"Those who live in the stress of international competition are convinced that it is not possible effectively to impose on foreign ships regulations affecting their domestic economy. The dominions appear to think that they can impose these conditions on foreign ships as well as British. What will be the effect of their action? If they attempt and fail-a preference will be given to foreign shipping. If they attempt and succeed-retaliation will ensue. The Germans, for instance, would not tamely submit to the imposition of such conditions on their ships. These foreign countries will say and what would be the answer?'You have allowed your dominions to impose regulations in order chiefly to prevent undue competition with the local industries. We will do the same. You unduly compete in our ports to the disadvantage of our shipping. In future you must be subject to certain regulations and accommodation which will reduce your competition with us.' What would be the result? The whole force and brunt of the retaliation would fall on United Kingdom shipping. The dominions would suffer not at all or very slightly.

"As regards the resolution itself, I am afraid, for the reasons I have given, His Majesty's government are unable to adopt it as it stands" (a).

Sir Joseph Ward in reply said:

"A resolution of this sort is necessary to enable us to give effect to what the labor conditions of our country require" (b).

He did not agree that Canada had already the power "to do what we are seeking to obtain" (c). He quoted sections 735, 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and said:

"It will be seen, therefore, that the powers are restricted to the repeal of certain provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act relating to ships registered in the possession and to the regulation of the coasting trade. Even in these two matters, the colonial acts are not to come into force until assented to by His Majesty. I want to direct attention to what the general law is. This resolution consequently is intended to give us wider powers than are contained in the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act" (d).

Mr. Brodeur returned to his point with reference to the chaotic effect of complicating imperial and Canadian legislation. He acknowledged that the imperial statute over-rode the Canadian (e).

In reply to Mr. Buxton's request for specification of the nature of the powers sought for, Mr. Pearce (Australia) said:

"The view that the Commonwealth government take up on this question is that we derive our powers to legislate on this subject from the Constitution Act, and that there is no absolute limit of area, provided that the law is for the peace,

(a) Ibid, pp. 414, 5.

(b) Ibid, p. 416.

(c) Ibid, p. 416.

(d) Ibid, p. 416. (e) Ibid, p. 419.

order and good government of the Commonwealth and is not repugnant to an imperial law applicable to the Commonwealth."

DR. FINDLAY: "The effect of this has not been settled by any legal authority. In New Zealand they have settled it the other way."

MR. PEARCE: "There is a difference of opinion as to the application of those words. We have taken the advice of our crown law officers on it, and I have their memorandum here, which is too lengthy to read, the general effect of which is, that unless there is some prohibition placed on some specific things to be done by us the Merchant Shipping Act does not interfere with us."

SIR JOSEPH WARD: "The courts of New Zealand have settled it the other way" (a).

Sir D. de Villiers Graaff (South Africa) said:

"I may say we have no objection to that resolution” (b).

General Botha (South Africa) said:

"This a legal question, and I shall also abstain from voting, because my own view is that we already have these powers, and if I voted for this resolution it might appear as if we admitted that we do not possess these powers" (c).

Mr. Fisher (Australia) said:

"I take up the same attitude".

"We abstain on the ground that if we voted it might be assumed we had limited powers" (d).

As a result, Canada and New Zealand alone voted for the resolution favoring the grant of wider powers. But the only reason for the abstention of Australia and South Africa was that they believed that their authority was already plenary. Sir Edward Morris (Newfoundland) was not present when the vote was taken. He did not intend to vote either way (e), but for what reason does not appear.

Comments on the Situation: The last two of the above resolutions, as will be observed, have for their purpose the freedom of the colonies to legislate as they wish with regard to shipping— (1) by releasing them from fettering treaties, and (2) by removing any legislative limitations to which they may now be subject. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the truth of the statement of a previous Paper (f) that although the conferences owe

(a) Ibid, p. 420. (b Ibid, p. 422. (c) Ibid, p. 423.

(d) Ibid, p. 423.

(e) Ibid, p. 422. (f) Ante., p. 97.

their origin to the Imperial Federation League that although they were organized with a view to closer political union-their effect has been to aid the very rapid advance of the colonies to nationhood:

"The conferences were instituted for the purpose of forging new political bonds. They have most materially assisted in the disappearance of those which existed" (a).

