HOME RULE IN THE WORLD
"Ah!" but I shall be told by Unionist critics who have followed me so
far, "but the tendency of the world at present is all towards great
empires and away from little states. You are reversing the process."
This will probably be one of the most frequent arguments that we shall
hear during the present discussions. We shall, perhaps, have thrown at
our heads cases like the absorption of Persia by Russia, of Tripoli by
Italy, of Morocco by France, and of the Congo by Germany.
If we are to argue the matter on those lines it will be fair to point
out, on the other side, that during the last decade Norway has
separated from Sweden, new provincial and state governments have been
created in Canada and the United States, new self-governing powers have
been given to Cuba and the Philippines by the Americans in faithful and
loyal adherence to their word at the time of the Spanish-American war,
and, even more recently, new powers have been given to Alsace and
Lorraine by the German Empire.
So the argument might go on, to and fro, each party pelting one another
with cases from other parts of the world. Perhaps at that point it
might be well to remember the grave and wise warning given us by Lord
Morley in his "Life of Gladstone"--that each case of political
re-adjustment really stands by itself, and that often little light can
be thrown, but rather darkness deepened, by studying too closely the
analogies from other communities.
Still, though the case of the relations between England and Ireland
must always stand on its own merits, there are general tendencies in
the world which come under law. There are certain lessons to be
gathered from other countries which we should be unwise to ignore. The
Greeks, who were great constitution builders, amused themselves in
their later period by making immense collections of political specimens
from among the Hellenic States. Doubtless their politicians derived
some advantage from this practice of their philosophers.
There are general tendencies, and those tendencies may be classified
under the two familiar heads of (1) the tendency towards unity and (2)
the tendency towards division. These two tendencies are always going on
side by side in various parts of the world. But the puzzling part of
political study is that very often what seems a tendency towards unity
conceals a tendency towards division, and that what seems a tendency
towards division is really a tendency to unity.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE
Take, for instance, the famous case of the British Empire. Any
superficial observer from another clime or another planet might
conclude from reading the records, that the tendency within the British
Empire during the last century lay toward division. He would find on
looking the matter up in any book of reference that the British Empire
now includes nearly thirty Parliaments.[69] He would discover that the
powers of the central authority have been gradually waning until
practically every great white community outside the United Kingdom has
now complete control over its own local affairs. He might even be
excused some astonishment if he discovered also that these communities
placed heavy taxes on the imports of the mother country, and were in no
degree restrained from doing so, and that there even existed a party in
the home country who contended that that act of filial attention ought
to be rewarded by special preferences to colonial imports at home.
Perhaps he would be most astonished when he discovered that these
colonies were now engaged in raising their own navies and armies, which
might possibly in the future be used for purposes independent of the
central control.
Pursuing his enquiries, he would discover that this country of Great
Britain had conducted at great cost of life and money, less than ten
years ago, a war to prevent the separation and secession of one great
white community--that of South Africa--and that, having carried that
war to a successful conclusion, the central government had followed up
that war by granting to that great white community a strong central
local government, with complete control of its local affairs. "You talk
about the tendency to unity," he would say, "but have we not here a
clear instance of division?"
To all of which we should reply, and reply correctly--"Not at all! The
secret of our Empire is that we have found unity in difference. We have
achieved the miracle of combination by means of division of power."
We should probably have some difficulty in persuading him of this
truth. He might be some Rip Van Winkle, who had gone to sleep during
the War of American Independence, and still derived from those days his
notions of the right principles of colonial government. But if he
conducted his enquiries further he would end by being fully persuaded.
For what would he discover? He would find out that in spite of, or
perhaps by means of, this principle of division the British Empire was
now the most united Empire in the world. He would learn the amazing
story, incredible to almost any other nation, of the great rally of
colonial troops to the help of the Empire at the time of the Boer War.
He would read of the periodical Imperial Conferences at the Centre in
London. He would learn of the new drawing together now going on both in
regard to foreign policy and military strategy. He would contrast all
this with the spirit of the American Colonies between 1776 and 1782. He
would look back, perhaps, to the beginning of this new era of
self-government, and recall the memory of Canada in rebellion, of
Australia in a state of permanent quarrel with Downing Street, and of
South Africa in perpetual, recurring, chronic confusion and disorder.
He would learn that before 1837 every white British colony was
discontented,[70] and that now every colony was loyal. He would
contrast these two pictures of Empire. Perhaps, then, he would realise
that the true secret of the strength of the modern British Empire lay
neither in militarism nor Imperialism, neither in swagger nor bounce
nor boasting nor pride, but in the gradual development of that amazing
policy of generosity and goodwill which is best typified in the phrase,
"Home Rule."
It is Home Rule that has saved the British Empire up to the present. Is
it not likely that it is Home Rule that will save her in the future?
