturists than most of our own people. We have always given a
hearty welcome to French men-of-war in our ports. The officers are very polite.
The French Consuls are generally very popular, and we have always regarded our
old allies in the Crimea with respectful confidence. Our trade with France has
increased, and we are quite willing to give a fair share of patronage to the
Messageries boats. Unfortunately, between them and us, there has now come this
cloud about their convicts. Those who escaped from New Caledonia have never
been welcome, but we could tolerate them and not withhold our pity from those
poor wretches who had braved the perils of a thousand miles at sea in open
boats. There were not very many of them after all. But when it came to be
perceived that the French settlements in the Pacific were to be made the
channel for draining off the scum of France on our shores, it was time to speak
out. We began to see that France was not only going to do a serious injustice
to herself, but to us also. This sufficiently accounts, surely, for our change
of attitude to our French neighbours. We were of course rivals in the Pacific,
friendly rivals, with no arrière-pensée to speak of; but still, apart
altogether from actual possession of the islands, whether territorial or
commercial, we looked upon this deliberate scheme of contamination as a most
unfriendly act. Australians, I believe, are prepared for any sacrifice, and
they are certainly prepared to forego any advantages they may enjoy from their
commercial relations with France, rather than accept this interpretation of
colonisation in the Pacific. In one sense, however, this coolness with
Frenchmen has done good. It has shown us the necessity for a Federal Union.
But, it may be asked, what has all this to do with Imperial
Federation? Surely something! The text of my remarks has been Lord Rosebery's
speech at Aberdeen. In laying down the principles which ought to prevail in
formulating federal unions, he has stated that one of the chief points to be
kept in view is, Strength for mutual objects with separate management for
separate objects. The Federal Union of Australia will certainly promote these
purposes in Australia. For Australia to be united and strong for mutual
objects, or at least more strong and more united than she has been, is a good
thing in itself, and cannot lessen the strength of the British Empire. The same
may be said of Canada. And the same may be said of India, though with the
difference that the Government of India can never be constructed on the same
principles as those of Canada or Australia. Of Australia, if it may be
permitted to me to speak in the language of assured hope, it cannot be doubted
that, with the growth of an Australian national sentiment, the capacity for
entrance into the higher forms of federal union will also grow. But Lord
Rosebery must give us time. We cannot grow in a single night, like the gourd in
the Eastern story. Even now it will take some years to perfect our imperfect
Federal Union. By the time he has lived, as we may hope that he will, to be as
old as Mr. Gladstone, it might be interesting to speculate as to what may then
be the condition and prospects of the Australia Union. It would not surely be
an extreme estimate to assume that, within the life of men now in the vigour of
manhood, the population of Australia will be ten millions. When I first knew
Australia it did not contain more than 500,000 people of European extraction.
It now numbers fully three millions. Fifty years hence it may have a population
of twenty millions. Even now the population and resources of Australia will
bear favourable comparison with those of the old American Colonies when they
accomplished their complete freedom. There is of course a very great difference
in the situation. There is the most complete confidence in the relations
between the Australian Colonies and the mother country. Australians may admire
the great American Union, and in some respects they may desire to profit by
that example. But they are essentially loyal, loyal to the Queen as the head of
the great parent Union, and loyal to the interests of that great political
association which is recognised in the world as the British Empire. There is no
desire to dim the lustre of that constellation by the extinction of a single
scintilla. Nevertheless, as Australia grows, she must learn to stand alone—stand
alone, as is sometimes said of each of us, when our individual responsibility
is spoken of. The Australian people, even if they may wish to struggle against
it, must someday accept their absolute independence not only as a duty but as a
necessity.
They will cling to the old family ties which gave them
birth, but it will be with a deliberate consciousness, and with a full
foreknow-ledge, of their unconditional freedom, whenever the fitting time may
come for its accomplishment. Once more I avail myself of Lord Rosebery's
illustrations. He indicates, with playful animation, when he talks of the union
which now exists, that the bond of the affections is not sufficient, that
England and Australia must be more than lovers, and nothing less than married folk.
