14. IMPERIAL FEDERATION. Im perial federation is the name given to the vari ous projects for revising the relations between Great Britain and her colonies, so as to give to the latter a share in the government of the empire. The growth of the colonies, and the increasing burden of national defense, naturally suggest that the colonies should contribute to the Imperial revenue; on the other hand, such a contribution, unless accompanied by a voice in the councils of the mother country, would con stitute that °taxation without representation° so abhorrent to Anglo-Saxon ideas. Such was the situation during thereat controversy of the 18th century between Great Britain and her North American dependencies, and such is again the situation at the present day. Even in the 18th century various proposals were made for solving the colonial difficulty by admitting American representatives to the British Parlia ment. Governor Pownall (see PowNALL, THOMAS), Edmund Burke (q.v.), and Adam Smith (q.v.) made suggestions of this sort. But the difficulty of communication rendered any such federation impracticable. During the middle period of the 19th century it was cur rently believed that the manifest destiny of the colonies was independence. With the passing of that idea has arisen the demand for a closer bond of union. The Imperial federation move ment originated in the early '70s, an informal conference for discussing the subject being held in 1871. In 1884 the Imperial Federation League was founded, its first chairman being the Right Hon. W. E. Forster (q.v.). Lord Rosebery (q.v.), the Right Hon. Ed. Stanhope (sometime Secretary of State for the colonies), and Sir Frederick Young (q.v.) (whose work, (Imperial Federation,' had appeared in 1876) were interested in the movement from its incep tion. A significant event was seen in the Lon don colonies conferences of 1887, to which rep resentatives of both the self-governing and the Crown colonies were summoned, and at which the subjects of Imperial defense and trade were discussed. In 1892 a committee of the Imperial Federation League presented a practical scheme of federation. It recommended the institution of a council of the empire, to which delegates should be summoned from the self-governing colonies, the Crown colonies and India. The function of the council was to consist in the regulation of Imperial defense. It was recog nized, however, even at this stage of the move ment, that there was no sufficient unanimity among the members of the league in reference to the details of the plan to be adopted to enable them to work effectively toward a common end. The league, whose work was declared to be only preliminary and preparatory, was dissolved in 1893 and its place was taken by a number of organizations having each a more definite pur pose. Of these the United Empire Trade League became the advocate of the commercial union of the empire by means of protective duties. The Imperial Federation (Defense) Committee urges combined action for defensive purposes, the establishment of a navy supported by Joint contributions being its immediate ob ject. Most important, perhaps, is the British Empire League, established in 1894 and ex tended to the Dominion of Canada. The pro gram of the league aims at the permanent unity of the empire, the promotion of trade and inter-communication, the holding of peri odic conferences and co-operation in national defense. In Canada, indeed, the movement had already made considerable progress. The Im perial Federation League in Canada had been formed at Montreal in 1885, with branches sub sequently established at various places in the Dominion. Under the auspices of the organiz ing committee of the league a distinguished Canadian, George delivered addresses throughout Canada, and in 1889 was sent, on behalf of the parent league, on a tour of the Australasian colonies. In 1894, at the instiga tion of the Canadian government, a conference was held at Ottawa to discuss intercolonial trade and communication. The Imperial gov ernment, Canada, Cape Colony and the Austral asian colonies were represented. Resolutions were adopted in favor of reciprocal preferen tial duties among the colonies. A still more important conference was held in London in 1897 on the occasion of the jubilee celebration of that year. At this meeting the premiers of Canada, Newfoundland New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, West Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Cape Col ony and Natal discussed with the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain (q.v.), Secretary of State for the colonies, both the commercial and polit ical relations of the mother country with the colonies. In reference to the former, a resolu tion was unanimously adopted favoring the °denunciation at the earliest convenient time of any treaties which now hamper the commer cial relations between Great Britain and her colonies.° The premiers also undertook to con fer with their colleagues to see whether a pref erence could advantageously begiven by the colonies to the products of the United King dom. In reference to political relations, the majority of the premiers endorsed the follow ing resolutions: (1) °That the present political relations between the United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies are generally satisfac tory under the existing. condition of things.