has been active again and again in the minds of men. A century
after Franklin presented his Albany plan for the race, Joseph
Howe "looked upon the attainment of complete independence of
local government in the colonies as but a stepping-stone to the
assertion of still higher national rights, to the acceptance of
still higher responsibilities; to some form of substantial union
among British people, based on considerations of equal
citizenship and the defence of common interests. As far back as
1854 he delivered in the Nova Scotia Legislature an address,
since published . . . under the name of the 'Organization of the
Empire' which ... embodies most of what has since been said by the
advocates of national unity. Twelve years later, when on a visit
to England, he published in pamphlet form an essay bearing the
same title, and giving his more fully matured views upon the
question. If the genesis and enunciation of the Imperial
Federation idea in its modern form is to be credited to anyone,
it must be assigned to Joseph Howe for this early and
comprehensive statement of the main issues involved. The study
of the utterances of this great colonist, this champion of
colonial rights, may be {192} commended to those shallow critics
who profess to believe that the proposal for national unity is
an outcome of Imperial selfishness, and that its operation would
tend to cramp colonial development."[192-1]
Franklin and Pownall wrote in the days when the race knew only
the English method of integration--"absorptive,
incorporative."[192-2] The various American colonies had been
experimenting in effecting combinations on another principle,
but their successes had hardly yet proved that the same
principle in extended form could be applied to the desired union
between all the governments of the English-speaking race. In
1787 was drawn up the Constitution of the United States of
America, and the federal method of integration was put
definitely to trial. In 1801 Ireland was united to Great
Britain, but not by federation. Irish members were admitted to
the Parliament of the United Kingdom much after the manner in
which Franklin had suggested that American members should be
admitted. In the century or more since has been proved the value
of federation which means neither confederation[192-3] of groups
bound by treaties whereby no adequate affirmative policy or
common government would be possible, nor absorption whereby
local self-government would be obscured or blotted out, but an
expedient combining both local freedom and central strength. The
South African Colonial writing to the {193} Englander who shared
his vision takes for granted a "federal parliament."
The forms Pan-Angle governments take are now two. One is the
simple unitary form in which the central government is supreme
within the sanction of the will of the voters expressed at the
polls, any other government being a subordinate, i.e. a
municipal government. The other form is not unitary, and the
central government is supreme in the exercise of certain
authority only, other governments being in all else supreme and
autonomous partners.
The states of America, for example, and those of Australia are
unitary in government. Of the seven Pan-Angle nations, three,
Newfoundland, New Zealand, and the British Isles, are unitary,
the central government in each being supreme over every part and
in every respect.
Of the non-unitary governments there are four: the United
States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. By an accident of
time and place America was the first to grapple with the
problems which called for such a government. Thirteen states
independent of each other and of any outside power found
themselves in danger from inter-state contentions and external
aggressions. Building for their very lives, they devised a form
of government which has been called federal. In it each state
kept most of its sovereign powers, but delegated certain others
of them to a central legislature. The federation of the six
Australian states followed much the same lines. In Canada and
South Africa the states (in both cases called provinces) have
retained less of their local autonomy. {194} The central
government in the former may with some legislative difficulty
and delay assume any power it desires, while in the latter
unrestricted power has been lodged from the beginning in the
central government. In neither of these two nations, however,
has the central government assumed the exercise of its full
possible power. In both it co-exists at present with the
provincial governments after a federal manner, obtaining thus
the advantages of federation.
For comparatively restricted areas within which problems and
opinions are tolerably uniform, a unitary government satisfies
Pan-Angles. States and provinces are such areas. Newfoundland
and New Zealand are at present such areas. In Newfoundland the
population is very sparse and the local variations are slight.
