SOME IMPERIALISTS.

In Kingdom Papers No. 4, I said:

Perhaps the most satisfactory feature of Canada's very rapid progress towards independence is the fact that the great majority of those who still regard themselves as staunch imperialists not only contentedly accept the advances which, from time to time, are made, but that they themselves are learning to use, with apparent pleasure, the language of nationalism."

And in illustration of what I meant, I quoted language of Lord Grey, which, (if its authorship were unknown) would, by many Canadians, have been ascribed to some foolish nationalist. I want to give a few other illustrations.

1. MR. LYTTLETON: The Right Hon. Alfred Lyttleton is a strong imperialist. He succeeded Mr. Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary, and pursued that gentleman's imperialistic methods in dealing with the colonies. It was he who proposed to turn the conferences into a council, with the hope that it might grow into a parliament. That was in 1906. In 1911, he wrote one of the chapters of a book entitled "British Dominions" (edited by Prof. Ashley), and from that chapter (pp. 16-18) I make the following quotations:—

"But action should be organised in the clear appreciation of the fact that, as between the parent country and the Dominions, there is now a practical equality of status. Permit me for a minute to dwell on this topic. In 1905, I wrote on behalf of the government (a) a circular despatch to the governments of the Dominions touching imperial organisation, and making certain suggestions, some of which have borne fruit, with respect to the conference then anticipated as about to take place. In this despatch the expression "States of Empire" occurred, and was noticed as being a novelty in nomenclature; but now it has passed into the normal currency of descriptive terms. Ten years before, Lord Ripon, writing on behalf of the Liberal government of the day, expressed himself thus: 'To give colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves, without reference to Her Majesty's government, would be to give them an international status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a number of independent states; a result which Her Majesty's government are satisfied would be injurious equally to the colonies and to the mother country, and would be desired by neither. Negotiations, being between Her Majesty's government and the sovereign of a foreign state, must be conducted by the representative of Her Majesty at the Court of the foreign power, who will inform the government and seek instructions from them,

(a) That is, the British Government.

as necessity arises.' But it will be in your recollection that quite recently, and with the full approval of His Majesty's present government, the Dominion of Canada carried on independently exactly such negotiations as Lord Ripon had criticised. Technically these negotiations were carried on with the knowledge of His Majesty's representative; but, it has been authoritatively stated in parliament, and not denied, that at no stage of the proceedings was His Majesty's government consulted. Now, I desire specially to emphasize that, although regret has been expressed that Canada should have had to deal as an isolated unit with other great commercial countries, unsupported by a coherent and concerted imperial policy to strengthen her hand, no criticism whatever has been made as to her right to act as she has acted, no echo of Lord Ripon's strong protest has been heard from any quarter or any party; on the contrary, Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons was understood to say that His Majesty's government were well advised, in the changed conditions, to recognise the legitimacy of the Canadian claim, and CORDIALLY EXPRESSED HIS PLEASURE AT THE GROWTH OF THE DOMINIONS TO THE STATURE OF NATIONALITY.

For a long time the true political relation of this country to the Dominions was obscured in wise silence; but the period during which that silence could be maintained has now ceased. The consciousness of the great Dominions has rapidly matured; and the recurring imperial conferences have of necessity brought about a clearer definition of their national aspirations. 'We do not seek independence or separation from the old motherland the daughter states do not want separation; the freer they are, the more attached are they to their allegiance. We are independent as a nation, but while we are independent as a nation, we are subject to His Majesty the King, and we have no other sovereign, but the King of Great Britain and Ireland" In such words, and they are by no means the first, Sir Wilfrid Laurier has asserted the position of the Dominion of Canada; and IN THEIR CLEAR LIGHT, IMPERIAL ACTION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD PROCEED' (pp. 16, 17).

I find myself in perfect accord with Mr. Lyttleton's sentiment. He would object to independence if by that was meant the severance of our allegiance to the Crown. I, too, would object to independence in that sense. He believes that future action should proceed upon the basis that Canada is "independent as a nation” but “subject to His Majesty the King"-" with no other sovereign but the King of Great Britain and Ireland.” That is precisely the language for which I have been pretty severely scolded in Canada. May I not repeat what I said in Paper No. 1, that:

"in England the point is much better understood."

At another place (page 20) Mr. Lyttleton after discussing Adam Smith's affirmation

"that Great Britain might legitimately settle treaties of commerce with her colonies overseas, so as to effectually secure to her greater advantages than the monopoly which she at one time enjoyed-treaties which might dispose them to favor us in war as well as in trade."

added the following words:

"The conditions which Adam Smith had in his mind were those now actually realised, viz. The PRACTICAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES."

In the Kingdom Papers I have frequently made the same assertion, and I have made it no more strongly than does the Unionist Colonial Secretary of 1905. At still another place, Mr. Lyttleton said:

"It is not an exaggeration to say of these plans that a scheme has now been launched for an imperial navy capable of indefinite expansion, subject always to the right which has been already referred to, of each State to approve or disapprove, and THUS TO ENTER OR NOT TO ENTER UPON WAR.”

That is the right which I have always claimed for Canada. We may, and probably shall, take part in British wars; but, when discussing our constitutional position, I purposely omit all reference to what we may desire to do. I deal with one point at a time. As to our right to approve or disapprove of British wars and to act accordingly, my view is that of Mr. Lyttleton.

