WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1916. THE IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 207, 30 August 1916, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1916. THE IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

Since we dealt hist with the proposals for a reconstitution of the Empire brought forward by Mr. Curtis in his "Problem of the Commonwealth," we have irccerved two more letters on the subject which seem to deserve a little comment. Mr. Sturge. whose letter appeared in our issue of last Saturday, docs not eccm to have read our previous articles very carefully. For lie entirely ignores the obvious distinction that we have drawn between such an abstract principle as Mr. Curtis's "postulate" and the "empirical law" on which our claim to self-government and self-taxation is based. The difference, of course, is that the right to self-taxation is founded on the prolonged and bitter experiences of the past—for example, the revolt of the American colonies—-while Mr. Curtis's assertion that the right of self-govern-ment must necessarily be extended so a3 to include control of foreign' policy-Is~a sheer assumption, which cannot be hosed upon experience, because, as Mr. Curtis admits, there never has been a previous instance ot an Empire constituted or situated as the British Empire is to-day. The test of past experience, and the lessons drawn from it, we maintain, should bo decisive in such matters, and judged by this standard our claim for the Dominions to retain absolute and entire control over their own taxation is impregnable. Mr. Sturge mistakes us entirely when he says that what we mean is tbat "foreign affairs are not the b_j_t_-8 of the Dominions." What we do mean is that in our opinion, while it would be possible for the Dominions to exercise considerable indirect influence on the course of British foreign policy, even with the existing means at our disposal, any direct control is impossible along the lines that Mr. Curtis suggests, ■while the attempt to secure it bysuch means as lie has devised would lead inevitably tp constant friction, mutual antagonism, and finally to the disruption of the Empire.

One important fact which Mr. Curtis 3nd his friends lose sight of is that Britain's foreign policy must always in I tbe future, as in the past, involve issues of peace or war based upon considerations which may make no direct appeal to the Dominions or their people. Whether the Dominions choose to intervene or to remain passive, Britain will still be compelled to decide what course she must take in regard to the Balance of Power, the enforcement of the prin crple of nationality, the protection of small States, or the defeat of an aggressive policy calculated to disturb the peace of Europe or the world. For such reasons, and also more especially because of her isolated position and the necessity for securing her sea-borne food'supplies, Britain must maintain as large an army and as powerful 1 navy as she now requires for these purposes, even if the rest of the Empire ceased to exist. This does, not mean that the Dominions are likely to look for an excuse to evade their responsibilities -in the matter'af imperial Defence; indeed, our record in tnia respect should dispel all suspicion or ecxiety on this score. The fact that; New Zealand and Austral ia gave a leal to the Motherland in the matter of compulsory military service affords, we think, an adequate guarantee. that we .ecognisc our duties in this respect. In, the last resort we are not likely to be : bo blind to our own interest* as to imagine that we can get along easily with-: , cut Britain's protection, and on the vtry lowest ground we would always be,

prepared to pay for it in some form or other on reasonable conditions. But it is also true that Britain could not possibly afford to "let the Dominions (shift for themselves"—a result which Mr. Sturge seems to contemplate as a .possible outcome of our rejection of Mr. Curtis's advice. We may remark, by the' way, that we wholly fail *o ianderst__d Mr., -targe's statement that "Britain could not afford attar this war w_y

i longer to look after the interest- and de- | fence of the • Empire unaided." We should have thought that the strenuous efforts which the Dominions have made aud are making in the common cause I would be a sufficient reply to this absurd suggestion. The Dominions hare eb'own that they are perfectly willing to hilp Britain for Imperial purposes; but what they would object to is a proposal to subject them for fiscal purposes to the dictation or coercion of a Parliament in ■whose deliberations the opinions expressed by their minority of representatives might be as "the voice of one crying in ttie ■wilderneßs."

