Great Britain. The Canadians foresee that as they develop the magnificent resources of their great dominion, as their population increases, and when the means of communication multiply to a daily service from both sides of the Atlantic, Canada will be more and more able to hold her own against American competition, and, if she maintain her connection, will become a vast outlying suburb of Great Britain. It is idle to ask Canadians to forego their British citizenship, their British prestige, and their Imperial prospects for the doubtful promises of independence or annexation.

Reviewing, then, the advantages which I have enumerated as to be sought and gained by a closer Imperial union, it will be found that they can only be secured in one way. No plan can be conceived of as likely to meet the difficulties that at present arise to endanger the connection, which does not provide for an equal distribution of the Imperial expenses, hold out a prospect of free trade, assure local independence, and promise permanency of the union. These and the other advantages are not to be sought for in a colonial council, or the admission of a few members to the Imperial Parliament, or by a customs union like that proposed at Sydney. They can only be attained by placing each proposed member on an equal footing, by affording proportional representation to some common legislative council, and by a carefully defined scheme of relative rights and liabilities. Anything short of this is a delusion, and the only possible method of its attainment is by some form of federal union.

It is impossible here even to summarize the principles of federalism, or to show why and how they are applicable in the proposed circumstances. Suffice it to say that differences of tariffs, of legislative organization, or even of standards for the franchise, interpose no obstacles to federation. Such differences were to be found in the original United States and in the North American provinces. But there are two forms of federation, one or other of which must necessarily be adopted. 1. A federal union of separate states or governments, each preserving its autonomy and sending to a federal council, empowered in general matters to act for the whole, representatives selected by the governments. 2. A federal union of different states into one people, each state possessing a certain amount of power and autonomy, but conceding to a central government chosen by the whole people of the states, composing the federation, certain powers and authorities, either co-ordinate with, or superior to those of each state, over all the citizens in common. Such federations are those of the United States and Canada. In the first case, the federal authority deals only with the separate governments, which send to it their representatives; and it is clear that such a federation may at any time be endangered by the simple refusal of the State Government, the Government possibly not representing its people, to perform any act enjoined by the constitution. Whereas, in the second case, the federal administration deals

directly with individual citizens, and has a collateral authority with the government of the state. Each citizen feels himself to be bound up with it, to be represented in it, and to be concerned in all its acts. Such a union I conceive to be the one form of federal combination which will solye all the difficulties of the colonial problem. To it a condition precedent is the independence of the free colonies. It will embrace as members the provinces of Canada, or Canada as a group of members; the provinces of Australasia, or the group of Australian colonies; the Cape colonies, and Great Britain and Ireland. To each member or group will be reserved all rights of local legislation or administration. The present Imperial Government will remain as the representative of the British division only; or each of the three kingdoms will have its separate provincial legislation for provincial matters. The Imperial legislation may consist of one council formed by proportional representation of all the members, or may consist of two Houses like that of the United States. These representatives will be elected directly by the people of each province or group of provinces. Their jurisdiction will be confined to Imperial matters. India, the military stations, and the Crown colonies, will be placed under the administration of the Imperial Legislature and executive. Of this great confederation the Queen will remain the head. Viceroys or lieutenant-governors, nominated by her, will represent her executive power in each province or group, as may be determined. This great change may be made without suppressing a single Legislature, without altering the franchise or the form of government in any member of the proposed federation.

Such in outline is the design of a British Imperial system, based on principles of equality and justice and common weal. Professor Rogers shall answer for me the stock objection that the members would be so widely severed as to render government impracticable. He says: "There is no difficulty in carrying out the projects, because the colony is so distant from the seat of government. In the days of Adam Smith a journey from the north of Scotland was almost as lengthy as one from the Antipodes would be now. For the six years during which the great economist was a student at Oxford he never went back to his native town in Fifeshire for the long vacation. But the improvement in the means of transit from place to place is not the only difference between our day and the condition of the civilized world a century ago. Science has provided a means of communication between distant regions which is almost instantaneous. Before long an Australian might make his speech in the British Parliament and be reported in the papers of his province nearly as soon as he could be in Dundee or Dublin. In a few years the news of the world will be almost simultaneously distributed in every place where news is published." The proposal, then, is not chimerical. Everything favours its consideration. From the insecurity and impotency of the present to a security and a power hitherto unmatched even in our glorious history: from

doubt and confusion to certainty and solidity of government our Christianity, our humanity, our patriotism, urge us to win our way. It is no easy task, but it is one worthy of men.t

*

Mr. F. P. LABILLIERE read a paper on the subject, "Permanent Union of the Empire desirable, and how maintainable." The paper began by noticing the progress of the colonial question, and how the official tone of the Imperial Government towards the colonies has lately changed from that of ungenial politeness to decided heartiness. It then proceeds to consider the two heads of inquiry into which the question practically resolves itself. 1st. Is it desirable that the empire shall remain permanently united, and if so, then what must be the ultimate bond of political union? Since Professor Goldwin Smith propounded his theses, events have belied his anticipations. The expense of the colonies to this country has been greatly reduced; ten years' growth have been added to their strength, to their ability to defend themselves, to the weight they could contribute to the power of a consolidated empire. Happily, Canada has ceased to be a probable, and has become only a remotely possible, source of danger to this country. We have entered upon an era of amity with the United States; and France, the only other nation that could possibly have assailed England in what we are told is her weakest point, viz., her colonies, has no longer the power, even had she the will to do so. The unworthy fears with which Professor Smith tried to frighten England ingloriously to abandon her colonial empire have become more unreal, and its continued growth and development must still more palpably prove them to have been baseless. But if fear will not prevail with England, perhaps avarice may; and so in the name of economy she is told to rid herself of her splendid heritage. The socalled argument of economy, which would prove the empire not worth having, if its profits and advantages cannot be clearly demonstrated upon balance-sheets, and computed in pounds, shillings, and pence, is then met " upon its own low level." It is contended that the independence of the colonies would at once increase the expenditure of this country in time of peace, there being no greater certainty of the cost and danger of war being lessened to her. She would have "to pay ministers and consuls where she now sends governors at no cost whatever, to maintain war vessels to protect her commerce just as at present, but with the additional expense of having to form and keep up fortified harbours and coaling stations, now provided for her by the colonies, whose ports are as much hers in peace, and would be as exclusively hers in war, as hostile to her foes as if situate in the United Kingdom. Are not such advantages capable of computation in a good round sum of money?" Another equally worthy argument of those who counsel disintegration-that it is

