THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE, 1887.

HL Deb 25 March 1889 vol 334 cc657-79

*LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

, in rising to move "That, in the opinion of this House the Colonial Conference of 1887 has led to good results, and ought to be the basis of further measures tending to Imperial security," said: My Lords, the first thing to mention to the House is that some discussion on the proceedings of the Conference was not to be avoided. It seemed to me that it might take place in June or July with advantage. The Colonial Office were not of that opinion, and prevented it. The notice was adjourned to the 12th of November, on which day it was not the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government that the House should assemble. Nor could it be brought forward on any of the isolated Tuesdays, when Bills having precedence wholly occupied your Lordships, and when the ocean travellers or former Viceroys whom the House would wish to hear, were generally absent. I do not touch at present on the circumstances which led me to approach the Blue Books or their theme, as I am anxious to avoid whatever looks like an exordium. It is better to go on at once to the first position of the notice—namely, that the results of the Conference in 1887 were satisfactory. Its main result has been to establish the scheme of naval defence in the Australian waters which had been well elaborated in the despatches of Admiral Tryon, a name well-known in connection with the topic. The local Parliaments have all, or nearly all, accepted the decisions of the Conference. Some minor changes, which relate to bankruptcy and to companies and postage, have been mooted, but have not reached, I think, an actual conclusion. On all of these the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies must be a far better expositor. By him the Conference was guided; by him the rather intricate agreements as to outlay were determined; by him the subsequent proceedings of the Colonial Parliaments have been habitually scrutinized with every advantage. Let me consider, therefore, the next and last position of the notice, a task to which I shall be painfully and consciously unequal, without the friendly aid and the remarkable indulgence of your Lordships. It is desirable at once to throw some light upon the origin of the movement which led on to the Conference at Westminster. The movement seems to have originated in the war of 1870 between France and Prussia. Soon after it, a publication in the same form as "The Battle of Dorking" came out, to indicate a nearer union of Great Britain and the Colonies as the result of an invasion or disaster, the object being to show that it ought to precede and to prevent, not to repair and follow, a catastrophe of that kind. In 1871 a great discussion took place in the Westminster Palace Hotel, under the auspices of the Duke of Manchester, at which M. de Labilliere, an Australian, read a paper giving the whole argument in favour of what is termed Imperial Federation. M. de Labilliere and the Duke of Manchester may, therefore, be considered as the founders of the system. In 1875 the well-known address of the late Mr. Forster, at Edinburgh, gave uncommon circulation to the subject. It was applauded, and in some degree endorsed, for the time at least, by the noble Earl now sitting just beneath me (the Earl of Derby.) In 1876 Sir Frederick Young sent out a formal treatise in the same direction. But soon a most extraordinary reasoner appeared in a Canadian politician who contributed three articles in 1879 to a celebrated periodical, the Westminster Review, which placed on clear foundations and reduced to practical detail the kind of change which Mr. Forster recommended. There cannot be too strong a recognition of that admirable trilogy. Thence for ward, hardly any magazine has left the question unconsidered. Among the strong opponents of the project, Professor Gold win Smith ought to be mentioned. The voyage of Lord Rosebery round the world, the impressions he brought back, the language he has held, the public dinners he has guided, may be regarded as another stage in the transaction. But the most extraordinary power exerted on the public mind has been that of Mr. Froude and Baron Hubner, who have separately visited the distant regions of the Empire, and published striking views on Federation, without entirely ranking as its advocates. The financial classes were thus so much awakened and excited that the London Chamber of Commerce resolved in 1886 on what might seem at first a startling decision from so respectable and business-like a quarter. They offered a prize to essayists upon it, which was obtained by Mr. Gresswell, a distinguished author of South Africa, and which produced a volume from various contributors of greater value, as they are nearly all of them colonial either by residence or origin. In that volume, which must have reached some Members of the Legislature, the whole subject may be easily investigated. In 1886 also the Colonial Exhibition drew the public gaze towards the problem. In August of that year, directly the present Government was formed, a deputation, led by Mr. (now Lord) Brassey, urged the noble Marquess the First Minister to act in some degree upon the movement. The noble Marquess did not give the deputation