FEDERALISM TRUE AND FALSE.
THE Liberal Party were extremely astute when they decided to link the question of Home Rule for Ireland with the theory of Federalism. That the two
issues are in substance absolutely separate wilt presently be shown, but by verbally linking them together the Liberal followers of Mr. Redmond have secured the immense advantage of deluding a large section of the public into the belief that the present Homo Rule Bill is only a moderate measure of decentralization, and only applies to the United Kingdom the principle of Federalism which the Dominions over the seas have found so con- venient to themselves. So far as this belief has been effectively propagated, the general attitude towards Home Rule has undergone a distinct change, and a considerable number of men and women who were, and who still would be, indignant at any proposal to break up the United Kingdom are now inclined to accept a measure which is plausibly represented as a scheme of Federal devolution.
This representation of Home Rule is false from the out- set, while as regards the provisions of the present Bill it is false in almost every detail. The word " Federalism," as it has hitherto been used throughout the world, implies a binding together of previously separate units, not a disintegration of a previous whole. The Federal Govern- ment of the United States of America was created by the binding together of the separate States which had pre- viously been separate colonies of Great Britain. In the same way the Federal Government of the Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 by binding together separate colonies. More recently we have seen Federal Governments created in the Commonwealth of Australia and in the Union of South Africa by an identical process. The story of United Germany is practically the same. The Federal Government was there formed as a result of the war of 1870 by the fusion of previously independent States into one Empire. The only historic parallels to the present proposal for Home Rule are those which Mr. Gladstone himself gave in 1886 and 1893, namely, the cases of Norway and Sweden and of Austria and Hungary. In each of these cases the authors of the change indulged in no hypocritical pretences about the superior merits of Federalism. They said frankly that they wanted Home Rule for themselves on a national basis, just as Mr. Gladstone said frankly in 1886 and 1893 that ho wanted Home Rule for Ireland on a national basis. And it was Home Rule on a national basis that they got. The result in Norway and Sweden, which Mr. Gladstone quoted as a triumphant justification of his principles, is now not even alluded to by his followers. For the Norwegian Home Rulers have carried to a logical conclusion the Nationalist Home Rule doctrine, and have now established their complete national independence. In Austria-Hungary this process is not yet quite complete, but the constant friction between the Hungarian half and the Austrian half of the Empire has been notorious for years, and appears to be steadily growing worse. If the Home Rulers of 1912 had the intellectual honesty of the Home Rulers of 1886 and 1893 they would admit frankly that all their talk about Federalism is cant, and that the true basis of the Home Rule that they propose is not Federalism but Nationalism. A moment's reflection will show that not only is this the case at the present moment with regard to Ireland, but it always must be the case whenever disintegration takes the place of Federalism. For it is clear that no movement to divide a united kingdom or a united republic could arise unless it were inspired by a distinct national feeling. Wherever the national feeling embraces the whole State no desire to divide that whole into separately organized governments can exist. It was because the Norwegians and the Hungarians felt themselves different nations from the Swedes and Austrians respectively that they demanded Home Rule, and for exactly, the same. reason the Iris]. demand Home Rule to-day.
This essential factor in the problem is deliberately obscured. from Colonial crities, whose views are so eagerly telegraphed. But before Colonial opinion on the question of Home Rule can be of the least value it ought to be carefully explained' to the Colonists, that the spirit at the root of Home Rule is " Ireland a nation," and the Colonies ought to be asked what answer Canada would make to the cry of " British Columbia a nation," or Australia to the cry, "Tasmania a nation,' or South Africa to the cry, " Natal a nation." We can get some inkling of what that answer would be when we remember that. men of similar race fought one of the fiercest wars en record to prevent the Southern States of America carving, a second nation out of the American Union..
And not only does the demand for Home Rule start from the Nationalist, and not from the Federal point of view, but the main provisions of the present Home Rule Bill go to show that the Federal conception is pure hypocrisy. If the real object of Mr. Asquith was to convert the unitary government of the. United Kingdom into a true federal government he would obviously begin with a complete plan for the whole kingdom. The parliamentary difficulties in- volved in passing a Federal Government Bill are in no way greater—except for the. Irish vote—than those involved in passing an Irish Home Rule Bill. On the contrary they are in many ways easier. Such a measure would enlist the enthusiastic, support instead of the passive ac- quiescence of those Scotch and Welsh Radical members who are bitten with the idea of Federalism. At the same time a certain amount of Unionist opposition would be conciliated, for we have to remember that there are some Unionists, who are Tariff Reformers, first and Unionists afterwards, who recently were willing to advocate a Federal scheme of government for the United Kingdom as a means of dealing with the Irish problem. It would also be possible in a Federal Government Bill to plan a considerably more equitable scheme of finance than Mr. Asquith has produced. The real reason why Mr. Asquith does not, bring in a Federal Govern- ment Bill instead of a Home Rule Bill is that his Irish masters do not want Federalism---they want Nationalism. But, in spite of their rhetoric, they want their Nationalism on the cheap. They want the pride of singing " A nation once again," but they want England to pay for Ireland's nationhood. The result is that the Home Rule Bill is neither true Federalism nor even true Nationalism. It is not possible to imagine a true nation being willing to allow other people to pay for its military and naval defence, for its old-age pensions, and for its laud-purchase system. Equally is it impossible to find any true federation where the payment of the. police would be treated as a function of the Federal rather than of the Provincial Govern- ments. On the other hand, in the great federations of Germany, Canada, and the United States, the Federal Government has control of the Post Office ;, but in Mr. Asquith's bastard measure the Post Office is handed over to the Provincial Government for no other reason that can be imagined than to provide Mr. Redmond with political patronage. While, then, dismissing the idea that there is any germ of honest Federalism underlying Mr. Asquith's Bill, let us ask whether there is room for any kind of Federalism within the United Kingdom, Our answer is emphatically No. Federalism, using the word in its proper and true mean- ing, would, be a greater disaster for the nation than even Home Rule. That there might be a reform in local government in Ireland, and possibly in Scotland and Wales, where the normal unit is often too small, produced by the grouping of counties is quite possible. Though, owing to financial reasons and the adoption of the principle that the richer parts of a nation ought to help the poorer and have a common purse, the general tendency must be toward centralization, there is nothing to prevent changes in the administrative area. But such merging and grouping and Asquithian Federalism have nothing whatever in common. Closer union, not disintegration, is the sign in which the nation will conquer its difficulties. One word in conclusion with regard to another pretence currently put forward to capture Colonial opinion, namely, that Home Rule for Ireland is a prelude to Imperial Federation. Here, again, the way to test the matter is to ask whether in any Imperial Council or parliament Canada would permit British Columbia to speak with one voice and Nova Scotia to speak with another, or whether Australia in the same way would allow New South Wales and Tasmania to be separately represented, and so on with the other dominions. There can be no question as to the answer. In any Imperial Council Canada would be represented as a whole, Australia as a whole, and the Union of South Africa as a whole. There is therefore not the slightest excuse for the theory that the disintegration of the United Kingdom is a step towards the integration of the Empire. It is inconceivable that the United King- dom should, be represented in any Imperial Council by separate English, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh parliaments, instead of by the one. Parliament and Government of the whole Kingdom.
Previous page
