THE GOVERNMENT OF DEPENDENCLES.* THA.T it should be possible to
republish a book upon such a subject as the Government of Dependencies, written fifty years ago, before the great development of emigration, before the grant of responsible government to the larger Colonies, and before the rapid spread of democratic ideas, is in itself sufficient testimony to its enduring value as a work of political science. Such, indeed, is the character of the work of Sir George Cornwall Lewis. The editor well says that this work deserves to be studied as a text-book in the history and
• An Essay on the Government of Dependencies. By Sir George Cornwall Lewis. (Originally published in 18414 Edited, with an Introduction, by C. P. Lucas, B.A.. of Balliol College, Oxford, and the Colonial Office, London. Orford : Clarendon Press. 1891.
philosophy schools at the Universities, "embodying, as it does, a mass of historical information and political wisdom, put together in the clearest, simplest, and most impartial form, by a man who was at once a practical statesman and a great political philosopher." But to the practical politician its lessons are not less valuable than to the student, for it was written with a practical object, the highest which can engage the attention of a statesman, that of diminishing the chances of war, " the greatest calamity to which the civi- lised world is now exposed," by explaining the nature of the political relation of supremacy and dependence, and of thereby amending the relations of dominant and dependent communi- ties, and improving the tone and observance of the maxims of international morality.
It is difficult to believe that this book did not inspire the labours of the founders of the existing Colonial Empire, labours which after-ages will perhaps regard as the greatest monument to the fame of the Whig statesmen of the Queen's reign. It is equally difficult to believe that, with its value doubled by the scholarlike editing and masterly introduction of the present editor, Mr. C. P. Lucas, of the Colonial Office, it will not beneficially influence the minds of those who, in England and in the Colonies, are striving with the same noble object as that which guided Sir George Lewis in his specula- tions, to mould the future destinies of the English-speaking race. It is a real satisfaction, amidst the flood of loose writing and loose thinking now prevailing on this greatest of all poli- tical questions, to come across a book of which so much can with confidence be said.
From this point of view, the elaborate analytical discussions as to the advantages and disadvantages to a dominant country and to a dependency respectively, of the relationship between the two, appear to us most valuable. We cannot agree with Mr. Lucas that such an inquiry is in any sense an idle one. It is only by realising what is meant by Empire, and by dis- tinguishing between the different kinds of dependency which comprise it, that we can discriminate between realities and appearances, and arrive at just conclusions as to policy.
Nominal the dependence of the larger Colonies most certainly is, and there is plenty of evidence in the volume to show that Lewis would not have classed them as Dependencies at all. Nothing but good can come from frank recognition of a fact which, commonplace as it may seem to be, is neverthe- less, to judge from much contemporary writing, not really accepted or acceptable in this country. "If," says Lewis (p. 289), "the Government of the dominant country substantially govern the dependency, the representative body cannot substantially govern it ; and conversely, if the dependency be substantially governed by the representative body, it cannot be substantially governed by the Government of the dominant country. A self-governing dependency (supposing the dependency not to be virtually independent) is a contradiction in terms."
There is one form of union, and one only, which is in accordance both with the historical progress of the last fifty years, and with the highest ideals of human progress. It is that which is described by Professor Freeman in his Greater Greece and Greater Britain, when he speaks of " a true brother- hood among men of the same race and speech, though their homes may be physically parted by the fall breadth of ocean, though they may be parted into distinct political communities." Mr. Lucas well says that if a community is too weak to stand firmly alone, it will consult its true interest and find its true development in being held like a star in its course by the attraction and control of a stronger power. Probably he would not contend that this is the destiny of a continent like that of Australia, which in territory and situation, if not yet in popu- lation, has every attribute of a powerful nationality. It is abun- dantly clear that here, at all events, there is a growing desire for truly national, perhaps Republican, institutions. Any attempt at a closer constitutional connection between such a group of Colonies and Great Britain must mean the voluntary surrender on their part of the prospect of complete development which national independence alone could give them ; while, on the other hand, any scheme likely to be acceptable to them would, it seems clear, involve the Mother-country in commercial ruin. On either side, in short, there would be sacrifices which it is idle to expect and impossible to desire. The only union now possible to attain or worth striving for is one of sentiment,— union based upon community of laws, language, and blood, and confirmed by treaty obligations; union which would make
a war between its different members to be felt as a fratricidal contest ; union, finally, which would admit of the ultimate possible inclusion, to which Mr. Lucas adverts, of the greatest branch of the English-speaking race, the United States of America.