In the discussion of this subject, and in the absence of an authorised report, I am obliged to admit that considerable opposition was raised to the views contained in this paper.-ED.

desirable the colonies should separate because England can trade with them just as well if separate from her-is described as only having to be stated in plain English to be self-repellant. England will never become such a nation of shopkeepers in so bad a sense of the term as to be utterly regardless of the great moral and material advantages she may derive from preserving in union with her the whole of that empire at the head she is placed. The writer showed that the advocates of the unity of the empire have the principles of true economy on their side; that the expenses of the colonies would be augmented by separation, as those of England would be. They would have to organize costly diplomatic and consular services, to largely increase their land and sea defences, and to endeavour to create navies, unless they were content to trust for safety to their insignificance as tenthrate Powers. In the future, for England to be separated from the rest of her empire will be to remain stationary, or comparatively so, while newer countries grow up to and out-strip her in population, wealth, and power. After dealing with other objections to the union of the empire, and advocating the principles of federation, the paper thus concludes:-The whole sum of the matter seems to be that the maintenance of the unity of the empire is desirable, and consequently a central government will be required to represent all its portions, giving each that weight which, from its importance and the share it will take in the defence of the empire, may be its due in all imperial questions, such as peace, war, defence, and foreign affairs. If this is to be effected, our children, if not ourselves, must see the establishment of a real federation, with a Parliament and executive as distinct from and superior to those of England and of the different colonies, as the new Legislature and Government of United Germany are distinct from and superior to the chambers and ministries of Prussia and Bavaria, or the Federal Governments of the American Union of Switzerland as distinct from and superior to those of the states or cantons of which these two confederations are composed. We should not perhaps at first attempt to set up a very complete federal government. Our object may probably be best reached by beginning with the simplest form of federation we can devise, provided it answers the description, always keeping in view, and moving forward towards, something more perfect; for the history of federalism in America, Germany, and Switzerland, where it has had as many and greater difficulties to surmount than any it will with us have to encounter, shows that the tendency of the system, when once it is planted, is to take root, grow, and ripen into greater perfection. Its introduction among us would assuredly create throughout our empire an enthusiasm for, a loyalty to, our union probably as strong as that of the Americans for theirs, when it became apparent to what a position federation would elevate both England and the colonies. Mr. WILLIAM WESTGARTH Contributed a paper on "The Policy of Extending the Empire." He said that within a time still so recent that our seniors may recall it, our country took such very decided views of the value of colonial possessions and colonial accessions,

that had they lasted until now any discussion like the present would have been entirely out of the question. Even a great war might then have been regarded as not waged in vain if it had resulted in adding a colony or two to our swelling list. Now the tide has altogether turned. Gratuitous offers of colonial possessions have actually been refused. Magnificent territories, such as Eastern New Guinea, are still practically open to us. But a new idea has taken our prosaic age, and the glories of empire extension seem to have departed. The causes for this remarkable change of sentiment are not far to seek. We had in those past days what we no longer have to-day bellicose and defiant notions, which harmonized well with national boasting about an ever-extending empire on which the sun never sets. Again, the full possession of the government and patronage of colonies was all in accordance with the political notions of those pre-reform times. We had trade-protection notions, too, that, in the belief of the day, held out even compensating commercial value from a very costly colonial system. Above all, in those dignified times, we had a lofty indifference to mere money questions -to the incidental debit or credit of the colonial account. We have changed all that to-day. Colonies we say are comparatively prosperous places, and our people emigrate there to better themselves. What need of imperial money? Rather the reverse; and the view now arising at home is that colonies should not merely defray all their own expenses, but contribute to those of the empire. Our change of view on the colonial question has been decidedly helped by another circumstance of very great importance. We have conceded self-government (as the phrase is) to our colonies. Only a generation past we were checking or snubbing their persistent aspirations in this direction. Now our Government has gone so completely into the opposite mood that colonial ambition seems even too tardy, and requires such broad hints as have been more than once of late conveyed to the Cape colony. We have latterly been even urgent with political concessions, because, as the colonists have been unmistakably apprised, and as our Cape exemplar very well knows, with their self-government they relieve the parent State of all responsibilities and costs. We are to infer from Government utterances of late years that the two considerations, responsibilities and costs," are mainly what stand in the way of any extension of the empire. There has been no denial that such extension may be other wise objectionable, and even in certain circumstances most desirable, as when a foreign occupation of adjacent territory would thus be anticipated. It seems to have come down to us as a traditional belief that a colony cannot be formed without a countless throng of officials and many other causes of preliminary expense. This lingering feeling has come of that distrust of colonists of fifty years past, which made our grandsires fancy that their emigrating countrymen could not be retained in loyal connection except by these official bonds. The bearing of colonists since the concession of selfgovernment ought to have completely dissipated that unworthy idea.

66