an ungenial reception. He did not seem to view it as deputations sometimes have been regarded like "a noun of multitude, which signifies many, but does not signify much." A few weeks after the Queen's Speech referred to the topic. The same autumn saw the famous and frequently alluded to despatch of Mr. Stanhope, the Colonial Secretary, by whom the Conference at Westminster was summoned, but under a restriction that what is termed Imperial Federation should not be debated in it. In 1887 the Conference assembled without Mr. Stanhope, who had reached another post, but with a Chairman in Sir Henry Holland, who is now amongst us by another designation. The proceedings of the Conference are recorded in the volumes now before us, which also contain an interesting speech of Mr. Hoffmeir, the delegate from the Cape of Good Hope, upon the method of arriving at an Imperial revenue. I recommend that speech in some degree—it is to be found at page 463 of the 1st volume—to the attention of your Lordships. It is not without an object I have presumed to touch upon these stages. The Conference proceeded from a movement which it, therefore, stamped with authenticity. But yet the Conference leaves unresolved the leading problem towards which the movement was directed. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the Conference is final.—Indeed, the language of the noble Marquess when he delivered the inaugurating speech, and the language of the noble Lord the Secretary of State in aid repudiated most distinctly all finality of that kind. According to one, it was to be but a starting point; according to the other it was to lead on to many similar proceedings. The Government are only now recalled to their original intention. They are only asked to build on their exertions—not merely to enjoy success when it is possible to utilize it. It should be remembered also that if the movement was deprived of action, its leading object unattained, the Conference would be its sepulchre instead of its encouragement. It has been shown this very aututmn that the movement was not composed, or tranquillized, or satiated by the Conference. It has been loud and energetic since the Conference has terminated. In Glasgow, Edinburgh, Jed burgh, and other Scottish cities, considerable bodies have assembled in the autumn to demand some further measures of a nature to promote the union of the Empire, beyond the measure which the Conference arrived at. The leading Scottish journal has opened its columns widely to the subject. Again, the League whose members brought about this movement, the League, from which the Conference proceeded, the League, whose action led to the Queen's Speech and the despatch of Mr. Stanhope, survives, but ought to die if the proceedings of the Conference are satisfactory and final. However, it is easy to contend that the necessity for further action rests on grounds less technical and narrow. Apart from India and from the Colonies, who have a basis of their own, dependencies must gradually incline to separation from Great Britain. The experience of our country, of Spain, of Portugal, would point to this con-elusion. Adam Smith, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in their well known works, Viscount Bury in his Exodus of Nations, are all agreed on this inevitable tendency. You could not have three minds acquainted with the subject more remote from one another. Adam Smith, as your Lordships know, was a recluse who spent 10 years at Kirkcaldy in the preparation of his celebrated treatise. Sir George Lewis was an active politician well known to many here. He personally visited none of our dependencies but Malta. Viscount Bury, a much younger man, has had experience and ties upon the other side of the Atlantic. It is remarkable that thinkers placed so differently should all pronounce a similar conclusion on this matter. But not to urge too far the proposition, it may be granted that dependencies of that kind will not leave Great Britain except in the event of war by which their coasts are threatened. When war arrives—as it may always do—the temptation to break off might then be irresistible. The Marquis de Beauvoir, the great French traveller in Australia, a few years back arrived at this conclusion. In Canada we sometimes hear of that which tends to separation. In Queensland the title of the Crown to appoint Governors has been loudly if not universally disputed. In South Africa, Majuba Hill, of which we heard so much from the late Lord Cairns, may be remembered. There is at least a germ which you may call centrifugal in the self-governing dependencies, except, perhaps, New Zealand. Since the Crimean War, there is no criterion to guide us as to the fear of similar contingencies. At that time the power of Great Britain to blockade all hostile ports was thoroughly relied on. We openly declare it ought not now to be so. In the Crimean War the operation against Petropaulouskie not having been remarkably successful, Petropaulouski still survives and menaces the harbours and coaling stations of the British Empire to the South of it. It is clear that in the event of war these great Dependencies may possibly escape us. It is no less clear, however, that Great Britain cannot acquiesce in any unredeemed and unconditional detachment of them. Some 20 years, according to Mr. Froude, who