"Ah! but"--again will come the cry of the critic of the narrow
vision--"look at the South African Union. Is not that an instance of
unionism as against Home Rule? Have we not there in this latest
achievement a specimen of State authorities over-ruled by a central
power?"
In answer to that cry, I turn to the eighty-fifth clause of the South
African Act, 1909. In that clause I find the following powers reserved
for the local authorities of Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and the
Orange River Colony:--
(1) Direct taxation within their provinces.
(2) The right of borrowing money on their own credit.
(3) All education other than higher education.
(4) Agriculture.
(5) Hospitals.
(6) Municipal institutions.
(7) All local works and undertakings within their provinces.
(8) All roads and bridges within their provinces.
(9) Markets and towns.
(10) Fish and game preservation.
(11) The right of fine and imprisonment, and
(12) Generally all matters which, in the opinion of the
Governor-General in Council, are of a merely local or private
nature.
Ireland would not very much mind that kind of unionism!
The fact is, of course, that this instance of South Africa is a typical
example of the principles of unity and division working at the same
time. In regard to South Africa as a whole, the Union Act was a great
and beneficent grant of Home Rule. It was the end of a long period of
harassing interferences with the affairs of South Africa on the part of
the Imperial Government at home, through its High Commissioner on the
spot. That process is even now unfinished. It will probably in the end
have to be brought to completion by the inclusion within the authority
of the South African Parliament of countries like Rhodesia, and even,
perhaps, of Basutoland.
But in regard to South Africa itself, the same Act was a case of true
unionism required and necessitated by the conditions of the country.
Before 1909 the South African states were suffering within themselves
from excessive division of functions. They were quarrelling over
railways and tariffs. They were unable to pursue any common policy or
common aim. That perpetual division of functions weakened them in the
presence of the world, and rendered them unfit for local guidance. We
should have a similar situation in this country if England, Ireland,
Scotland, and Wales were all under separate governments, with separate
tariffs and separate policy. In that case the doctrine we should be
preaching to-day would not be Home Rule, but Unionism. For these two
tendencies throughout the world are like a see-saw. Both are required
for efficient government. Both may be carried to excessive and
exaggerated lengths. Our case in regard to the United Kingdom is that
unionism has been carried to excessive lengths, and requires to be
tempered by Home Rule.
For let any Unionist glance round the world outside the British Empire.
He will find that the British do not stand alone in their trust in the
Home Rule principle. Nearly every great Empire in the world rests upon
Home Rule as its basis. Even Russia, perhaps the most centralised of
all, has its provincial councils, known as the Zemstvos, and it was one
of M. Stolypin's most daring actions that he even broke the letter of
the Russian Constitution in order to strengthen the Zemstvos of Eastern
Russia. Finland, too, a province of Russia, possesses a larger form of
local government than is even being demanded by Ireland. It is a
curious irony of the present situation that many of those Britons who
refuse self-government to Ireland are most diligent in watching the
action of Russia in relation to the powerful and--up to the
present--almost independent Parliament of Finland.
THE GERMAN EMPIRE
If we pass from Russia to the other great human combinations, we shall
find the principle of Home Rule far more extensively and powerfully
developed. Take China, a combination of 400,000,000 of human beings,
now changing before our eyes from an absolute monarchy to a
constitutional republic. But whether as a monarchy or a republic, China
has always rested her rule on gigantic and almost autonomous provinces,
under separate Viceroys. Those provinces have doubtless been subject to
the same autocratic control as China herself, but with the change in
her central government they will probably pass by an easy transition
into Home Rule provinces. Or come nearer home to an Empire which most
Englishmen imagine to be the most centralised in the world--the German
Empire. That Empire rests upon a basis of twenty-six autonomous
governments, varying from autocracies at one end to republics at the
other. The German Empire contains within it every form and shape of
human community, varying from sheer mediævalism to extreme modernism.
But whatever the form or shape of these separate governments, they are
all alike in having control over their own local affairs. Most of the
great states of Germany still possess control even over their own
railways. They have their own Parliaments, their own judges, and, in
many cases, their own reigning sovereigns. It was part of the wisdom of
the founders of the German Empire that they made no attempt to
interfere with these local powers. They contented themselves with
combining all those forces for common defence, including them under a
common tariff, and giving to them a common vote for a common assembly
at the centre. In other words, Germany rests upon the two principles of
unity and division, and in that combination lies its strength.