2. MR. WARWICK CHIPMAN: Mr. Chipman is evidently an imperialist, and one of the few of that class who are still unconvinced of the impracticability of "imperial federation." Indeed, he appears to think (a) that no satisfactory answer can be given to his question

"Why then not deal with them" (common interests) "in our ordinary constitutional manner by a single representative body responsible to a united electorate?"

I quote this, not to answer it (The Imperial Federation (Defence) League found the answer, and changed both its name and its purpose), but as rendering extremely significant some other passages of Mr. Chipman's article:

Perhaps the most striking feature of the British Empire is the fact that it does not exist. It is as true for us as it was for Adam Smith more than a century ago that 'this Empire has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire but the project of an empire.' It may be that we ought rather to say that if there be a British Empire then, great as it is, it relates to not one quarter of the King's Dominions. If the phrase betokens the control by one

(a) "War and Empire" in The University Magazine, October 1911, page 390.

of them, of immense territories and wide-spread populations, it has indeed a sufficient fulness of application; but, in the more modern and broader meaning of common effort and common responsibility on the part of all who fly the same flag, we are not able to use it. Britain has an Empire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, have nothing but themselves.

"Sir Wilfrid Laurier proclaimed this when he declared, quite logically, that unless we were consulted in the policies that governed Empire, it remained with us to say when, and whether if at all, we should take our part in the consequences. He went considerably farther and changed indeed the whole basis of his logic, when he announced his wish that the Dominions should not be consulted, because they would thereby commit themselves to liability for the consequences. Mr. Fisher of Australia is reported to have been not less frank in stating (a) that we are not an empire, but a very loose association of independent nations, willing to remain in fraternal co-operative union, but only on condition that we may at any time, or for any cause, terminate the connexion, untrammeled by any laws, treaties, or constitutions. While he has repudiated the report, the fact that it could be published is in itself momentous.

"To some, this state of affairs is a matter of congratulation, to others of regret; to none can it be a matter of indifference, for, whichever party be the wiser, things cannot stay as they are. The facts are changing as we look at them; and these are the days that inevitably determine whether a British Empire will ever declare itself, or whether it will be written in history as nothing but an abandoned hope.

"If we would have any clear idea of the forces and tendencies involved in this question, we must rid our minds of the metaphors that are the cant of our time. It is not the part of wisdom that similes and figures of speech should control policies, and yet on every hand they are held out to us as the decrees of fate."

One would think that nobody could object to a request for definition and precision. Coming from an imperialist it will probably escape criticism. When I pleaded for the proper use of words, I was told that my

"insistence on certain nomenclature is in itself suspicious (b)."

Mr. Chipman proceeds to point to the necessity for clear understanding of the subject, and in doing so makes use of an argument which in slightly different form may be found in Kingdom Paper No. 1. (pp. 19-20):

"Certain it is that there is now for our choosing an imperial ambition, the noblest we might conceive, with opportunities, such as none have had, to realize the conception. Certain, too, it is that WE IN CANADA NEED SOME DEFINITE

STATUS, TO PUT AN END TO THOSE DOUBTS OF OUR NATIONAL INTEGRITY THAT MUST MAKE EVERY TRUE CANADIAN BLUSH FOR SHAME. Was there ever a spec

tacle as we, for the last twelve months, have presented, of a concrete and vigorous country wondering how far it could remain loyal to itself, how far it might be

(a) Review of Reviews, July 22, 1911.

(b) United Empire, August, 1911, p. 573.

tempted to yield its very body and soul to influences alien to its whole tradition? Let us have done with this forever by announcing, once for all, to ourselves and to our neighbors that we move in other ways."

"

Certainly, but there is not the slightest use in telling our neighbors that we move in other ways" unless we actually do it; and, if we are to postpone the announcement (as Mr. Chipman would probably suggest) until we are ready for "imperial federation", there is every chance of the spectacle which we have presented for the last twelve months continuing for the next twelve centuries.

Mr. Chipman sees that our present undefined relations with the United Kingdom are a source of danger (I have made the same point upon several occasions) from a war point of view:

"Sir Wilfrid Laurier's notion, if it be really anything more than rhetoric intended to take the wind out of the sails of Mr. Bourassa, that when England is at defensive war, Canada, if it chooses, can be at peace, is amazingly naive (a)."

"The same must be said, though with a difference, in considering the views wrongly put into the mouth of Mr. Fisher of Australia. 'There is no necessity for us to say we will, or will not, take part in any of England's wars. If we were threatened we should have to decide whether to defend ourselves; and if we thought the war unjust and England's enemy in the right, we should have the right to haul down the Union Jack, hoist our own flag, and start on our own account.' Of those who agree with such declarations, it may very pertinently be asked, is England to have the same liberty if the strenuous nationalism of any one of the Dominions brings it into trouble in its own sphere? Is Britain to be free to leave the proud Dominion to its own devices on the plea that she had no say in the policy that provoked the war? (b).”

Mr. Chipman's idea seems to be that the relation of the United Kingdom and Canada is that of nations that have entered into a war alliance, namely that each is under obligation to assist the other in case of war. That may possibly be a very good arrangement to enter into; but it has not been made; and quite possibly neither the United Kingdom nor Canada would agree to it. The United Kingdom might very well urge that Canada's war assistance was not sufficient consideration for the assumption of responsibility for all that Canada might do. And, on the other hand, Canada might very properly urge the extreme unlikelihood of war on her behalf, as against the constant menace which alliance with the United Kingdom would produce.

If, then, the United Kingdom and Canada have entered into no such arrangement, and if it is quite possible that neither of them would agree to it, the answer to Mr. Chipman's question is very simple. He asks: