Imperial Federation from an Australian point of view by John Douglas (Nineteenth Century December 1884, pp. 853-68)

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, No. XCIV. DECEMBER 1884, pp. 853 - 868

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.