Mr. Lucas attributes to the Imperial Federationists the merit of the recognition that the larger Colonies are not de- pendents, but equals. The form of their proposals, indeed, implies such a recognition ; but it is easy to detect in them the spirit which has worked so much evil in the past, and even now, by the distrust which it has engendered in the minds of Colonists, is the greatest obstacle to true union, the spirit, namely, described in Lewis's sixth advantage to a dominant country, "the glory which it is supposed to derive from an extensive Colonial Empire." We are rather surprised to find that Mr. Lucas attributes great importance to this supposed advantage. Such was not the opinion of Sir George Lewis, and it was clearly not the feeling of the founders of re- sponsible government in Canada and Australia. Guided, as Mr. Lucas points out, by past experience, they saw that the old English Colonies had thriven under self-government, and that the greatest of them had been lost for ever by the action of the Mother-country in imposing taxes on them, instead of leaving them to tax themselves. By a fortunate coincidence, the principle of Free-trade and the "free, self-reliant doctrines of the so-called Manchester school " were at the time taking firm root in this country. It is only by an effort that the Free-trader can recognise that the paramount necessity of maintaining unity of feeling and affection justified the abandonment of all control over the commercial policy of the Colonies, an abandonment due rather, perhaps, to indifference than to policy, and deprecated in the strongest terms by the greatest of Colonial Secretaries, Lord Grey. " It is difficult to imagine," says Mr. Lucas in summing up, "in what way (the Australian Colonies) could have been more generously treated, and Englishmen may sometimes wonder that such scant justice has been done to a singularly large-minded and liberal policy." The welcome given to the prospect of Austral- asian Federation is in the same generous and consistent spirit, and if leaders of opinion in England go on to recognise and proclaim their belief that political independence need not and should not mean separation in any sinister sense, there will be no fear for the future of the English race.
It is interesting to observe that Sir George Lewis in his speculations took account of the possibility of such inde- pendence. Adam Smith was of opinion that no dominant country would ever voluntarily relinquish its power over a dependency.
It is, however," says Lewis (p. 323), " conceivable that, in a given case, the dominant country might perceive that it derives no benefit from the possession of a dependency, and that the de- pendency is able and willing to form an independent state; and that, .ionsequently, a dominant country might abandon its authority over a dependency from want of a sufficient inducement to retain it If a dominant country understood the true nature of the advantages arising from the relation of supremacy and de- pendence to the related communities, it would voluntarily recog- nise the legal independence of such of its own dependencies as were fit for independence; it would, by its political arrangements, study to prepare for independence those which were still unable to stand alone; and it would seek to promote colonisation for the purpose of extending its trade rather than its Empire, and without attempting to maintain the dependence of its colonies
beyond the time when they need its protection Admitting the impossibility of the prevailing opinions concerning the advan- tages of extensive empire being so far modified as to permit a dominant country to take such a view of its political relations with its dependencies as that now indicated, it is proved by the example of England [the original American Colonies are here, of course, referred to] that the dominant country may concede virtual independence to a dependency, by establishing in it a system of popular self-government, and by abstaining almost constantly from any interference with its internal affairs. Such a relation of the dominant country and the dependency as has been described in the preceding paragraph seems, however, scarcely consistent with the duration of the dependence of the latter for any con- siderable period. At all events the long duration of its de- pendence under such circumstances implies as much moderation and rationality on both sides as would be implied on the side of the dominant country by a voluntary cession of its authority over the dependency."
In all the history of colonisation, Mr. Lucas truly says, there is no more interesting point to be noticed than the revival of the system of Chartered Companies. We are unable, however, to share his apparent hopefulness as to the future of this form of colonisation. Commenting upon Adam Smith's
opinion that the " government of an exclusive company of merchants is perhaps the worst of all governments for any country whatever," Mr. Lucas points out that while the essence of the old charters was monopoly of trade, the new charters, on the contrary, contain clauses specially prohibiting such monopoly. " With steamers, telegraphs, and newspapers, everything is now known, and public opinion is quickly raised and strangely felt. The chances of abuse are minimised, the chances of doing good work are at least as great as ever they were." But there is one difference which does not tell so much in favour of the new ventures. The East India Company at least did the work for which it was founded, that of a great trading concern ; and it was not until generations had proved its soundness that the Government became even virtually responsible for it. It is not perhaps a very healthy sign that, as Mr. Lucas observes, the new British annexations in Africa have been made, not so much because there was a strong desire in England to take more of Africa, as because, if it had not been taken by the English, it might or would have been by the Germans. It is certainly disquieting to find that the African Companies, after a year or two of existence, are showing evident signs of distress, and of the design to call upon the Imperial Government for assistance. It is more than likely that the people and government of this country may before long find themselves involved in an enterprise so vast and risky, that they would never have sanctioned it had the issue been placed fairly before them at the beginning, and that the electorate, which have a healthy distrust of mere territorial aggrandisement, may repudiate a policy into which they may have reason to think they have been inveigled by the greed of speculators or the ambition of Colonial states- men. It is certainly premature to describe the new birth of Chartered Companies as "one of the most hopeful-signs of the times." A very interesting point which is closely connected with the foregoing considerations is the question whether trade follows the flag. We are unable to do more than note that the editor makes a valuable contribution to its discussion in an appendix to the volume, while in another he has collected the passages in which Sir George Lewis commented on the constitutional position of Ireland in a sense, it may be added, very hostile to the Home-rule solution.
Previous page