It will be many years probably before there arises a need and a
desire for devolution[194-1] of power from the present
legislature. In New Zealand conditions are not so uniform, and
although a unitary government seems satisfactory to-day, the
time may readily be imagined when a denser population and
conflicting interests of different sections of the country may
make feasible local legislatures, each, for its allotted tasks,
supreme. The only attempt so far towards that end originated
outside of New Zealand and was abandoned before being put into
practice.[194-2]
{195}
The unitary method of government has never proved itself able
successfully to integrate areas divided from each other by
distance or interests. It failed to hold together the first
Britannic growth; it has been unable to bring into unity the
second Britannic growth; it is acknowledged to be inadequate for
such a task. Its weaknesses are evident in the British Isles.
The British Isles, although no larger than many states and
provinces, is composed of several sections divided by history,
prejudice, and interest. These are now united into one
government, in which one central legislature is supreme.
Questions which may affect some one section alone are decided by
the representatives of the country at large who are possibly
both uninterested and uninformed. Scottish education, Welsh
Church, and Irish land bills are dependent on the will of the
whole British Isles,[195-1] and a multitude of strictly local
affairs must wait for the attention of Parliament, since no
other body has power to deal with them.
The results of this condition are two: first, a congestion of
business in Parliament incompatible {196} with efficient and
intelligent action; and, second, the violation of the principles
of self-government producing discord between the several
sections of the country. No one questions that Parliament to-day
labours under the terrible disadvantage of having more to do
than it possibly can accomplish. Needed and uncontended
legislation is delayed for years, and such bills as are passed
receive often inadequate consideration.[196-1] Though unity has
up to now been preserved, the lack of local self-government has
produced discords always more or less active. At times these
have threatened to break out into violent disruption.
To overcome these weaknesses--to relieve the burdens of
Parliament and to check the tendency to separation--many
thinkers and patriots in the British Isles are convinced that
some devolution of power to local legislatures cannot be long
delayed.[196-2] There is talk of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh home
rule. The present control of British Isles affairs by the Irish
members of the House of Commons is teaching the desirability of
home rule for England. Some would re-form the country into still
smaller governmental sections. In the operation of any such plan
a central Parliament is to be in control of certain nation-wide
interests, among which would be foreign affairs and the army and
navy.
{197}
"Now, what the Federalist is anxious to set up in the United
Kingdom is an arrangement upon the Canadian model, in which
there will be a supreme and sovereign Parliament, as at present,
for the United Kingdom, and under it a certain number of
subordinate parliaments, to attend to local and domestic
legislation and administration. . . . No Federalist has ever
suggested that Ireland should be turned into a Canada, although
this accusation has occasionally been made against him by
persons who have read his proposals carelessly, and have,
accordingly, misunderstood their nature."[197-1]
A British Cabinet Minister, speaking in Dundee on October 9,
1913, stated: "I am perhaps at an unfortunate age for making a
prophecy. I am ceasing to belong to the young men who dream
dreams, and I have not yet joined the ranks of the old men who
see visions; still I will run the risk of prophecy and tell you
that the day will most certainly come--many of you will live to
see it--when a federal system will be established in these
Islands which will give Wales and Scotland the control within
proper limits of their own Welsh and Scottish affairs, which
will free the Imperial Parliament from the great congestion of
business by which it is now pressed, and which will redound and
conduce to the contentment and well-being of all our
people."[197-2]
When some such re-formation of government is adopted by the
British Isles, it will only be utilizing {198} the fruits of the
race's experience in other parts of our civilization.
If the first steps to this "home rule all round" aimed at in the
present (1914) legislation regarding Ireland prove defective, in
that it concedes what is _not_ needed, and denies what _is_
needed, it is because the British Isles has not taken to heart
the inwardness of the federal idea. Lord Dunraven pointed this
out when he said that "there were only two principles on which
Home Rule could be founded--the Federal system or absolute
independence. The present Bill applied to neither and he could
recognize in it no basis of settlement."[198-1] In the following
resolution, he indicated how the question of "home rule all
round" should be attacked: ". . .'The best means of arriving at
a settlement by consent of the Irish political question and of
the constitutional difficulties connected with it, and of
securing the harmonious working of any system of self-government
in Ireland and the permanency of friendly relations between the
two islands is to be found in a convention, or conference,
representative of all nationalities and parties in the United
Kingdom, and . . . it is the duty of his Majesty's Government to
take the initiative in inviting such convention or
conference.'"[198-2] But the fact that a majority of the British
Parliament has gone so far as to advocate any form of Home Rule
is evidence of a sincere effort to meet the conditions of
Pan-Angle individualism where longest suppressed, {199} and thus
hasten the harmonious self-government of the British Isles.