THE UNITED STATES
Or turn to the United States. There you have another of those powerful
human governments resting on a basis of forty-six State authorities,
each with its own legislature, and even with its own little army. Each
of those state governments has control over such great matters as
criminal and civil law, marriage and divorce, licensing, education,
game laws, and the regulation of labour. They have the right to place a
direct tax upon property. They have their own governors and their own
ministries. And yet they all work harmoniously within the central
authority of the Federal States. Probably by no other means could that
great combination be held together.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
Or come back to Europe, and take the astonishing case of Austria and
Hungary. There you have two countries of different race and different
language, with different ideals, and with bitter memories of past
strife lying between them. A generation ago it was a commonplace among
all politicians that the Austrian Empire must break up. Yet it still
holds together, and has recently shown itself capable even of
aggressive action. The prophecy of decay is being pushed further and
further forward, and Austria still remains the great Christian bulwark
of Europe. How has that miracle been achieved after the terrible
internecine struggles of the mid-nineteenth century? How is it that
Hungary has forgotten the hangings and the butcheries of the sixties,
and still works within the Austrian Empire? Why, simply by virtue of
the principle of Home Rule.
Austria and Hungary, indeed, represent a far more extreme and daring
instance of this principle than it is necessary to put forward in
regard to Ireland. They possess distinct Parliaments and distinct
ministries. Those Parliaments sit apart and legislate apart and neither
possess any representation in the other. But they have, as we have
already seen, their link, not merely in a common Emperor and King, but
in a common body called the Delegations. There is the Austrian
Delegation and the Hungarian Delegation, both consisting of sixty
members, twenty from each Upper House, and forty from each Lower House.
The delegations sit alternately at Vienna and Buda Pesth, and they
deliberately and independently communicate their decisions by writing.
But if after three such interchanges no decision is arrived at, then
the whole 120 meet together and settle the matter by vote without
discussion. They possess a common Minister for Foreign Affairs, a
common Minister of War, and a common Minister of Finance. Count Von
Aehrenthal, who has in late years produced so startling an effect on
European politics, is the common Minister for Foreign Affairs for
Austria and Hungary, two countries with distinct Parliaments.
INDIA
I return from this tour of the world back to the British Empire. Here,
too, the principle of Home Rule has been working, not merely in regard
to our white dominions, but during the last ten years even more
daringly in regard to the countries of our black subjects. The great
Indian Reform Act of 1909 has created in India what are practically the
first beginnings of Home Rule Councils. Seven great provinces of India
have now each of them Legislative Councils of their own, and on nearly
all of these Councils the unofficial members are in the majority.[71]
The powers of these Legislative Councils are still very limited; but
who can doubt that they will increase?
We are, in other words, faced with the fact that while Ireland has been
waiting for Home Rule we have taken the first great step in granting
Home Rule to India. Surely this is a fact that presents a new challenge
to the reactionary Unionist of the United Kingdom. Does he really
contend that Ireland is incapable of receiving the same liberties as we
are granting to India? Or will he make the wicked and dangerous
suggestion that we are only conceding these things to India by force
from fear of disorder, and in that way threaten the happy peace of
Ireland?
Surely the concession of Home Rule to India removes the last vestige of
an Imperial argument against Home Rule for Ireland also!
* * * * *
Such are the results of a general survey at the present moment. They
show that in proposing Home Rule for Ireland we are not rowing against
the tide, but following the drift of a general law which is prevailing
all over the world.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[69] See Appendix K. This figure includes, of course, the Isle of Man
and the Channel Islands.
[70] See the Letters of Lord Aberdeen quoted by Mr. Gladstone.
[71] The Governors of Madras and Bombay and the five
Lieutenant-Governors each have Legislative Councils. Under the new
scheme the Legislative Councils of the provinces are constituted as
follows:--
Madras 48 members. 20 official. 26 unofficial. 2 experts.
Bombay 48 " 18 " 28 " 2 "
Bengal 51 " 18 " 31 " 2 "
United 49 " 21 " 26 " 2 "
Provinces
East Bengal 43 " 18 " 23 " 2 "
and Assam
Punjab 27 " 11 " 14 " 2 "
Burma 18 " 7 " 9 " 2 "
HOME RULE FINANCE
"You gave £20,000,000 to the negroes or to their masters. Will
you give £20,000,000 to the Irish?"
O'CONNELL
"The noble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, spoke of
the cloud which rests at present over Ireland. It is a dark and
heavy cloud, and its darkness extends over the feelings of men
in all parts of the British Empire. But there is a consolation
which we may all take to ourselves. An inspired King and bard
and prophet has left us words which are not only the expression
of a fact, but which we may take as the utterance of a
prophecy. He says, 'To the upright there ariseth light in the
darkness.' Let us try in this matter to be upright. Let us try
to be just. That cloud will be dispelled. The dangers which
surround us will vanish, and we may yet have the happiness of
leaving to our children the heritage of an honourable
citizenship in a united and prosperous Empire."
JOHN BRIGHT (1868)