° (2) "That it is desirable, whenever and wher ever practicable, to group together under a fed eral union those colonies which are geograph ically united.° (3) °That it would be desirable to hold periodical conferences of representatives of the colonies and Great Britain for the discus sion of matters of common interest.° From the first of these resolutions Seddon of New Zea land and Sir E. N. Braddon of Tasmania dis sented, on the ground that the time had already come for a reconstruction of political relations. The Canadian government in the next year (1898) extended to Great Britain and to such British colonies as should reciprocate a tariff preference of 25 per cent, increased in 1900 to 33 1/3 per cent. In the summer of 1902, on the occasion of the coronation of King Edward VII, a further colonial conference was held be tween Secretary Chamberlain and the premiers of the self-governing colonies. The meetings of the conference, of which there were 10 in all, were also attended by several ministers of Aus tralia and Canada then present in London, and by the members of the British Cabinet whose departments were concerned in the discussion. Chamberlain submitted a paper showing the disproportionate share of the burden of Imperial defense at present borne by the United King dom. °If you are prepared at any time," he said, Ito take any share, any proilortionate share, in the burdens of the empire, we are prepared to meet you with any proposal for giving to you a corresponding voice in the policy of the empire?' No definite conclusion was reached for the alteration of present polit ical relations beyond the following resolution: °That it would be to the advantage of the empire if conferences were held, as far as prac tical, at intervals not exceeding four years, at which questions of common interest affecting the relations of the mother country and His Majesty's dominions over the seas could be discussed and considered as between the Secre tary of State for the colonies and the prime ministers of the self-governing colonies. The Secretary of State for the colonies is requested to arrange for such conferences after communi cation with the prime ministers of the respective colonies. In case of any emergency arising upon which a special conference may have been deemed necessary, the next ordinary conference to be held not sooner than three years there after.' On behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia f200,000 a year was offered toward the cost of the Australian Naval Squadron and naval reserve, from New Zealand £40,000 for the same purposes, from Cape Colony 1.50,000, and from Natal £35,000 for the Imperial navy generally, and from Newfoundland 0,000 for maintaining a branch of the Royal naval re serve. The (rants were subject to ratification
by the colonial legislatures. Resolutions of a general character in favor of preferential trade were also adopted by the congress. The Australian contribution met with sharp criticism from the Melbourne Age as involving taxation without representation. In February 1903 the British Empire League in Canada passed a reso lution against the abstention of Canada from naval contributions, and declared that °it would be proper for her . . . to contribute a fair and reasonable share toward the annual cost of the navy of the United Kingdom.' During the period that elapsed between the conference of 1902 and the outbreak of the European War the movement of opinion in re gard to Imperial organization was very notice able. It was especially stimulated by (a) the continued discussions of the question of tariff reform in England, which involved the possi bility of preferential and reciprocal duties in favor of the colonies, (b) the increasing im minence of war with Germany which would necessitate a common effort of Imperial de fense and (c) the periodic assemblage of the conferences which naturally called forth public discussion throughout the empire. Four dis tinct currents of opinion became more and more clearly defined in the ebb and flow of debate. One of these favored the retention, indefinitely, of the status quo. Another opinion of a kindred nature, which gained ground very rapidly with the progress of the century, favored the reorganization of the empire, not in the form of a centralized Federal state, but as a group of separate units in permanent alliance, no single body holding the sovereign power. This scheme is best set forth in Mr. Richard Jebb's (Britannic Alliance' (1913). It may be said to represent the views during the period in question of Sir Wilfrid Laurier (consult Imp. Conference Report 1911, esp. pp. 122, 123) and of the South African party led by General Botha in South Africa, and of the Labor and Socialist parties throughout the empire. A third current of opinion revived the idea of Imperial federation in the sense of a central government with supreme power over defense and taxation. This view was supported by such influential leaders as the late Lord Grey (d. 1917), Lord Milner, Sir J. Ward, Premier of New Zealand, the late Sir Starr Jameson (the Dr. Jameson of the and others. It led to the formation throughout the empire of a powerful chain of affiliated associations known as the Round Table Group, organized originally for impartial study but leaning heavily