knows much of offices and statesmen, as well as history and philosophy, there was a disposition to do away with Colonies in a quarter where it could not be anticipated. It was an unorthodox, unwholesome mixture of red tape and revolution. But all that has evaporated, before the ill-omened alliance was in any way productive. Another fashion hassetin, which Government must recognize. The dominant opinion now amongst all classes is tenacious of every post from Hong Kong to Vancouver's Island. To be reduced to the United Kingdom would be a blow to systematic colonization, which in the days of Sir Robert Peel found an incomparable advocate in the late Mr. Charles Buller, as it has now a steady friend in a noble Earl who often sits on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Meath). To be reduced to the United Kingdom would be a loss of European prestige. By European prestige, I mean only the spirit which prevails against the matter which exceeds it; the force which guards, although it may be latent and invisible; the arm which overcomes, although it still continues in its scabbard. Above all, to lose our transmarine possessions, would discredit us at Berlin, where support is often necessary. It would discredit us, because the German Empire has become a colonizing Power; and it would not find a natural connection with a Power abandoning its Colonies. The sacrifice alluded to is also wholly inconsistent with the line of reasoning which Canon Dalton and Professor Seeley had remarkably exhibited, one in a luminous discourse, the other in a celebrated volume, which may be thus imperfectly resumed—that the wars of the last century and this one, down to 1815, were only justified in principle, redeemed from loss and balanced as to outlay by colonial acquisitions which have followed them at all the European settlements from Utrecht to Vienna. If, therefore, the present status cannot be relied upon for a year, or even for a month, some new method of colonial policy is evidently needed. It is only in this manner, and not from vague ideas or from declamatory phrases, that we are forced to examine the now often-repeated term, Imperial Federation. If the noble Marquess the First Minister gave a favourable welcome to the deputation in 1886, he has been more recently inclined to hold up its project rather to derision. There is much, however, to entitle it to scrutiny. The whole subject of federation has been handled by Professor Freeman in a treatise of which the second volume is still impending on society. It is allowed to mean autonomy of parts subordinated to a centre. It is seen in public schools, where houses governing themselves are all connected by a general authority. It is known in Universities, where colleges of various pursuits and various foundations are all subjected to a body which confers degrees and chooses representatives. To come to practical detail, it may be said to exist whenever a superior assembly is added to the several assemblies of the country thrown together. There are many types of union, and only one of federation. Its proper use appears to be where certain groups can neither be entirely divided nor entirely amalgamated. At this moment we may contemplate and study it in the United States, in Austro-Hungary, the German Empire, and Switzerland. There is no absolute impediment to its existence in regions intercepted by the ocean, if every coast and every port remains approachable by navies. It was by ships alone that Athens was enabled between the Peloponesian and the Persian Wars, to keep the sort of empire she had founded. But the defence of federation belongs more properly to the Chairman of the League established to support it. We have been told by one of our earliest instructors not to approach heroic themes, if some one else is bound and qualified to handle them. I go on therefore to admit that there are many grounds for hesitation with regard to it. It could not easily arise, except after great organic changes in Great Britain. It is not certain that the best Colonials would have leisure to transfer themselves to an Imperial Assembly. As they would be in a minority for a considerable time, it must not always be an easy or harmonious one. Above all, the central Power must make up its mind beforehand to preserve the system by force of arms when once it is arrived at. The Civil War of the United States still vividly impresses on us the fundamental lesson it embodied; that is, the melancholy consequence of leaving it ambiguous how far incorporated units retain the power to with draw themselves. None of the essayists or reasoners on Imperial federation appear to have made up their minds on this part of the subject. It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider whether any other kind of policy is open, as it is shown that we cannot stand still or give up every link with the colonial system. Sir John Macdonald, the Canadian Minister, in a speech which was reported about a year ago, adverted to the importance of transforming Colonies into auxiliary powers. It appears also from his recent correspondence that Sir Henry Taylor, the great colonial administrator, as well as author of "Philip van Artevelde," leant to the same solution. It might, no doubt, be plausibly defended. Our Colonies, like the vassal principalities of the Ottoman Empire, may