THE FUTURE OF THE EMPIRE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 58, 1 December 1917, Page 6

THE FUTURE OF THE EMPIRE

Sir, —In concentrating our attention on Wellington North and who should be its representative, wo are apt to overlook the larger question whioh must now be faced—the lines oh whioh our Empire is to develop. May I call the of your readers to two pamphlets on the subject, presenting two different points of-view—the speech of General Smuts on "The British Commonwealth of Nations" and the address of Sir J. W. Flavelle, chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, Canada, on "Canada and Its Relation to the British Empire"? General Smuts finds the solution of tho problem in the preservation of the hereditary Kingsliip, "really not very different from a hereditary republic," the seleotion by our Royal princes of consorts not from foreign courts, but from the Dominions, and in the calling together at loast once a year of the most important leaders of the Empire in an Imperial Council or Cabinet to discuss matters of Imperial and foreign policy "and to determine a common polioy which would then be' carried out in detail by the various executive Governments of the commonwealth nations."

"Of course," he says, "no one will over dispute tho primacy of the Imperial Government in those matters. Whatever changes and developments come about, we shall always look upon the British Government as the senior partner in this concern. When this council is not sitting the Imperial Government will conduct the foreign affairs, of the Empire. But it will always be subject to the principles and polioy which have been laid down in these common conferences from time to time." '■■''■

Almost the first question that occurs to one on a perusal of the pamphlet is: "Will a great and rapidly-growing Dominion like Canada bo content with a merely consultative voico in matters of peace and war and Imperial policy?" Sir J. W. Flavello supplies the answer in his speech. Canadians, he says, must face .the two alternatives— whether their destiny is an autonomous Canada within the Empire or complete independence His wew is: "We must share in responsibility and claim the right of full citizenship to shape the policy out of which the responsibility grows. If we are to fight and spend, and bo spent, wo must discover a means whereby both as to the causo for which wo fight and the cost of tho undertaking ive sharo responsibility with those with whom wo are associated. I believe we have not faced tho situation when we" say, 'Let well enough alone, our relations have served us hitherto., why bother with them now?' Does anyone suppose that those nations which havo shared in this struggle will rest content to havo Houses of Parliament representing only people in Great Britain determino for us these matters of peace and war and our relations with other peoples." The vital matter is, he says, not how far wo eleot_ to go in either of the two alternative courses, but whether our choice favours: (a) "A polioy of co-oporation which the constituent nations within the Empire will voluntarily exorcise when a crisis occurs," or (b) "a policy in which each nation -will retain full autonomy in all matters of domestic concern, but will be bound with other similar autonomous bodies, including Great Britain and Ireland, in the determination of our relations with tho world outside the Common-

wealth." He belioves that a policy of voluntary co-operation -within the Empire means separation, for "you cannot have co-operation if those who are to co-operato are at liberty to share or refuse to share as from timo to timo they may choose. Tho inevitable result of a relationship in which tho members would only support one another when they elected to do so, is that the relationship as a vital forco must cease." Ho will yield no jot of autonomy in domestic affairs to any power. But ho cannot see why Canada should loso autonomy or sound-, national spirit tlirough federation, or why Canada, should not havo all tho power she now possesses plus the power of sharing in tho councils and responsibilities of world affairs with a family of nations bound in tho Federation. In reply to those who consider that Canada would be smothered by Great Britain and Ireland, ho says: "Tho representative body, be it a Parliament or a council, would not be Great Britain's, but ours, and in the "ours" ,are Great Britain and Ireland and Canada and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa, and who knows what others. Do we in Ontario, within this Dominion, say we will not be represented in Parliament at Ottawa because we are in the minority ? When our members go to Ottawa, they do not vote as men from Ontario; they divide,, and some join with one .group from the'other provinces, and some with another group, and whichever of these groups preponderate In numbers their opinion holds and governs. " If wo federate wo will not divide as to countries, but as to policies'. Representatives from Canada would differ with one another, as would representatives .from the other Dominions and Great Britain. These would form combinations, and the tie-' terminatipn of the majority would be defined by policy, not by country. Would we let this central Parliament or Council collect money from us? Why. not? The Parliament or Council which would make tho claim upon us would be ours. We must-.rid our minds of the idea' that the central Parliament or Council under Federation would be an outside body: \t would bo ours as much as Great Britain's, as the Parliament, in Ottawa is, as much Prince Edward Island's with its four members as it is Ontario's with .its eighty-six members." His final question is one that we in New Zealand must ask ourselves now: "Will we nin away from the problem because its solution presents difficulties, or will we, with good courage; take it up, and live with it, until wq understand its bearings?—l am, H. F. VON HAAST. -