THE KINGDOM PAPERS, No. 10 DIFFICULTIES, DANGERS, DUTY. (In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, KINGDOM Paper No. 9 had for its subject the proposed change in the war-relation between Canada and the United Kingdom. Down to the present time, not only have we never assumed an obligation to participate in British wars, but, through Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we have frequently asserted complete freedom of action in that respect-subject only to the possibility of being attacked. Nevertheless we have, to some extent, compromised the freedom which we have asserted (1) by establishing a Canadian navy; (2) by associating ourselves with the Imperial Defence Committee; (3) by assenting to the creation of an Imperial General Staff, with its local sections; (4) by concurrence in the elaboration of plans for imperial defence; and (5) by the acceptance of confidences as to foreign policy. Canada is not quite satisfied with this situation. The Borden Government believes that the order of our procedure ought to be reversed that we ought to think first and act afterwards; that our war-relation should be revised; that it should be settled in accordance with the principle NO OBLIGATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION; and that only after such revision, can we intelligently determine upon the proper course of naval preparation. Canada is, thus, at a most critical juncture. Much of her subsequent history will depend upon what she now does. Are we too much engaged in our individual private affairs to study the situation? We all have our special predilections and prejudices; we are (most of us) Imperialists or Nationalists, Conservatives or Liberals (or, at all events, with tendencies in one direction or the 291 other)—are we content to trust to our inclinations in a matter of such enormous importance, or are we willing to read a little, and to think a little? For those who desire information, Paper No. 9 was intended to offer an opportunity of understanding the situation. It contained but little comment upon the proposed revision of our war-relation. I now beg to submit some observations with reference to its difficulties, its dangers, and our duty in respect of it. DIFFICULTIES. The difficulties of forming an arrangement with the United Kingdom by which the Dominions shall acquire a voice in "the issues of peace or war throughout the Empire" are very great. Consideration of the present system will indicate their reality. The Foreign Secretary: The work of diplomacy is in the hands of the Foreign Secretary-a member of the Cabinet-and his labors may roughly be divided (from the point of view of importance) into four classes: (1) In the vast majority of cases he acts upon his own unaided idea; (2) Upon occasions of special importance he consults with the Prime Minister; (3) When thought necessary the matter is brought to the attention of the Cabinet; and (4) Sometimes the King is informed of the Foreign Secretary's views, and is given an opportunity of exercising his function of offering warning and advice. The Foreign Secretary is responsible to the government; the government must, in very special matters, obtain the assent of the Sovereign; and the government, for its every act, is responsible to parliament, by which it may be punished by dismissal. There is no rule by which cases calling for action are to be assigned to the classes just mentioned-by which they are to be considered as (1) ordinary; (2) special; (3) very special; and (4), as we may say, "extra hazardous". Foreign Secretaries have varying temperaments-some are timid and talkative, others are confident and reticent. Palmerston was dismissed because everything was to him obvious and indisputable. Imagine the usefulness to Palmerston of an advisory council of colonials! He would not consult even his Prime Minister; and he disregarded the requirements of his Sovereign. Not to go back as far as the Pitts, remember Lord Salisbury. The present Foreign Secretary appears to be one of the same confident sort. This, then, being the system, where is there opportunity for colonial co-operation? Probably we may assume that matters included in the first and second of the four classes are not to be submitted to representatives of the colonies. The Foreign Secretary must continue to be the executive. He must be free to act, or to consult, as he thinks right. His work must not fle made impossible. But, so to say is at once to announce in advance that the colonies will frequently be committed to courses of action which they disapprove. And if it be said that we should, in that respect, be no worse off than the United Kingdom itself, the reply is that the Foreign Secretary acts with careful regard to what he believes to be acceptable to his countrymen; that, in case of doubt, he frequently consults with the Prime Minister and "the inner Cabinet"; and that (unavoidably) he knows less and cares less for opinion in the colonies. Before closing this Paper, some illustrations from recent happenings, sufficient to make this point clear, will be referred to. If, then, the colonial representatives are not to supervise all the work of the Foreign Secretary, there are but two ways in which their influence can be exercised upon him or upon the British government: (1) by an advisory voice-a voice formulated by some advisory council, or (2) by a real voice declared at the meetings of the British Cabinet. That is to say, the colonials must either sit separately from the controlling body, in which case their determinations can be of advisory character only; or they must sit with those who decide, in which case they may take part in the discussions and share in the decision. An Advisory Voice: The first of these alternatives might very well be put aside with the reminder that the right to offer advice is not at all the sort of arrangement contemplated by the Borden government. It was not the right to offer advice that Mr. Doherty had in mind when he said: "From that it would seem to me fairly to follow that the condition precedent to our undertaking to participate in the naval defence of the Empire is that we should be given an effective voice IN THE GOVERNING AND DETERMINATION OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE EMPIRE" (a). 'What I desire to do is simply to make clear that the finding of a way by which we may have a voice, and a REAL VOICE, IN THE CONTROL OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE EMPIRE, is an essential condition precedent to our embarking upon any permanent policy of participating in the maintenance of naval forces; that that is an essential condition precedent if our autonomy is to be maintained" (b). (a) Hans., 1909, 10, p. 4137. (b) Ibid., p. 4138. It was not to a merely advisory council that Mr. Borden referred when he said (24 November, 1910): “I THINK THE QUESTION OF CANADA'S CO-OPERATION UPON A PERMANENT BASIS IN IMPERIAL DEFENCE INVOLVES VERY LARGE AND WIDE CONSIDERATIONS. IF CANADA AND ANY OTHER DOMINIONS OF THE EMPIRE ARE TO TAKE THEIR PART AS NATIONS OF THE EMPIRE IN THE DEFENCE OF THE EMPIRE AS A WHOLE, SHALL IT BE THAT WE, CONTRIBUTING TO THAT DEFENCE OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE, SHALL HAVE ABSOLUTELY, AS CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, NO VOICE WHATEVER IN THE COUNCILS OF THE EMPIRE TOUCHING THE ISSUES OF PEACE OR WAR THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE? I DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH WOULD BE A TOLERABLE CONDITION, I DO NOT THINK THE PEOPLE OF CANADA WOULD FOR ONE MOMENT SUBMIT TO SUCH A CONDITION (a). The suggestion, therefore, of an advisory council might be left unconsidered; but, probably, some short examination of its difficulties will be of service: (1) because, in popular discussion, a good deal has been said about such a council; and (2) because apprehension of its difficulties will bring into clearer relief the perplexities of the alternative proposal. In answer to a demand for an advisory council, we should probably be most courteously told that British governments had always been glad to accept advice from all sources; that it was hoped that the Dominions would be good enough to send advice freely upon every available occasion; that all such advice would always be taken into most careful consideration; but that the organization of a special council for the purpose of discussing British foreign politics and advising the British government what to do, would be objectionable upon grounds quite inapplicable to individual suggestion. Some of the grounds are obvious: (1) Would the council have the right of initiative? Or would it act only upon the request of the Foreign Secretary? Or would an attempt be made to define the classes of cases which he would refer to the council? For example, could a provision be made that whenever the Foreign Secretary deemed a matter to be of sufficient importance to be laid before the Cabinet, it should be sent to the council also? If the council had the initiative, and if Mr. Deakin or Sir Joseph Ward were a member of it, the colonies would probably exercise their advisory voice upon every point of detail in Foreign Office operations; and the difficulty would be to get a Foreign Secretary who would put up with their interferences. If the council acted only upon request, it would have little to do. And if reference was (a) Hans., p. 228. |