Franklin, when he wrote to Shirley[199-1] in 1754 about the need
of colonial representation to the British Parliament in London,
may or may not have realized how far the gaining of that desire
would fail to satisfy. His plan would not have produced a
federal government for Pan-Angles. It would have created a
larger unitary government than then existed. There would not
have been co-ordinated spheres of governmental control. The
local affairs of Pennsylvania and England, of Scotland and New
York, would together have been in the hands of a Parliament
composed of representatives elected from the nation at large.
This would have been unacceptable to the people of England,
Pennsylvania, Scotland, and New York. They would have asked for
something more. A lesson can be drawn from this by those who
to-day urge Australian or Canadian representation in the present
British Isles Parliament. Such representation would subject
Britishers to outside control of their local problems, just as
to-day Englanders are affected by Irish representatives voting
on local problems of England. Conversely, it would mean a
continued interference in Australian and Canadian local problems
by the local representatives of the British Isles--the very
thing the peoples of the five new nations have already taken
appropriate steps to obviate. The Irish question demonstrates
that representation alone is not enough for Pan-Angles. The
Irish are more than {200} fairly represented in Parliament.
Still they clamour for more. That something more desired by all
Pan-Angles is local autonomy.
To representation in a central legislature must be added the
local control of local questions so dear to Pan-Angle
individualism. This is what federalism accomplishes.[200-1] "Our
Federal system is the only form of popular government that would
be possible in a country like ours, with an enormous territory
and 100,000,000 population. . . . But for this safety valve by
which people of one State can have such State government as they
choose, we would never be able to keep the union of all the
people so harmonious as we now have."[200-2] "The growth of the
United States has widened political horizons. It has proved that
immense territorial extent is not incompatible, under modern
conditions, with that representative system of popular
government which had its birth and development in England, and
its most notable adaptation in America. It has shown that the
spread of a nation over vast areas, including widely-separated
states with diverse interests, need not prevent it from becoming
strongly bound together in a political organism which combines
{201} the advantages of national greatness and unity of purpose
with jealously guarded freedom of local self-government."[201-1]
The indefinite governmental relationships between the Britannic
nations are to-day satisfactory to no one. Britannic closer
union forms the thesis of much writing and speech making and the
subject of much earnest study.[201-2] That the demands of the
situation can be met adequately only by federation seems evident
to many. This thought is thus expressed by Milner: "If, as I
fervently hope, the present loose association of the
self-governing states of the Empire grows in time into a regular
partnership, it can only be, as it seems to me, by the
development of a new organ of government representative of them
all, and dealing exclusively with matters of common interest. It
would only heighten confusion to bring representatives of the
Dominions into the House of Commons. And if, as I think everyone
would admit, it is impracticable to bring them into the House of
Commons, they would certainly say, 'Thank you for nothing' if we
were to offer them a few seats in the House of Lords."[201-3]
Mr. Winston Churchill continued in his speech at Dundee: "I tell
you further that that system when erected and established will
in itself be only the forerunner and nucleus of a general scheme
of Imperial federation which will gather together in {202} one
indissoluble circle the British people here and beyond the
seas."[202-1] Rhodes wrote over twenty years ago: "I will
frankly add that my interest in the Irish question has been
heightened by the fact that in it I see the possibility of the
commencement of changes which will eventually mould and weld
together all parts of the British Empire.