toward centralization. The leading spirit of this move ment was Mr. Lionel Curtis, who had been one of those instrumental in forming, the Union of South Africa (1910) and who spent some years in visiting all self-governing parts of the empire to organize the Round Table Groups. On the basis of the work of the groups Mr. Curtis published in 1916 a volume called The Problem of the Commonwealth,' a brilliant presentation of the case for centralization. A fourth and last current of opinion, necessarily somewhat veiled, is that favoring the breaking up of the empire into independent states. This is pre sumably the goal of Mr. Henri Bourassa and the party of French Canadian Nationalists who follow his lead. (Consult Bourassa, (Que Devons-Nous it l'Angleterre (1915) ; (National Problems' (1916), etc.). Independence is gen erally held to be the aim, proximate or distant, of the Nationalist party of South Africa headed by (General) Judge Hertzog. A proper appre ciation of these divergent views enables one to understand the full significance of the great Imperial conferences of 1907 and 1911 and the subsidiary conferences of 1909 (consult Re ports of Conferences, also Jebb, R., (The Imperial Conference' 1911). The conferences of 1907 and 1911 showed a strongly marked divergence between the partisans of nationalism and those of federalism. The adoption of the name Imperial Conference in place of Colonial (1907) marks the opening of a new era. The proposal of a central body to be called the Imperial secretariat, advocated by the New Zealand and Australian delegates and those from the Cape and Natal, in 1907 was opposed by the (then) Liberal British government and by the Canadian delegates and those from the Transvaal. But it must be remembered that under the existing Cabinet system the delegates .to the conference represent' at a given time only one colonial party. In the place of a secretariat there was created a division of the colonial office known as the Dominions department, and the name °dominion° replaced colony in the official designation of the self-governing de pendencies. In 1909 a special naval conference was summoned. A grave situation had been al ready officially declared to exist, by Sir Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary speaking in the House of Commons, and °emergency° offers of assistance had been made by New Zealand and Australia. In the conference of 1909 the prin ciple of centralized control of maritime defense was abandoned in favor of a scheme of °fleet units' presented, perhaps reluctantly, by the Admiralty (consult Report of Conference, Cd. 4948). The conference of 1911 witnessed a pitched battle on the subject of Imperial re organization, Sir J. Ward bringing forward a complete Federal scheme which was over whelmed by the powerful opposition of Mr. Asquith (then British Prime Minister), Sir Wilfrid Laurier and their followers. The much quoted statements of Mr. Asquith to the effect that Imperial responsibility cannot be shared, and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier °Canada need not necessarily take part in a British War" should be read in their context (consult Report of Conference). The conference left the Imperial situation still in the same dilemma (no taxation without representation and no representation without taxation) in which it had been since the Imperial Federation Movement began. Meantime certain definite steps were being at tempted toward more adequate Imperial de fense on the lines suggested in the conference of 1909. The Canadian government (Liberal) passed in 1909 a Naval Act for the creation of a separate Canadian navy. The incoming Con servative government (1911) repealed the Act; but found their own naval program (that of presenting dreadnoughts to the British govern ment for an indefinite period) defeated in the Senate, that body being still Liberal. During the same period a separate ((Royal Australian Navy)" was brought into being, the principal ships cpmpleted during 1913 and the naval es tablishments at Sydney and elsewhere in Aus tralia taken over by the Commonwealth (1 July 1913).
The advent of the war has obviously altered the whole situation. The war efforts of the dominions have been made entirely on a volun tary basis, the nominal legal sovereignty of the British Parliament not being brought into play. The consultations and conference, and especially rthe general'Imp immediate conference of 1917, were ' devoted to the mmediate aim of the prosecu tion of the struggle, the question of reorganiza tion remaining in itbsmice. But it is gen erally agreed that at the close—of the war the time will have come for a reopening of the whole question of future Imperial relations. See the articles in this series: SINCE CON FEDERATION; CANADA AND THE EUROPEAN WAR; CANADIAN WAR ECONOMICS; and consult in addition to the works noted in article above, Cunningham, 'Scheme for Imperial Federation> (1895) ; Goldman, C. S., (ed.) 'The Empire and the Century: a Series of Essays' (1905) ; Hurd, P., and Hurd, A. S., 'The New Empire Partnership' (1916) ; Keith, A. B., 'Imperial Unity . and the Dominions' (1916) ; Parker, 'Imperial Federation) (1892) - Silbourne, P. A. B., The Governance of Empire) Smillie, E. A., 'Historical Origins of Imperial Federation) (1910) ; Worsfold, W. B., 'The Empire on the Anvil' (1916).