The bond, he says, must be binding and indissoluble. The illustration, I think,
is delusive. Between such countries as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
on the one hand, and Australia or Canada on the other, there may be the most
friendly and affectionate union, based on perfect equality of position; but God
forbid the sore hindrance to the perpetuation of this feeling which a legal and
indissoluble partnership would set up. Let the indissolubility of the married
state be admitted, and, if an example among nations is required, let the happy
union of England and Scotland be cited; or rather let it be admitted, as Lord
Salisbury said at Glasgow the other day, that Scotland has annexed England. She
has annexed a good rich spouse; but England might even then claim some separate
rights, if Scotland should prove to be altogether too dominant.
The true relationship between Great Britain and such federal
unions as those of Canada and Australia is not, however, that of husband and
wife, but rather that of father and son, or of mother and daughter. They are
one in origin, they are one in language, they are one in thought, one in the
nature of their laws, and they may be one in action. If they have been educated
into a right perception of the duties connected with the family relationship,
as we know they have been, then they will aid one another. They will recognise
the truth of the federal maxim, ‘Strength for mutual objects.’ They may, for
this purpose, be subordinated to some headship, just as now they are
subordinated to the headship of the kingly office in the person of the Queen.
This is well for all concerned, but it is well with a reservation that it
involves absolute freedom of action, absolute independence, should it be
necessary, however reluctantly, to attain to it. Reverting once more to the
probable position of Federated Australia fifty years hence, can we imagine such
a homogeneous people—'sons of the soil,’ as we say a people of twenty millions,
inhabiting a country nearly the size of Europe, separated from the rest of the
world by vast stretches of ocean, and yet united to it by this same highway of
the ocean can we imagine such a people content to be controlled in essentials
by even a kindred people having diverse interests and prospects in life? It
could not be. If it were attempted it would only produce estrangement, strife,
and, possibly, an unfriendly severance of dependent relationships. Imagine one
of these peoples, it matters not which, committed to war, the final arbitrament
of war. If a nation is really to retain its nationality, it must have regard to
the possible contingency of war. There are circumstances in which it can only
acquit itself honourably in such a way. It can only, I may say, minimise the
chances of war by a refusal to submit to unjust or oppressive treatment. Such
being the case, no nation can refuse to go to war in a just cause without peril
to its living principle. Great Britain cannot refuse, and a great war might be
forced upon her. Not only could Great Britain fight more freely, more
effectively, if Canada and Australia were free to fight or not as they pleased,
but the probability is that each of them and all of them would serve the
interests they all hold in common more effectively by fighting separately, if
needs they must fight. They may thus be strong for mutual purposes, and they
would be most strong by maintaining their separate management for separate
objects. It comes to this: there can be no nation, no really national life,
without this condition of distinct and separate responsibility, though a
federal union may exist also as a bond of union. The Melbourne Commissioners
said, in the words I have already quoted, that there comes a time in the
history of every young nation when the sense of a common citizenship animates
the inert form, and gives it a life it never knew before. The saying is as true
of individuals as of nations. That life has not yet come to Australia. I doubt
if any of us wish consciously to hasten its coming. We are sufficiently pleased
with the irresponsible freedom of our youth. But the time is coming, the time
must come, when we shall have to pass to maturity. And that time may even be
not far distant.
So far, then, as I am acquainted with public feeling or
public life in Australia, I would say that if Australia is to continue to be
part of the British Empire, and thus federally united to Great Britain,
Ireland, and the Empire of India, it must be in a partnership limited as to
time and as to liability. If this really be so, it should be stated plainly
nothing is gained by any doubtful definition in essentials. Australia, being
willing under existing conditions to be bound by existing obligations, allegiance
to the kingly office representing a united imperial sway, must needs be content
to accept the penalties of war, just as she now enjoys the blessings of peace.
Nevertheless, as I have said, this is a limited liability, measured by our
common interests and our future necessities.