"The English are a conservative people, and like to move slowly,
and, as it were, experimentally. At present there can be no
doubt that the time of Parliament is overcrowded with the
discussion of trivial and local affairs. Imperial matters have
to stand their chance of a hearing alongside of railway and tram
bills. Evidently it must be a function of modern legislation to
delegate an enormous number of questions which now occupy the
time of Parliament, . . .
"But side by side with the tendency of decentralisation for
local affairs, there is growing up a feeling for the necessity
of greater union in Imperial matters. . . ."[202-2]
Not alone the federation of the Britannic nations, but the
federation of the whole Pan-Angle people, {203} is the end to be
sought. Behind Rhodes' "greater union in Imperial matters" lay
his vision of a common government over all English-speaking
people.[203-1] If we are to preserve our civilization and its
benefits to our individual citizens, we must avoid frictions
among ourselves and take a united stand before the world. Only a
common government will ensure this.
The four federations have been the results of similar practical
impulses. The separate states and provinces realized their
mutual need of co-operation to avoid conflict among themselves
and to withstand enemies, actual or possible, from without. In
some cases one, in some cases the other, of these arguments was
most pressing at the time of federation. American states were
vexed by many custom houses and were endangered by European
civilization and the savagery of the American Indians. Canada
was split by two languages and feared the waxing strength of
America. The Australian and South African internal contentions
arising over customs and railway rivalries were overshadowed by
ominous additions to German holdings in the South Pacific and in
East and West Africa respectively. Similar reasons are adduced
to-day in favour of the federation of the six Britannic nations.
The union of the "United Collonyes of New England" in 1643
appears inadequate and impotent in the light of our subsequent
"closer unions." But it was the first voluntary common
government instituted by separate governments of
English-speaking {204} people.[204-1] The reasons for this
co-operation are stated in terms worthy the attention and study
of present-day Pan-Angles: ". . . and whereas in our settling
(by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the
sea-coasts and rivers then was at first intended, so thatt wee
cannott (according to our desire) with conveniencie communicate
in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live in
compassed with people of severall nations and strange languages
which hereafter may prove injurious to us and our posterity: and
forasmuch as the natives have formerly committed sundry
insolencies and outrages upon severall plantations of the
English and have of late combined against us and seeing, by
reason of the sad distractions in England, which they have heard
of, and by which they know we are hindered both from thatt
humble way of seeking advice, and reaping those comfortable
frutes of protection, {205} which att other times we might well
expect, we therefore doe conceive itt our bounden dutye without
delay to enter into a present consociation amongst ourselves for
mutuall help and strength in all our future concernments, thatt
. . . we bee and continue one, according to the tennure and true
meaning of the ensueing articles."[205-1]
Federation was evolved by our race. Though its use was only
dimly understood in the years that followed 1643, its powers are
now known to us. It has proved the means of welding many of our
once jealous and discordant units into concentrated and
self-protective powers. Applied to all our nations, federation
would produce that co-operation necessary for the survival of
our civilization, yielding both the freedom we demand and the
strength that is indispensable--that Pan-Angle paradox of
flexity and firmness.
[184-1] A. L. Burt, _Imperial Architects_, Oxford, 1913, p. 14;
cf. pp. 14-16: "In all likelihood it was but a chance suggestion
without any serious purpose behind it, for, in his subsequent
career as Governor, though he erected an assembly which was not
ratified by the King, he did not, as far as can be ascertained,
once recur to this idea.
"It is doubtful when, or by whom, in the eighteenth century, the
first suggestion of American representatives in the British
Parliament was made. Though Franklin was perhaps not the first,
yet his proposal is the earliest extant."
[185-1] John Bigelow, _The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin_,
New York, 1887, vol. ii. pp. 343-375, gives the plan in full.
[186-1] John Bigelow, _The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin_,
New York, 1887; "Letter of Franklin to Shirley, December 22,
1754," vol. ii. p. 384.
