duty. Alterations of method and of language must follow that will distress sensitive conservative instinct. But the result should be not the weakening but the strengthening of the common will, in all members of "that collection of nations which men call the British Empire," to think and act together in service of common British ideals. Means will somehow be found whereby the Confederation of Free Nations can work on lines which they can develop."*

This postscript is a reprint of an article contributed by me to the Manchester Guardian." In the writing of the chapter I have made free use of other articles contributed by me at various times to that journal.

* Dominion number of the Manchester Guardian.

NOTES.

(a) The suggestions of wise men in 1883 were bound to be vague, and their fruit was the education of mind rather than the change of institutions. Seeley's teaching was a large cause of the foundation of the Imperial Federation League. "Those of us," writes Lord Bryce in the Dominion number of the Manchester Guardian, "who founded that body found it hard in that day to command public interest or secure public support for their ideas. Opinion was lukewarm at home, and even more lukewarm in Canada or Australia. Without active sympathy in the colonies little progress could be made, so the League was ultimately dissolved." The League, however, had done good educational work, and had helped to induce the Government to summon the first colonial conference in 1887. Opinion in New South Wales and in Queensland was rather hostile than lukewarm. The Sydney Daily Telegraph said that the invitation to the Conference was "sinister and most illomened," and the Government of New South Wales explicitly forbade its representatives to discuss Imperial Federation. The sentiment in Queensland was still more hostile. (See Dilke's Problems of Greater Britain.) The Queensland Parliament refused till two years later to endorse the Naval Agreement that had been accepted by the Australian representatives at the Conference.

(b) "The four groups of colonies may become four independent nations. The other alternative is that England may prove able to do what the United States does

so easily, i.e., hold together in a Federal Union countries very remote from each other. In that case England will take rank with Russia and the United States, and in a higher rank than the States of the Continent."-Expansion of England, p. 15.

(c) In 1875 the British Government promised to annex non-Dutch New Guinea if the Australian colonies would pay the expense of government. It was not till 1883 that the colonies promised, very grudgingly, to pay part of it. The expense of naval defence would still wholly fall on the British taxpayers. It seems difficult to blame the hesitation of the British Government which gave Germany the opportunity to annex the northern part. The main fault was the delay caused by the unreasonable unwillingness of the Australian colonies to "bear the cost of an enterprise in which," wrote Sir Michael Hicks Beach, "this country (Britain) is not directly concerned except in so far as it is of interest and importance to those colonies.”—(See good discussion in Scott's Short History of Australia.) When the British Government annexed South-east New Guinea, the Australian promises to pay part (£15,000) of the expenses of administration were not kept. South Australia withdrew, and other colonies thought of withdrawing. It was impossible for the separate colonies to give the effective guarantee" which the British Government demanded.

66

(d) In 1881 a conference of Colonial Premiers had unanimously expressed the opinion that, "considering the large Imperial interests involved, the naval defence of these colonies should continue to be the exclusive charge of the Imperial Government, and that the strength of the Australian squadron should be increased." The Premiers pledged themselves "to use all legitimate endeavours to procure the efficient fortification and land defence of the several ports of the Australian colonies at the expense of the several colonies interested." But their argument was that King George's Sound and Thursday Island were not colonial ports but Imperial fortifications and coaling stations, which the Imperial Government should protect as it protected, for example, Gibraltar. "It has come upon us with surprise," said Sir Graham Berry at the Conference of 1887, to learn that the Imperial Government treats King George's Sound differently from the other coaling stations of Imperial importance," and the Premiers said 'Hear, hear!" They agreed that they now heard "for the first time" that the Imperial Government did not "admit the principle of sharing at all in the cost of the land defences of Australia."

(e) Mr Douglas said in the Federal Congress of 1886:"This Colony (Tasmania) had undertaken a very considerable expense in, its own defence works, and it could not see why it should be called upon to disburse other moneys

for the defence of Albany, considering how small an interest it had in that particular colony, and how great an interest Great Britain had in comparison."

66

(f) Mr. Service said in the Federal Congress of 1886:'Some of the Colonies have a greater interest in New Guinea than others. The Colony with the premier interest in New Guinea is Queensland, and as we come down the coast line further south and west the other colonies have comparatively no interest in it at all. Take West Australia, which is at the very opposite corner of the mainland to Queensland: what particular interest has it in the annexation of New Guinea?"

(g) Perhaps the most representative of the Prime Ministers of 1897 was Sir George Reid, of New South Wales. The record of speeches of 1897 has never been published. But no doubt the tenor of their criticism of Mr. Chamberlain's proposal is indicated in the following passage from a speech by Sir George Reid in 1902:-" When Mr. Chamberlain speaks of sharing the control and management of the British Empire, I ask what share had Australia in adding 4,000,000 of square miles of territory to the Empire in the last fifteen years? What share have we had in increasing the burden of taxation in the mother country to such a marvellous extent? When a distinguished statesman like Mr. Chamberlain talks about Britain staggering under the burden of Empire, the people of England might well inquire how it is that their burdens have been increased to such marvellous extremes during the past six or seven years."

(h) In 1902 Mr. Chamberlain said that "political federation" was within the limits of possibility," and that "difficulties almost if not quite as great had been surmounted in the case of the United States." It is evident that Mr. Chamberlain's ideas and phraseology were a good deal influenced by Seeley's "Expansion."