Even Federal Australia will, if the proposed plan be
adopted, be as little compelled into federation as possible. The partnership is
a limited one. The national sentiment will permeate it and perpetuate it. It
will grow into something more binding. So with imperial federation: if it is to
be, it had better in the first instance be limited. The potential independence
of Canada and Australia being admitted, the conditions of the partnership could
then be discussed; and, starting from these premises, we may reach the
conclusions foreshadowed by Lord Rosebery in his trades-union maxim. Allow me
here further to illustrate my meaning by a reference to the negotiations which
in Australia have been conducted to a partially successful issue. The leading
States of Australia, through their representative men, and much to their
honour, make no claim to superiority. Victoria and New South Wales by their
representatives consented to go into the Federal Council on a par with the less
influential Colonies or States. Now, is it possible to suppose that the same
spirit might actuate the several members of an Imperial Confederation? Would
the people of the ancient kingdom of Scotland, merged now so happily in what is
called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—would this people, if
their ancient separate existence should be once more, for some purposes,
recognised, be content to take their place in an Imperial Federal Union on a
par with Canada or Australia? It would be a considerable sacrifice perhaps, but
it would not be such a concession as Victoria makes to Tasmania in the
Australian federation. Or, again, would India, Ireland, or the great mother
State England—would England accept these conditions? Yet, in all probability,
something of the kind would be claimed when, in the next century, Canada and
Australia shall have attained to the population and proportions of great
States, outnumbering Scotland or Ireland, and probably not far from equalling
England itself. This is the sort of prospect we have, if there is to be an
Imperial Federal Union. My ideal, however, for a reconstructed British Empire
runs rather, I must confess, in the direction of a frank admission of the
potential independence of Canada and Australia, and a good working alliance on
that footing. For the rest, there are no signs recognisable, by the outward
vision, of the decadence of England. With her commercial empire, her splendid
but scarcely sufficiently appreciated dominion in the East, with Ireland really
reconciled and united by a larger liberty, Great Britain and Ireland can hold
their own against any odds likely to appear in arms against them. With Canada
federated and Australia federated, what has the British Empire to fear? It
would be as great as ever—nay, even greater, for young nations such as these
would be the best allies which could be had. When we colonists read in some of
your newspapers of a decrepit and a worn-out England, we sometimes fancy that
we know more of England than England knows of herself; at any rate, we believe
in that immense reserve of power and of resources which Disraeli sometimes used
to speak of. Nor can it be believed that America, the United States of America,
could or would remain indifferent to a combination of European Powers against
the British nation. Blood, after all, is thicker than water. We row in the same
boat. It is scarcely possible to conceive that America, bound as she now is by
so many ties of interest and of intercourse to the mother country, would
willingly submit to the humiliation of Great Britain by the despotic Powers of
Europe. Her cause is still the cause of freedom.
But if, according to this showing, there is no necessity for
a greater Britannic Parliament, there is every reason to conclude that a
Federated Australia would willingly work out, in combination with her Majesty's
Government, some great projects in which they may be mutually concerned. There
is the Pacific annexation question. An importance has been attached to it which
does not really belong to it on its merits. So long as the Australian people
maintain the integrity of their institutions on the continent they already
inhabit, we need fear but little from either French or German expansion. It should
not be forgotten that America has always been content with her continental
development. Even now Cuba or Jamaica or San Domingo would be considered very
doubtful acquisitions. Why should Australia be so keen for the Pacific? Or why,
perhaps, it might be more correctly said, should Victoria? It involves much
trouble in dealing with the island labour question, and her Majesty's
Government could deal with it most effectually. The labour traffic as now conducted
should be put down—resolutely put down—by her Majesty's Government, acting in
combination with Australia, and with France, Germany, and America. It is a
wicked traffic, and like to slavery. Let another work be cited which ought to
be done on the Federal Union principle. Another telegraph cable is very much
required. It should be laid either across the Pacific, or from Perth, in
Western Australia, to Plymouth, vin the Cape. The tariff should be at the rate
of a shilling a word. It may be assumed with safety that, taking into
consideration the vastly increased business which would flow into it, such a
cable would pay; and it should be laid by the Governments in combination.
Nothing at present would draw England and Australia more closely together than
cheap and regular telegraphic communication. At present we depend solely on the
Eastern Cables Company, at a tariff which is practically prohibitory.
