it TR. FOSTER, the Canadian statesman who recently ilL made
a tour of Britain on behalf of Mr. Chamber- lain's policy, addressed a large audience of his countrymen on his return. The chief part of his speech was concerned with fiscal questions, with which for the present we have nothing to do. But there was one passage of great interest in which he dealt with the suggestion, recently put forward, that, to prevent any recurrence of an episode like the Alaskan award, Canada should be given the control of her own foreign affairs. Mr. Foster pointed out that treaty-making power meant nothing without treaty-compelling power. If Canada desired this, then she must make up her mind to become a separate nationality, and renounce all allegiance to or connection with the British Empire. And since Canada was not yet a Great Power on her own account, her independence would not be real or long continued. " Independence for Canada meant the gloom and shadow of an over-mastering Power, in whose heart of hearts there was embedded the tradition, as old as the War of the Revolution, that the destiny of 'Canada was to become part of the United States." At a time such as this, when a fever of Imperialism is in the air, it is a great advantage, both to the Colonies and to the Mother-country, to have a question raised which concerns the very foundations of Empire. It compels Imperialists to examine the faith that is in them, and to consider what is the meaning of a creed to which many profess lip= service, but which all do not attempt to understand.
We do not believe that there is in Canada or any other Colony a real desire for control of foreign relations, a desire, that is, based on a serious consideration of the question. When an event occurs, such as the Alaskan award, which bitterly disappoints the Canadian people, it is natural that there should be a good deal of complaint about a loss which was not wholly due to themselves. " Had we been free, we should have managed better," is always a soothing reflection to the pride of a State or an individual. Just as a politic leader will try to put the odium of some necessary measure on his subordinates in order that his prestige may be unimpaired, so it is well for a State in a moment of depression to be able to put the blame of the failure elsewhere. But we do not believe that any Colonial statesman would seriously propose as a measure of practical polities that his Colony should be made an independent unit so far as concerned its relations with other Powers. The Constitution of the Empire is very elastic and capable of almost indefinite change, but certain principles must be maintained if it is to, remain an Imperial Constitution. One of these is that the central authority must be responsible for foreign affairs. Whether it be an Emperor, or a President, or a Council of Federated States, this central authority, and not the local authority of any one of the component units, must say the last word in all matters which concern the attitude of the Empire, Federation, or Republic to a foreign Power. At one time foreign policy was the most cherished of the Royal preroga- tives. Times have changed indeed since William III. re- ceived from Somers and Vernon powers in blank, and con- cluded a French treaty with no more than the formal approval of his Ministers. The doctrines of Ministerial responsibility and popular sanction have dominated foreign affairs as well as other departments of Government. But whatever form the Royal authority takes, foreign affairs are strictly within it. The Crown is universally recognised as the keystone of the Empire, and though we may well criticise the channels through which the Royal authority works, yet it is essential to preserve for the Crown, as the central authority of the Empire,that power which is recog- nised in all Unions and Federations as the rightful heritage of a central Executive. To part with this right would mean the dissolution of the integrity of the Empire, for it would be the end of the chief reason for Imperial cohesion.
A sane Imperialism demands two things,—complete autonomy for the parts in purely domestic matters, and a central authority to deal with affairs of common interest. In all Federations there is a difficulty in separating the two classes, just as in arguments on municipal trading it is nearly impossible to frame satisfactory lists of industries which should be municipalised and industries which should be left to private enterprise. There is always a loose fringe of matters which might belong to either class. But in no Federation that we have ever heard of has there been a doubt about the authority to deal with foreign affairs. A Colony, to quote Tennyson's fine words on Canada, should be " a daughter in her mother's house, a mistress in her own " ; but foreign affairs far transcend the walls of her own dwelling. The essential requirement in diplomacy is prestige, and the prestige of the whole is greater by far than that of any of its parts. Gaul and Britain were inconsiderable settlements but for the long road behind which linked them with Rome. The object of most Unions is to secure for States which, left to them- selves, have little purchase, the moral and material force of a great aggregate. To deny to the States this support and turn them out to fend for themselves is to make Empire a meaningless phrase of rhetoric. And if such separation is indefensible in theory, it seems to us to be equally im- possible in practice. Treaty-making power is valueless unless the State which has it is prepared to enforce its right by arms. There must be a sufficient army and navy in the background to give a sanction to agreements. But no Colony is as yet in the position to treat on equal terms with the Great Powers of the world. The Empire can,— it is the first justification of Empire that it can. What would happen would simply be that the Empire would be appealed to to support a contention in which it had had no voice. The same sense of kinship would exist, but vaguely and ineffectively. Instead of having a real theory of union and the machinery to give it force, we should take several steps backward in political development, and have a dim rapprcchement and no machinery at all.
We do not for a moment believe that the Canadian statesman who first talked of a Canadian Foreign Office had any desire to bring about this state of things. It was the natural complaint of the dissenting party to a settle- ment. But there was also, we think, some hint of dis- satisfaction with the existing machinery of the Empire, some complaint that Canada had not some greater share in deciding a matter which concerned her peace. As things stand, a Parliament which is virtually a local Parliament—the Parliament of the British Isles—is the final authority for things which vitally concern the whole Empire. The Crown, which is the Imperial centre, is advised by British Ministers. It is true that any Cabinet is instructed on Imperial questions by accredited spokes- men of Colonial opinion, but an indirect influence is not the same thing as a direct share in administration. If foreign affairs and Imperial defence are to remain in the hands of the central power, the central power should be differently constituted. Some thought of this nature is evidently in the minds of the Canadian statesmen who have echoed Sir Wilfrid Laurier's request for autonomy in foreign relations. We welcome it gladly. To call the Colonies to our councils must be the ambition of every true Imperialist. There are many obvious difficulties in the way ; but we are convinced that when a system, framed for Colonies in their infancy rather than in their adolescence, is found galling by the Colonies themselves, it is to such a reform that their minds will naturally turn, and not to an autonomy which is also isolation.
Previous page