As regards Mr. Mahon's letter, which | appears in another column of this issue, we are surprised to find ourselves charged with "misrepresentation." What Mr. Mahon means, we presume, is that we used his illustration about Canada for a purpose for which he did not intend it; but that is hardly our fault. Our point was that the refusal of Canada to endorse Sir R. Borden's offer of assistance to the Admiralty shows the difficulty and danger that would be involved in any attempt on Britain's part to secure help from the Dominions which they were not prepared spontaneously to give. Mr. Alahon seems to believe that if once an Imperial Cabinet were set up, including representatives from the Dominions, all difficulties would be settled at once. If this Cabinet assessed Canada at £7,000,000 for Imperial defence, " then," says Mr. Mahon, "Canada would pay it." Our answer is that if Canada's representatives had been outvoted in the Imperial Cabinet, or if the people of the Dominion believed that their interests had not been fairly treated there. Canada would do nothing of the kind. And what then? "Mr. Curtis's Imperial Parliament," says Mr. Mahon, " would put into operation the constitutional machinery provided for enforcing the payment." This strikes us as simply amazing. " Enforcing the payment," indeed! One might imagine, to read this, that the lesson of the American War of Independence and the experiences of the British people in their long struggle for constitutional liberty had been entirely thrown away. We. take leave to assure Mr. Mahon, and those who agree with him, that they have profoundly mistaken the trend of political development and the character of political feeling in the Dominions if they imagine that any attempt at "enforcing " payment of taxes levied externally could produce throughout the Empire any but the most disastrous results. We must confess our astonishment that Mr. Curtis and his supporters should have committed so palpable a blunder as to introduce such a proposal into what purports to be a workable scheme of Imperial reorganisation. Our surprise, we find, is shared by -the London "Observer." which, in a lengthy and -laudatory analysis of " The Problem oij the Commonwealth," condemns this suggestion in language very similar to our own. ' Describing .Mr. Curtis's scheme, the "Observer" remarks:—"The quota would be assigned by the Imperial Parliament. Eacli Dominion would raise the sum as it pleased; but in case of default the Federal authority could levy directly on the Dominion concerned, or 'distrain,' as Mr. Curtis most unlianI pily puts it. This latter suggestion is a serious and needless blot upon the | book. Given ability to pay, financial ' default, followed by an attempt to 'distrain.' could only mean separation, as in the case of the Thirteen Colonies." Surely this is so obvious as hardly to require the amount of stress that we have been compelled to throw upon it. The fact seems to be that the many admircn* of Mr. Curtis's ingenious and suggestive book have, in too many cases, accepted his proposals in a highly un- 1 critical spirit. They hold with Mr. Mabon. that Mr. Curtis has proved beyond the possibility of question that " some effective constitutional means should be devised of compelling payment of the quotas allotted to Great Britain and the various. Dominions " by the new Imperial Government for the purposes of Imperial defence. We hold, on the I contrary, with the '' Observer," that no ! such enforcement is possible, and that the attempt to carry out such a scheme would infallibly destroy the Empire. Again, Mr. Mahon claims that Mr. Curtis has examined in his book every alternative scheme yet proposed for securing the objects in view, and that he has proved by exhaustion that the only effective scheme is ltis own. As Mr. Curtis starts with the assumption that the Dominions must exercise direct control over the 'Empire's foreign policy, and that they must br prepared in return for this to surrender their right of self-taxation, ; his demonstration of the superiority of his own scheme is simple enough, but it is not so much proof as an argument in a circle, based on a hypothesis whose validity we absolutely .deny. There are many conceivable alternatives to Mr. [ Curtis's scheme, and we are glad to see that the " Observer " in its very appreciative review of Mr. Curtis's book, advises the " Round Table" groups to

" examine the possibilities of progress through a real Imperial Council superseding the Committee of Defence and supplemented for consultative purposes by a Standing Imperial Conference." No doubt much can be done On these lines. But our chief object just now is to make, it clear that we dissent altogether from Mr. Curtis's conclusions, not because we think that nothing remains to be done in the way of defining and distributing the responsibilities of the various portinns. of the.Empire, hnt because we believe that hi- scheme would raise far more difficulties than it would solve, and that it involves the surrender of a principle absolutely essential to onr conatit-tional .liberty and our political