The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 14, 1919. TRUE IMPERIALISM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10331, 14 July 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 14, 1919. TRUE IMPERIALISM

To those who have given any real thought to the matter, Federal Homo Rule, or Home Rule All Round, as it is generally called in the Old Country, seems undoubtedly to bo tho host, if not the only, way to satisfactorily solve -the always chronic, and just now particularly acute, Irish problem. Federal Home Rule has this advantage, besides, that it affords a sound, broadbased foundation for such a system of Imperial Federation —tho oniy true Imperialism —as will give the fullest measure of the advantages of closer Imperial union without diminishing in any way the freedom of the units so federated. It was, therefore, with a thrill of hope and pleasure that wo read tho recent announcement made in the House of Commons, that tho British Government is appointing a convention to consider legislative devolution in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, which may lead to Home Rule all round, and also affect the composition of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. At Home—and not only at Home, but throughout the British Empire—it has for many years past been recognised by all pro greesive thinkers that the present system cannot long continue; that devolution must come, and that the sooner it comes tho better. AH true reformers—all who want to remedy abuses, abolish privilege and monopoly, and thus make the world safe for democracy, as opposed to those who profit by abuses, batten on monopoly and privilege, and would, therefore, keep things as they are —have long realised that the imperial Parliament, as at present constituted, is hopelessly overweighted by tho vast amount of detail work that it has to do.

Is a level crossing required neat Land's End or John o’ Groats, or in Ireland or Wales? The Imperial Parliament must pass a bill before the crossing can be made. Does any, however minute, local body in any part, near or far, of the British Isles, desire a site for a parish council house, or to replace the parish pump with a more up-to-date water supply? Again, the House of Commons must bo invoked; and, at no little expenditure of timo and money, the necessary bill must be got through both Lords and Commons. Or, if the bill fails to pass, tho parish council must go unhoused—or inado quately housed; tho parish pump still remains the only water supply. Not even a Gilbert and Sullivan opera could do full justice to such a state of affairs. It may be objected that, however grievously overweighted, tho Imperial Parliament at least saw us safely through the biggest war the world has ever known. But tho fact of the matter is that tho Imperial Parliament did not see the Empire through the war, except to the extent of voting the necessary taxes and credits when told to do so. For tho rest, it simply abrogated its functions, leaving tho War Council to see us through tho war; and undoubtedly the courage and initiative shown by Mr Lloyd George

in calling the best men outside of Parliament to bis aid bad not a little to do with tho final winning of tho war. The difficult position at Home to-day in regard to industrial matters, to education, to housing, and other pressing problems, is in no small measure due (!) to the vast arrears of legislation that have piled up during the war, and (2) to the fact that the huge task of tho House of Commons, appalling enough before the war, is now absolutely impossible, especially with that Okl-Man-of-tlic-Sca, the present House of Lords, on its back. Happily, the great war has taught the British people to do big things promptly, and to do them in a big way. And if the now doubly urgent problems involved in the aftermath of tho world-war compel the Imperial Parliament to devolve upon each part of the United Kingdom more immediately concerned, the power to deal with tho detail work of these problems, not only the United Kingdom, but the British Empire as a whole, will owe to the war a big step forward towards a larger freedom and a greater and still closer Imperial unity.

Not only should there' he local Parliaments. fed'-nted to tue Imperial Parliament ; but, to prevent these local Parliaments being in turn greatly overloaded with work, there should be more than one for each of the four nationalities that constitute the United Kingdom; and tho various municipalities should also bo given greater powers to deal with their own concerns ‘off their own bats.” In the early years of the present century, the Right Hon. John .11. Robertson, then returned to Parliament for the first time for -the Tyneside Division of Northumberland, strongly advocated Federal Home Rule on such lines. Ireland, ho contended, should ho divided into throe or four parts—one of which should be Ulster—each with its own Parliament; Scotland should be divided in the same way into three or four parts; and Wales, perhaps, into two; while for England, he suggested a return substantially to the old Heptarchy, or •’seven kingdoms,” of tho early Anglo-Saxon period. Under his scheme, for which, as a whole, public opinion at Home is hardly likely to be npo for some long time to come, if over, these local Parliaments were to consist of one chamber only. There was to be no local “House of Lords.” Indeed, he maintained that under the frJtral system, with a truly Imperial Parliament, in which the overseas Dominions, India, and Egypt, should hove representation, any House of Lords, especially an hereditary Upper Chamber. would be utterly out of place, a useless and dangerous anachronism. While his plan of devolution might well be accepted as offering a rdady method of overcoming the difficulties and dangers duo to racial, religious, and politico.' differences in Ireland, it is not a; all likely that his one-chamber views will bo adopted, more particularly in regard to the Imperial Parliament. Reform of the House of Lords uuisr. come, and conic soon. But to “reform it out of existence” is a very different matter. John Bull is by no means ready for that. A further solront of racial, religious, and political differences is to bo found in proportional representation. In this connection, therefore, the fact that, on July 3rd, the Proportional Representation Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons i* also of happy augury. Whilst affording an absolutely safe and sure guarantee of majority rule, this reform would also secure that, in Protestant Ulster, for example, the Roman Catholics would he fully and fairly represented in proportion to their voting strength, and that in the Roman Catholic parts of Ireland the Protestants, in their turn, would, have their due number of members. .It is little to be wondered at that tho Sftm Fein minority-majority—if we may bo allowed to coin such a Hibernian “doublebarrelled” word—in Ireland, coupled, as it is, with the facts that in Britain tho Labour Party obtained at tho last general election only about one-third of the number of members it was entitled to, while other parties were also cither grossly under-represented or else grossly over-represented, has, as Carlyle would say, “proved didactic.” It is good to see that the .Mother of Parliaments has so quickly learnt the lesson. It is to bo hoped that before very long proportional representation will bo the law of the Homeland; as it should ere long, if tho National Government only docs its duty, ho tho law in Now Zealand.