still be under the Suzerainty of Great Britain. Or the acknowledgment of a Supreme Court might still continue to unite them. A guarantee against external dangers would induce them to place their fleets and armies at the disposal of this country. As we adhere to many unproductive guarantees, a productive guarantee can hardly be objected to. It is generally seen in history that fleets and armies gain a quick and wonderful development in countries which are thrown in some degree upon their own responsibilities. Canada, South Africa, Australia, would have a greater number of armed men if they approached to independence than if a federal connection had united and submerged them. Besides, arrangements of that kind involve no revolution or transition in Great Britain. So much could hardly be affirmed of what is called Imperial federation. On the other hand, there would be a risk of such auxiliary powers escaping us. They might then be launched into the world without the institutions they require for their stability. The balance of power possibly would suffer. It is no light thing to form approximative nations, Tempests may arise as to a descending suffrage, an elective presidency, or a national religion. There must be therefore hesitation in adopting the idea of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Henry Taylor. There must also be hesitation in rejecting it. We are thrown into an abyss of doubt, not only between two systems, but between the views by which either may be recommended or resisted. In a perplexity of this kind it is not improper to turn to standard authors on colonial policy. Important as they are, they would be hardly able to direct us. Neither Gibbon Wakefield, the great master of colonial questions, who used to be consulted as an oracle by Members of both Houses, nor Lord Grey, who wrote with the immense authority the Colonial Office had imparted to him, nor Mr. Roebuck, for a long while a Canadian representative or agent, nor Lord Brougham, whose treatise on Colonial Policy at the beginning of the century first made him known to society, and still regards the student who goes back to it, is wholly equal to the function of directing us. But there is another class of leaders we might be more inclined to follow and rely upon with sanguine hope of being sufficiently enlightened. They are such travellers as Mr. Froude, Baron Hubner, whom I have mentioned, Mr. Finch-Hatton, and the noble Earl who has come back, and once directed the Colonial Office (the Earl of Carnarvon). Their merit is beyond, indeed, my power to describe it. Mr. Froude has been charged with inaccuracy. There is more, however, to be gained from his inaccuracy than from the erudition of many other persons. Baron Hubner has so wonderful a power of grasping causes and elucidating difficulties that you would think he had held high office in all the countries which he traverses. Mr. Finch-Hatton is instructive on everything in Australia, whether the processes of a gold mine, the habits of a buck jumper, or the manœuvres of a faction. In graphic power, if I am not deceived, the noble Earl surpasses all of them together. But he and they are equally unwilling to arrive at or promulgate statesmanlike conclusions on the course to be adopted, while none deny a further course to be essential. It, therefore, becomes appropriate to look at further methods open to the Government. It is only on comparison they can be expected to adopt, or even to consider, the one which I should be disposed to recommend to them. The first method would be another Conference at Westminster. But you could not a second time exclude Imperial Federation from it. Delegates would come instructed to oppose or to support the measure. It is not thus that sound conclusions can be hoped for, as the instructions could not possibly be based on long consideration or perfect grasp of such a topic. Besides this, it might be difficult a second time to draw first-rate colonials to this country. It has been proposed that they should meet elsewhere—at Ottawa, for instance; but such a plan is, on the face of it, imprudent and impracticable from the jealousies which must arise around it. Another course would be to draw reports from every Colonial Governor on the dispositions which exist to closer union with Great Britain, and the manner of attaining it. About 20 years ago a process of this kind was resorted to in India, to gather popular opinion on the administration which exists. It had, no doubt, some interest and value; but a collection of Reports from Governors would hardly satisfy the public that Imperial Federation was tenable or otherwise. An appeal would be demanded from their judgment. Sir Frederick Young, whose work I have alluded to, and who has been long known as a Colonial politician, maintains that one mission ought to go, under a well-chosen director, to all the regions where the system would be contemplated. There is much to recommend a course of that kind; but it appears to me that it would be too high and too laborious a function to confer on anyone, unless the Secretary for the Colonies himself resolved to undertake it. The Secretary of State may well derive from the late Sir Henry Holland, the curiosity and energy of travelling. Those who know him best would guarantee his going all round the world without ever saying or