Or, to add another example of what might be done by England
and Australia on the Federal Union principle, the Suez Canal might be bought up
and duplicated. It may be confidently stated that, whether as a national or an
international undertaking, Federated Australia would gladly accept her share in
the responsibilities involved in making this great oceanic highway what it
ought to be. This no doubt is a big question, but it is referred to here simply
to illustrate what really big questions might be practically approached without
waiting for the convocation of a greater Britannic Parliament.
The conclusions, therefore, which may be drawn from the
present position of the British Empire, as interpreted from an Australian point
of view, seem to be all in favour of the concentration of power and of
administrative intelligence where countries or colonies can be grouped together
for mutual support. Canada has thus grown, and has become a source of strength.
Australia will grow in like manner, and will also become a source of strength.
Of Africa it is difficult to speak with the same confidence, because the
presence of a large coloured population there makes it doubtful if the
principles of self-government will be found to be as effective there as in
Canada and Australia.
But whatever may be the ultimate destiny of Canada or
Australia, no Australian believes that either the power or the prestige of
Great Britain would be in the least diminished by the absolute independence of
his own country. Great Britain, as the great commercial power of the world, as
the possessor of India, as the holder of an unrivalled chain of settlements in
the East—settlements most insufficiently appreciated—has a very grand position
among nations, even the grandest. She has a great prestige, and colonists know
full well what strength she has to act, if need be. In this she is, and will
remain, an Imperial Power, and we colonists know full well—none better what
capacity she has to act up to the correspondence of her greatness if the
necessity arose.
Canada and Australia are outworks of that power-independent
outworks they ought to be, and must become—and if so, then it follows that the
policy of the empire should be based on their present voluntary adhesion, and
on the recognition of their potential independence. Nevertheless, as Lord
Rosebery has pointed out, there is a greater question even than the franchise,
though the franchise question is uppermost just now. That question is the unity
and security of the empire, the essential security of the citadel and its
outworks. There are those who think that this may be best effected by the
creation of a supreme Federal Government and a supreme Federal Parliament.
There are others again who look rather to the growth of the imperial principle
acting in accord with a recognition of a healthy but loyal spirit of colonial
independence. My experience, at any rate of Australian affairs, leads me to
conclude that British interests in the world will be best served by as little
divergence as possible from the principles of government which have of late
years been recognised and applied to the great self-governing offshoots of the
British Empire. Their growth has been healthy and natural. Let it continue to
be so. Australians, I believe, desire more and more to become united with one
another, and thus they may learn to 'perfect the union and autonomy of peoples
of the same origin.'
JOHN DOUGLAS.
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the above was written, the Conference on Imperial
Federation, held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, has thrown some hopeful light
on the subject. The League thus formed does not talk of an Imperial Parliament.
It is satisfied, in the meantime at any rate, with devoting its attention
chiefly to the organised defence of common rights. So far as Australia is
concerned, the practical outcome of the League's efforts will probably be to
sustain and to increase the efforts now being made to render our defence
organisation more efficient, and to bring it more and more into unison with
what may be called the scheme of Imperial defences. Beyond this I think it is
scarcely to be expected that the Australian Governments will move. But even
this means a great deal, and probably a considerable expenditure. Up to the
present time the Australian Colonies, in the matter of defences, have accepted
and have acted up to the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed by her
Majesty's Government in 1878. They would go further, I believe, and, if deemed
desirable, would form an arsenal and establish factories for war material. It
may be doubted, however, if they would contribute to the fortification of Aden
or Singapore, very essential as those fortifications may be. They would very
probably say, ‘We will fortify coaling stations on our own territory at
Newcastle on the Hunter, at Thursday Island, and at King George's Sound, but
more than that we cannot undertake at present.’ Such, at any rate, is my
estimate of the share which the Australian Colonies are likely to take in
contributing to Imperial defences.-—J. D.
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014654%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014702%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014715%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014726%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014731%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014736%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014746%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014755%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014800%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014804%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014812%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014821%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014826%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014834%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014841%20PM.jpg)
.%20-%20Full%20View%20%20HathiTrust%20Digital%20Library%20-%20Google%20Chrome%205092026%2014851%20PM.jpg)