We have been told by some imperialists that the dominions ought to confine their legislative activities to local affairs, and that the regulation of "imperial" affairs ought to be undertaken by some central authority. Very well: Now, with the exception of war, what subject can be mentioned which is more of an "imperial” affair than merchant shipping? And, after the debates of the last conference, will anybody suggest that there is the slightest reason to think that Australia and New Zealand (or Canada, for that matter) would be willing to submit the regulation of ships sailing their waters to any parliament, council or board except their own? It was Sir Joseph Ward himself who, at the conference of which we have been speaking, moved the following resolution:

"That the empire has now reached a stage of imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, with representatives from all the self-governing parts of the empire, in theory and in fact advisory to the Imperial government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's dominions oversea" (b).

And in his supporting speech, Sir Joseph proposed to transfer to the new body

"those matters common to the whole empire-that is, all those in which every part of it is alike interested" (c).

But Sir Joseph is a perfect type of an imperialist. When soaring in the vague and in the indefinite, he easily evokes ringing cheers for "imperial unity", for "imperial" nebulosity, or anything else "imperial"; but ask him which particular item of present New Zealand legislative authority he wishes transferred to London, and he is as much a nationalist as anybody else. It was on the 25th May that Sir Joseph proposed an imperial parliament or a council (His uncertainty was as marked as that) for the regulation of common

(a) Ante, p. 101.

(b) Ibid, p. 104.

(c) Proceedings, p. 58

affairs, and on the 19th June he moved the resolution (quoted above) demanding that control of British and foreign shipping in New Zealand should be confided to New Zealand.

Possibly, Sir Joseph may say that shipping in New Zealand waters is not a matter "common to the whole empire". I agree; but I ask to be told what, upon that line of reasoning, is common. The truth, of course, is that the interests of the various kingdoms are not only almost always different, but very frequently quite conflicting. And the only method of dealing with them is that which time and experience have provided us with, namely separate and independent parliaments. The whole matter may be summed up as follows:

1. The present treaties suit the United Kingdom, but they are irksome to Australia and New Zealand. They must be got rid

of, and the colonies set free.

2. Legislation essential to the well-being of the colonies is antiimperial, and a source of embarrassment to the United Kingdom in its relations with India. The remedy is colonial independence, and the release of the United Kingdom from responsibility for colonial action.

3. Colonial legislation might provoke retaliation by foreign countries, and prejudice United Kingdom shipping in all parts of the world. Colonial independence would remove all anxiety upon that ground.

It has been said that, thus far, Canada has not experienced any embarrassment by reason of the existence of the differences which have brought the United Kingdom into such sharp disagreement with Australia and New Zealand. Our exemption will probably be of short duration. Our House of Commons has declared that as soon as our new transcontinental railway is completed, the preferential rates of our customs tariff are to be limited to goods arriving by British ships at our own ports. When we attempt legislation to that end, we shall be met by the treaties, and by British fear of retaliation. We must be free to do as we wish.

NATURALIZATION

While the colonies are endeavoring (as we have just seen) to define more clearly, and, if necessary, to extend their powers of selfgovernment with reference to merchant shipping, the British government is proposing that, colonial authority with respect to naturalization should be materially diminished, and that we should be relegated to a distinctly inferior and subordinate place in constitutional arrangements. It is the first attempt of that sort since Mr. Chamberlain's time, and it must be resisted as firmly as were all his schemes.

On one occasion only has Canada's constitutional development suffered even temporary retrogression, and that was met and cured by armed rebellion. We have never yet assented to any declension in our powers of self-government, and I am well persuaded that we are not going to do it now.

Fortunately, we need no heroics on the present occasion. Indeed, the British government would probably deny that their proposed legislation would have the effect that I have ascribed to it. They might even argue that their intention was rather to extend than to diminish our legislative authority. I am clear, nevertheless, that my view is the correct one, and that the proposals are based upon easily dissipated misapprehension.

And I am, if possible, still more certain that if I am wrong in this first point-if Canada has not the authority which I think she has-she must get it. It is altogether impossible, at our present stage of national development, either (1) that we can assent to be regulated (as is proposed) by any statute other than our own, or (2) that we can admit that we are to be permanently unable to naturalize aliens who are flocking to our shores.

What then is the present position? And what are the proposals?

Complete and Incomplete Naturalization: Naturalization may be complete or incomplete. When it is complete it effectuates a change of nationality—a change in national status or standing. Prior to the act of naturalization the man was, for example, a French citizen. Immediately afterwards he has ceased to be French, and has become a British subject. Naturalization can be complete only if sanctioned by the laws of two countries: (1) the law of France (in the case suggested) must permit the man to expatriate himself (to discard his former allegiance-otherwise, no matter what he does, France will still claim him), and (2) the