and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest
states is shown in all political formations of late years.
States in the New and in the Old World, all in their
aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it.
Already all the central states of Europe are
federal--Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D.
1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav
principalities in south-eastern Europe--the Serb, the
Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech--are to
combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as
1862 remarked) under a federal form,--though whether under
Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen.
... In the German lands from early ages there has existed an
aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of
non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes
its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest
under one supreme head and central authority as regards its
relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of
Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm
and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For
legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two
Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated
States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual
States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very
closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the
number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but
apportioned. ... Each German state has its own local
constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally
there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states,
the population of which does not much exceed in some cases
that of our larger towns. ... Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian
monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria
is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the
Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16
millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the
connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised
half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy,
and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120
members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and
the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House
of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty
delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint
Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this
Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. ... The
western or Austrian part of the twin ... is a federal
government in itself. ... Federated Austria consists of
seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36
per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per
cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each
of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of
one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and
archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the
chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of
representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct
taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others
by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of
commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however,
are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate
concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and
farming, education, public worship, and public works. ...
Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of
Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from
1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we
find it now embraces three nationalities--German, French,
Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was
German, and even now three-fourths of the population are
German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one
president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two
chambers. ... Each of the cantons is sovereign and
independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any
two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each
canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its
own public debt."
_J. N. Dalton,
The Federal States of the World
(Nineteenth Century, July, 1884)._
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Canadian Federation.
"A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in
the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a
deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous
adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the
terms and conditions on which the provinces through their
delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar
in its general features to that of the United States
federation, and in accordance with the principles of the
English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before
the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses
to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes
of the provinces in an imperial statute. ... In the early part
of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed
the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,'
which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now
divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other
provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British
Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great
North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named,
with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently
remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion
and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms
eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great
promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete
system of parliamentary government. ... When the terms of the
Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their
conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system
adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its
limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the
northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown,
now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due
deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation
resting on those principles which experience of the working of
the federation of the United States showed was likely to give
guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime
provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of
laws and representative institutions for many years, and were
not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The
people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union
that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages
to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial
government under their own control. The people of Ontario
recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local
government, apart from French Canadian influences and
interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal
system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can
truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the
local and national requirements of the people."
_J. G. Bourinot,
Federal Government in Canada
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series,
numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2._
{1112}
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
Britannic Federation, Proposed.
"The great change which has taken place in the public mind in
recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining
the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at
the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance
of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At
that meeting--which was attended by a large number of members
of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the
colonies--it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That,
in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some
form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded
by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November
of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to
carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has
received considerable attention since. ... I believe all are
agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation
League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying
portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight
and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this
country, in which they are all deeply interested, and
sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom
itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which
all the power and weight and influence that these great
British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in
Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the
strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of
these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have
got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of
a good many persons in relation to the means by which those
objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the
conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that
a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that
during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great
advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was
practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It
is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either
of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a
country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of
the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as
to make uniformity impracticable. ... I regard the time as
near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be
confederated under one Government. ... When that has been done
it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a
similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall
stand in the position of having three great dominions,
commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most
desirable on the part of the people who adopt them--three
great British communities, each under one central and strong
Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the
Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives
of these colonies during the term of their office here in
London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the
Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most
direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of
those great British communities in regard to all questions of
foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that
the representatives of those three great British communities
here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the
day of the country they represent, going out of office when
their Government is changed. In that way they would always
represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party
in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That
would involve no constitutional change; it would simply
require that whoever represented those dominions in London
should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of
the Administration."
_C. Tupper,
Federating the Empire (Nineteenth Century,
October, 1891)._
"Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of
islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and
other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North
American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of
our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to
consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon
their assistance to adequately support the commercial
interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that,
although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the
surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been
forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent
injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our
position, and the debates as to how best we can make our
relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome
of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging
to both of the great parties in the State have joined the
Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that
they do not desire at the present moment to propound any
definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer
union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the
purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The
suggestions actually made have varied in importance from
comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and
common contributions for a world-wide military and naval
organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal
recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the
peerage."
_The Marquis of Lorne,
Imperial Federation,
chapter 1._
{1113}
"Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many
degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not
gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general
principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the
closest possible union of the various self-governing States
ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free
development which is the birthright of British subjects all
over the world--the closest union in sympathy, in external
action, and in defence.' ... The representation of the
Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour,
both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has
proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from
the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for
the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out
with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to
which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was
awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr.
Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its
origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its
decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the
Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party
considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have
done service to the State. To this body colonists of
distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting
the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation
might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to
the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial
defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire,
with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those
which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the
Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet
prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being
paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests.
No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be
approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been
warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that
for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the
Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals
for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for
discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts
of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more
than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our
policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so
cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully
with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. ... It
would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our
fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and
exhaustive inquiry. ... Lord Rosebery has recently declared
that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of
representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and
House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an
Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at
the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord
Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial
Government for the present to conferences, summoned at
frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the
Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League.
It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the
Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with
admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important
questions of common interest to the different countries of the
empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it
cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most
tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result
of that conference was the recognition by the Australian
colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval
defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the
Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the
Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question
of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent
conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down
the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the
future. They must be held periodically and at stated
intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent
them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these
periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour
which it is in their power to give. The task to be
accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the
production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress
that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task
before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which
would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of
the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that
have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If
we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as
they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties
to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord
Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in
authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches
recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the
House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial
Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted
on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent
conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave
inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. ... In appealing to the
Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as
to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire
may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out
some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein
and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of
feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious
difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A
Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly
more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from
possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a
protection. We may take concerted action for defence without
the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be
difficult to carry out."
_Lord Brassey,
Imperial Federation: An English View
(Nineteenth Century, September., 1891)._
"The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title
of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its
authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the
administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the
authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars.
'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only
specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to
what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed.
... It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but
fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of
forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence'
domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should
cast about for some artificial links to bind together the
colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished
on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have
gathered under our rule.
{1114}
This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic
agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and
useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the
fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three
centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex
about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she
should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she
still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass
that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is
caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with
the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists,
are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they
may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided.
'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has
cropped up in pursuance of this object. ... Some clue ... to
its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the
earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in
his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League
formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because
in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a
principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain,
Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which
must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting
measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that
it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies
absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them
at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in
the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the
retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European
empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are
bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so
utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far
from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire
is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the
workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that
the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action
of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our
colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his
fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of
Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain.
For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and
decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government
which is the life of British colonies was never granted to
their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and
fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of
Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South
American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape,
Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were
at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland;
while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile
valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio,
obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of
France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France,
has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire
of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional
position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed
to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and
commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states
from the possession of dependencies. ... The romantic dreams
of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated
beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent
legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord
Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they
will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota
of the political privileges already conferred on them."
_Imperial Federation
(Edinburgh Review, July, 1889)._