[186-2] _Ency. Brit_., vol. i. p. 832; "In him [Franklin] was
the focus of the federating impulses of the time. . . . He was,
first of men, broadly interested in all the colonies, and in his
mind the future began to be comprehended in its true perspective
and scale; and for these reasons to him properly belongs the
title of 'the first American.'"
[186-3] H.E. Egerton, _Federations and Unions within the British
Empire_, Oxford, 1911, p. 16.
[187-1] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, pp.
50-51.
[187-2] _Ibid.,_ p. 204, and _ante_, p. 186, note 1. One of
Franklin's cleverest hoaxes was, "An Edict of the King of
Prussia," 1773, proclaiming that the island of Britain was a
colony of Prussia, having been settled by Angles and Saxons,
having been protected by Prussia, having been defended by
Prussia against France in the war just passed, and never having
been definitely freed from Prussia's rule; and that, therefore,
Great Britain should now submit to certain taxes laid by
Prussia--the taxes being identical with those laid upon American
colonies by Great Britain. Cf. _Ency. Brit._, vol. xi. p. 26.
[188-1] Thomas Pownall, _The Administration of the Colonies_,
3rd ed. (1766), quoted by C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_,
London, 1908, p. 187.
[188-2] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, p. 187.
[188-3] Lord Milner, May 28, 1904, at Navy League Meeting,
Johannesburg, in Lord Milner, _The Nation and the Empire_,
London, 1913, p. 67.
[189-1] C.A.W. Pownall, _Thomas Pownall_, London, 1908, pp.
199-200.
[190-1] W. T. Stead, _The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John
Rhodes_, London, 1902, p. 78: "Letter of Cecil J. Rhodes dated
August 19 and September 8, 1891, to William T, Stead."
[190-2] _Ibid._, p, 102.
[191-1] R. W. Emerson, _English Traits_, 1856, Boston reprint,
1894, p.261.
[192-1] G. R. Parkin, _Imperial Federation_, London, 1892, pp.
71-72.
[192-2] Woodrow Wilson, _The State_, 1898, Boston, rev. ed.,
1911, p. 454.
[192-3] _Ibid._, p. 565.
[194-1] When a federation is built from component parts, certain
powers are _delegated_ by the parts to the central government.
When a federation is made by dividing a unitary government,
certain powers are _devoluted_ by the existing government to the
parts.
[194-2] P. A. Silburn, _Governance of Empire_, London, 1910, p.
210.
[195-1] Woodrow Wilson, _The State_, 1898, Boston, rev. ed.,
1911, p. 473, points out that of the twelve greatest subjects of
legislation occupying the attention of the British Parliament
during the last century--Catholic emancipation, parliamentary
reform, the abolition of slavery, the amendment of the poor
laws, the reform of municipal corporations, the repeal of the
corn laws, the admission of the Jews to Parliament, the
disestablishment of the Irish Church, the alteration of the
Irish land laws, the establishment of national education, the
introduction of the ballot, and the reform of the criminal
law--only two (corn laws and slavery) would in America have been
subjects for central (federal) government regulation. Prior to
the American Civil War only one of these two, the former, would
have been a subject for central (federal) government regulation.
[196-1] For a detailed account of the difficulties of the
British Isles Parliament in this connection, cf. _An Analysis of
the System of Government throughout the British Empire_, London,
1912, Introduction, pp. xii-li.
[196-2] Cf. "Pacificus," _Federalism and Home Rule_, London,
1910; also Arthur Ponsonby, "The Future Government of the United
Kingdom," in _Contemporary Review_, London, November 1913.
[197-1] "Pacificus," _Federalism and Home Rule_, London, 1910,
pp. xlviii-xlix.
[197-2] _The Times_, London, October 10, 1913.
[198-1] _The Times_, London, March 3, 1913. Account of meeting
of delegates of All for Ireland League, Cork, March 1, 1913.
[198-2] _Ibid._