(i) This phrase perhaps makes the change appear more sudden than it was. The idea of independence was in the Australian mind long before the foundation of the Commonwealth in 1900. Its growth was, in fact, a main cause of the Federal movement. Though Australian statesmen in the eighties were somewhat slow to recognise the obligation to share in naval expenses, they astonished British statesmen by the generosity of their expenditure on local land defence. Small, also, as was the Australian naval contribution after 1887, it was the first recognition of the duty of colonies to take permanent share in naval defence, and Mr. Deakin rightly foretold that this new departure" would lead to a gradual assumption of all the responsibilities of maturity." The contingent sent by New South Wales to the Soudan in 1885 was a remarkable illustration of the growth of sense of duty, and consequently of sense of independence. "We are no longer a

66

66

Dependency," said Sir George Dibbs. The feeling of nationhood is perhaps best illustrated during this period by the speeches of Sir Samuel Griffith and Mr. Deakin. Already in 1886 and 1887 these statesmen planned an Australian navy. When this growing national idea found expression in the foundation of the Australian Commonwealth, it made use of the new opportunity with wonderful energy.

Admiral Henderson's scheme of 1911, which was accepted by the Australian Government, was based on the assumption that Australia, in proportion to population and trade, was prepared to spend as much on the navy as was Britain. See very good explanation in Bean's Flagships Three.

(k) Sir Edmund Barton, the Australian Prime Minister, while denouncing "the silly argument that Australia should pay in proportion to her population or in proportion to her fleet," thought that Australia could afford to pay £200,000 out of a total British Navy Bill of £35,000,000. If the people of Britain could pay at the rate of 15/- to 17/- a head, the people of Australia could afford to pay at the rate of 1/02 a head, instead of 8d. a head as before. Sir George Reid, the leader of the Opposition, did not object to the payment of 1/02, but he objected to the proposal that the squadron, hitherto tied to the Australian station, might be moved by the British Government to the China or East India stations in order to act against possible vessels that threatened Australian trade. He opposed this proposal on the ground that it was part of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme to induce Australia to bear part of the burden of "the weary Titan." "We find," he said, "the Imperial authorities profoundly eager to draw us all into partnership, while on the part of the self-governing States of the Empire there is a profound disinclination to adopt that course."

(1) Mr. Fisher, then leader of the Opposition, expressed the fear that the acceptance of money from the British Government might be thought to mean admission of a claim of that Government to control the fleet, "whereas we hold that the sole control of the fleet must be with the Commonwealth.”

66

(m) The resolution passed by the two Houses of Parliament--by the Senate without division, and by the Representatives by a majority of 54 against 5-was as follows:That this House records its grave objection to the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal until a referendum of the white population of the colony has been taken on the subject, or responsible Government is granted." Mr. Hughes, the present Prime Minister, said: "If it be said that we are again ready to fight in such a cause, I declare that so far as I am concerned it is not true. We are ready to fight in a good cause, no matter in what part of the Empire. But it must not be in the cause of chicanery and bribery, corruption and rottenness reeking out of every pore,"

(n) "That in the last analysis the colonists were free to decide all things for themselves, even the nature of their citizenship, was accepted as articulus stantis aut cadentis Imperii, the cardinal principle of Imperial policy.”— Problem of the Commonwealth, p. 46.

(0) The boundaries of the Australian naval station have been so drawn that "the only non-British territory enclosed in it is a generous section of Antarctica; so that the Commonwealth Government is effectually shielded from direct contact with any alien community except the penguins at the South Pole. The Australian Government cannot at present send a ship even to New Zealand without notifying the British Admiralty."-Round Table, June, 1914, p. 46.

(p) Mr. Chamberlain's speeches showed an astonishing ignorance of the notions of his allies, the Australian Protectionists. "The colonies," he said, "will be inclined to frame their future tariffs upon natural and not upon artificial lines, not encouraging the manufacture of articles which it is possible to buy cheaper." And, again: the colonists" would reserve for us trade we already enjoy, and would not arrange their tariffs in the future to start industries in competition with ours." Yet at that very time Mr. Deakin, who had made "the offer" which Mr. Chamberlain was using as a main argument for the taxation of foreign flour, was complaining that the Australian tariff was too little scientific," and was urging Australians to increase and to extend it until "you will have your own goods made here, where they ought to be made." One important aim was to stop the dumping" of British goods into Australia.

66

(q) Cf. Keith's explanation of the claims to commercial sovereignty recently made by the Dominions: Imperial Unity and the Dominions, Chapter XIII.:-" It became clear that it was no longer possible, in view of the attitude of the Colonies, to continue the practice of making commercial treaties binding on the Empire as a whole" (p. 263).

(r) Cf. the very strong expressions of Sir Joseph Ward. "The one thing that would make Australians and New Zealanders turn and fight against their own flag would be an attempt to force them to admit these aliens."-Quoted by Jebb.

(8) Cf. Sir Joseph Ward in Conference of 1911 on "the desirability of having all our races kept to their own zones.' The Japanese do that to a large extent now.

It

is just as much important to the Chinese to preserve their race as it is to the British people to preserve a white race, and to the Japanese to preserve their race: and so it is with the Indians." It is of the very greatest importance that Asiatic peoples should be helped to understand the nature and motive of the Australian argument;. to understand, especially, that it is an argument based on a conception of the right, not of Australia only, but of all