The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1912. THE PROBLEM OF IMPERIAL UNITY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14306, 18 March 1912, Page 6

The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1912. THE PROBLEM OF IMPERIAL UNITY.

As has been already explained in " Tho Press/ , tho main portion of Sir .7. G. Findlay's book "Tho Imperial Confor"enco from Within" is devoted to a consideration of "New Zealand's Pro- " posal and Imperial Federation." According to Sir Asquith, tho basis of Imperial Unity to-day is "local au- " tondmy—absolute, unfettered and " complete— with loyalty to a common "head, and with spontaneous and un- " forced co-operation for common in"tercsts .and purposes." Sir John Findlay submits ,each clause in this statement to searching analysis and criticism. Ho points oiit that notwithstanding evpry grant of local autonomy Britain lias mado to her Dominions and Colonies it is her Parliament alone that lias sovereign power over them and over all who resido in them. Tho British Parliament l eould by legislation directly limit, alter or destroy the rights of tho people in tho Kolf-RoverninK Dominions. It can, if and'when it pleases, make any statute it passes operate- in tho oversea Dominions, and override any law there inconsistent with its provisions. Not only could statutes which had passed through,tho Houses of Parliament in any of tho Dominions ho prevented from being law 'b}- a mero alteration by tho Imperial authorities of tho Governor's instructions, but the British Parliament could itsolf revoke any powers of self-government ' it has granted a Dominion or Colony. " No oversea Dominion can alter its Constitution. If our Legislative Council is to bo reformed, it must bo done by an Act of tho Imperial Parliament. Of co'urs© any Act proposed by the New Zealand Parliament for the reform of tho Council is tolerably certain to bo endorsed and made effective by an Act of tho Imperial Legislature, and so Sir John Findlay has to admit that in practice our local autonomy is very fret?—that wo have tho substance of autonomy if not the form jn our Constitution. Nevertheless the power given to the Governor to reserve Bills for his Majesty's assent does put a check upon our legislation. On tho whole, perhaps, it is beneficial, but it is not inconsiderable. Since 18U5, Kir John Findlay tells ha, eighteen Bills—somo of them of great importance, have been reserved by the Governor of New Zealand for what is practically tho approval of the Home Government, and eevoral of these h:»vo not botn sanctioned. Thoro aro other respects in which Sir John Findlay shows that Mr Asquith'3

declaration that~' ( ivo are masters in ,; our oTTJi household," is even in -. : rac-1 ticc not wholly accurate, while in theory j nnd in constitutional Inw it is wholly j inaccurate. Tin , people in the Dominions have no right to a voice in any question I of peace or war. The King, on the j nuvico of liis Ministers, can, -without I consulting any Dominion, make svith n foreign nation any Treaty, commercial or otherwise, oven although that Treaty may seriously affrct or injure one or all of theses Dominions. Such a pc-.vtr, v.-c lnuy be sure, will Ijc excrcis«l smiro sparingly and cautiously in the future than ie has boon in the past, hut while it exists it. must be admitted th.it if ire .ire masters in cur own hoi>.«e. it is snhject to qualification; Sir John Findlay raises the questions, "Will the Dominions, as they reach a wealth and population approximating those of the "Motherland, continue to submit to the present system? And, secondly, would not a truo Federation of the Empire add to its stability and power ?" In regard to the first question, Mi- Asquith apparently regard? "!oya':ty "to a common head, with spontaneous " and unforced co-operation for corn- " raon interests and purposes" as a sufficient unifying force. Sir John Findlay thinks this involves a "petitio " principii." It is not our loynlty which creates the Sovereign, it is the Sovereign that creates our loyalty. As to the "spontaneous and unforced " co-opcraticn," ho asks what it has done for the Empire. The- white population in tho autonomous Dominions is about 16 millions, while tho population of tho United Kingdom is still under fo'rty-fivo millions. Tho area of these Dominions is sixty thousand times as great as that of tho ■Motherland. The cost of tho Navy is advancing by gre.it strides, and the contributions per bond per annum to this expenditure have been as follows: —Great Britain 18s 10d, Canada nil, Australia Is od, South Africa Is 6d, Now Zealand 2s 2Jd, Newfoundland 3d. So far as the oversoa Dominions nro concerned, tho contributions havo been "frro and unforced," but they did not materially relievo the British taxpayer. However, tho method adopted at least favoured tho existing principle of one fleet and one naval policy. By 1910, however, our author points out the "unifying; arid cohesive force" of loyalty and of "spontaneous and unforced co- " operation" in naval defence took a ; new departure. Canada and Australia determined to liavo navies of their own, and Canada has actually, by statute, provided that her navy is not to participate in an Imperial war unless Canada approves of that Avar. It is true that with a change of Government the whole 'subject is again under consideration, and every Imperialist hopes that Mr Borden may find some hotter- way in which Canada may take her share in the defence of tho Empire. Meanwhile every thoughtful student of tho question must feel that a separate navy makes for disintegration rather thaa for unification, and no ono who has observed the temoer of the Cana-

dian papers can look forward without some misgiving to what may happen, say, at the end of tho present century, when, according to Lord Strathcona, Canada alone will have a population of a hundred millions, and so far as population, and possibly even wealth, aro, concerned, tho centre of Imperial gravity will be shifted across tho Atlantic. Sir John Findlay holds thafc tho present haphazard method of providing for Etnpiro defence must he replueed by something better organised and more tangible. You "may as " well expect," he Eays; "to maintain " ft navy, by going round tho Empire " with a hat." Wisely enough, he does not venture to commit himself to tho dotails of any definito scheme. Ho has no doubt learned a lesson fro?n tho disaster which befel tho confident but ill-considered attempt of his happy-go-lucky colleague at tho Imperial Conference. Tho unhappy oxperionco of Sir Joseph "Ward will, iio doubt, act as a powerful detorront for somo years to prevent any single iuulvidual from trying his hand at evolving a new Constitution for tho British Empire. It docs not follow that the attempt ought not to be made, or, indeed, that it may not become essential for the preservation of tho Empire to form a new basis of Imperial Unity. Already constitutional changes aro in tho making. Sir Asquith, as Sir John Findlay points out, with all his veneration for tho British Constitution, has led, and led successfully, one of tho most serious ns&mUs ever mado upon it, in wresting tho power of veto from tho Houso of Lords. Soon tho battlo of Homo Rulo will he hotly waged. If thoso who aro fighting for it are successful, it will probably resolve itself into "Home Rule all round," and then it is that the question of tho relation of tho oversea Dominions to tho Mother Country will most fitly como under review. Sir John Findlay admits the difficulties of tho task of forming a schemo of federation, and thinks that these will bo best overcomo by a body of chosen experts, as was done in the case of tho American Federation, or, to como to mpro recent examples, tho Union cf South Africa and tho Commonwealth of Australia. The' question is ono which not only tho statesmen, but tho peoplo of tho Empire, will havo to tako into consideration, and Sir John Findlay has dono good service by his suggestive and thoughtful contribution to tho study of tho problem.