• WRONGHEADED IMPERIALISM. • THE politics of the average British
elector might be described as a confused Imperialism. He accepts the Empire as a fact, he is proud of its past, he desires its continuance, and he 1/3 sincerely anxious to maintain the bonds of attachment to the Mother-country. But he is never quite clear -what these bonds are, and on the difficult questions of the. Imperial Constitution he is apt to be somewhat at sea. The Government reproduce on a larger Beale the attitude of the average man. They mean well towards the Empire, they are full of excellent intentions of showing themselves better Imperialists than their prede- cessors—not in itself a very difficult task—but they are not invariably clear in their understanding of what the Empire signifies. They do not always realise how delicate are the links of union, and how this very delicacy is the secret of their endurare. They honestly wish to bind the Colonies to Britain, and to affirm on all occasions the solidarity of the Empire. The trouble is that their haste is sometimes too great, that they are occasionally too anxious to centralise control and proclaim a premature Imperial unity. Colonial autonomy used to be claimed as peculiarly a Liberal doctrine, but it is a dOctrine which the present Government seem to find some • difficulty in mastering. What has happened since we last wrote has not changed our view of the unwisdom of the Government's interference iii Natal. The matter has been so confused by irrelevant issues, that for the sake of clearness we must repeat certain Constitutional truisms. The Imperial Government have a right of veto over the legislative acts of the free Colonies where a measure is proposed which endangers the well-being of the Empire as a whole. Such a right is beyond criticism, and equally such a right, save in the last resort, is never exercised. Again, there is an undoubted power in the King in Council to revise sentences in a criminal case passed by a Court of a free Colony. Such appeal is by special leave, and is naturally allowed only in extreme circumstances where the Judicial Committee is satisfied that grave injustice has been done. An instance occurred the other day in an appeal from the Courts of the East Africa Protectorate, and the same principle applies to self-governing Colonies. Last, we should maintain that in certain rare and exceptional cases the Crown was justified in interfering with an executive act of a free Colony. We say "justified," because it is not a question of Constitutional right, but of Imperial policy. As a matter of law, we should be inclined to say that the right existed in all cases; but as a matter of policy, we should confine it to two. One is when the Imperial Government have given aid to a Colony in money and troops, and have so made themselves partners in a course• of action. In any question arising out of this course of action they have a clear duty to interfere. The other is when the Imperial Government have convinced themselves that the act with which they propose to interfere will inevitably necessitate either their assistance, or lead to consequences which will be gravely injurious to the highest interests of the Empire as a whole. In such cases interference is justified.
What are the facts in the present instance? Clearly it was no case for the exercise of a legislative veto, though Major Seely seemed to think otherwise, since he quoted in justifi- cation of Lord Elgin's conduct certain instances of the Royal Assent being refused to Colonial Bills. Nor was it the ordinary case of an appeal by leave from the decision of a Court to the Privy Council. The Lord Chancellor on Monday, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Com- mittee in an appeal on behalf of the condemned, natives, made it clear that it was not the case of an appeal from a Court, but from an executive act with which the Privy Council had no right to interfere. A verdict of a Court- Martial under martial law must be regarded as an act of• the Natal Ministry, and not as the finding of a tribunal. Nor was it an appeal to the King to exercise his right of pardon, for this part of the prerogative has been vested finally in his Majesty's representative in the Colony. We are left with the plain truth that the summons to Natal to hold. her hand and send further information was an interference with an executive act of that Colony. Was it justified on any of the grounds we have suggested ? In our opinion, there was no such justification. The native rising had been put down by local troops, though a British regiment seems to have been lent to the Colony as a moral support. It was not seriously pretended, on the other hand, that the execution of the condemned men would in any way lead to a general rising. To any one who knows the native mind the argument that 'to put twelve men to death for the murder of two white policemen savours of cruelty is clearly untenable. Most native murders are dons by co-operation, and all native tribes are familiar with the idea of communal punishment. But in any case, if we may judge Lord Elgin's views by his Under-Secretary's speech, the Government had no such contingency in mind. Finally, it has not been alleged, and. indeed cannot reasonably be alleged, that unless there was interference consequences gravely injurious to the highest interests of the Empire as a whole were likely to arise. Interference, then, we maintain, was indefensible.
An anxiety to protect the helpless native races was the honourable eause of the Government's action, and of the feeling shown in the House of Commons on Monday by many Liberal Members. We should be the last to decry this feeling, but unless facts are squarely faced mercy will degenerate into a foolish sentimentality. Twelve men are condemned after a trial lasting many days by a Court of Militia officers. But martial law, say the critics, is the negation of law, and Militia officers are scarcely a com- petent Court. Now a great deal of exaggeration was used on the subject of martial law by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies and others. Any Government have a right to take such measures as are necessary for the pro- tection of their country, and the ordinary Courts will support their action. It is only when such measures go beyond necessity that they can fairly be condemned. Further, this was no drum-head Court, but a serious tribunal, and the Militia officegs, being to all intents civilians, performed, in effect, the work of as ordinary jury. It is strange that the very men who argued most strongly for interference, and declared that they could not trust the people of Natal to do justice, are prepared to hand over the control of the natives in the new Colonies to what may prove a Boer majority, who will certainly not endorse their views on the native question. We are prepared to run the risk of giving self-government to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, but it is idle to pretend that the Boers in those Colonies will be more lenient to the natives than the British settlers in Natal. It is notorious that they will be much less lenient. Such inconsistency may well awaken considerable bitterness among the people who are thus discredited. But, in any case, the friends of the natives in England are going the worst way to achieve their end. The Governor of Natal is the official protector of the natives, their Paramount Chief, and as such he has certain powers altogether apart from his Ministry. To weaken his authority in this capacity, both with the natives and with the Colonial Government, is the surest method of making these powers illusory. Besides, the only effective security for the good treatment of the natives is that a healthy and humane public feeling on the subject should grow up in the Colony itself. If Downing Street is to interfere without due cause, the Colony will be relieved of its responsibility, and the unfortunate natives will be made the shuttlecock between the Imperial and the Colonial Governments.
Unjustified on the facts, wholly unjustified by Imperial practice, Lord Elgin's interference has certainly done no good. The sentimentalism displayed in the debate in the House is scarcely flattering to the Natal Colonists, since it assumes that they are not to be trusted to show decent feeling in their own affairs. Nor will the remark of the Under-Secretary suggesting that Natal had been given autonomy toe readily do much to smooth matters over. If little harm is done, it will be due to the admirable temper shown by the great self-governing Colonies. The Colonial Press, with hardly an excep- tion, has kept its head, and has stated clearly and temperately the true doctrine of Imperial relations. Autonomy once given cannot be whittled down. It means freedom to do what may seem wrong in our eyes as well as what is right. You cannot have a one-sided freedom. If, with the best intentions, we interfere with executive acts, otherwise than in the circumstances and under the important limitations we have described above, then we take upon ourselves the responsibility of Colonial administration. We turn a self-governing Colony into a Crown Colony after it has acquired the habits and instincts of freedom. •
Previous page