doing anything imprudent. In 1855 the Secretary for the Colonies at that time, Lord John Russell, went out on a mission to Vienna unconnected with his Office. It would, therefore, be within the bounds of precedent, at least, that the noble Lord should go out on a mission vitally affecting his Department. It is not probable, however, that he can be spared for so long a period from Ministerial and private obligations. In that event, a different method may suggest itself, and for rapidity in some degree a better one. A mission going successively to every point required would not complete its task for 3 years at the soonest. But long before that time the sort of chart and compass which we aim at may be necessary. On this ground alone, as well as others, simultaneous proceedings are desirable. If inquiring bodies were sent at once to Canada, South Africa, and Australia, it is quite possible that by a year from Easter their reports would be in our possession. There is no political contingency, of many which may strike us, in which it would not be desirable to have them. At first, and very properly, the Colonial Office may be led to feel some hesitation and aversion as to any course whatever. On one point they would go with me, however.—They would recognize the vast advantage of the official and responsible over the unofficial and irresponsible inquirer. It arises in this way. The former goes out with a staff to aid him, he remains as long as is found necessary, he draws into activity all the able minds of the dependency he visits, he labours under great responsibility, his report is accurate and searching, as he is not bound to have his eye, like ordinary travellers, upon the literary market. But in Canada, at least, there is remarkable experience to guide and to encourage us; The mission of Lord Durham in 1838 can never be forgotten. It would stand out vividly from the transactions of the day, if it ever fell into the hands of any qualified historian who had gained the power to foreshorten and develop. The essence to be borne in mind is that while the mission was attended with every species of disaster and impediment, so much that the Earl of Durham gave it up and did not long survive it, the report was so luminous and solid that it served for many years as the basis of Colonial policy, while it was the immediate stepping-stone to the tranquility of Canada. Lord Durham was exposed to the intense hostility of an excited opposition in this country. The greatest orator of that, perhaps of any time, the first Lord Brougham, rendered him the object of brilliant and implacable invective. Some of his proceedings, justly or unjustly, were disavowed by those who had appointed him. His authority in Canada was therefore seriously compromised. But still, with the distinguished aid of Gibbon Wakefield and Charles Buller, who accompanied him, he was able in a few months to present to the Queen and the two Houses a State paper, which might justly be considered as immortal, and which, at least, was far from unproductive It would be absurd to imagine, however, now, when the union of Upper and Lower Canada, which it authorized, has passed away and merged in the Dominion, nothing more of the same kind is wanted to replace it. As to South Africa, the need of information more authoritative than any which exists, has been exhibited in nearly all the many controversies and embarrasments of which the country has been so fertile. It was seen in the exodus of the Boers, which led to the establishment of independent States on our frontiers. It was seen in the hurried measure of annexing the Transvaal, and still more in the precipitate conclusion to fly from battle fields which followed. It was seen in the acquisition of the Diamond Fields, as some have reasoned, by encroachment on a treaty. It was seen in the war directed against Cetywayo by Sir Bartle Frere. You have only to refer to authors such as Francis Galton, Anthony Trollope, Mr. Greswell, Mr. Mackenzie, for evidence of our perplexity. But it would need a lifetime to become master of South African affairs. I therefore hurry over them. At this moment there is the greatest possible diversity of judgment as to whether the offices of Governor at the Cape of Good Hope and High Commissioner of Africa ought to be united in one person. There is a far stronger case as to Australia, based on estimates and facts, which do not bear on other parts of the Colonial world, and ought not to escape us. It is the most remote (if you include New Zealand) and, therefore, according to the beautiful and often cited passage of Mr. Burke, the most precarious of our dependencies. It is the most extensive in its area. It is the largest in exports, imports, and revenue. A variety of questions well known to Parliament, connected with New Caledonia, the New Hebrides, New Guinea, have in some degree impaired, although they have not shaken, its allegiance. Such men as Dr. Lang have done their utmost—it may not be very much—to excite the love of national existence. The poetry of the country—for poetry has occurred in Gordon, and in Kendal—breathes a kindred aspiration. It cannot be denied that there is a dominant idea of connecting with Australia all the islands which surround it, as New Zealand was connected by our action. It cannot be denied either that the British tie is not regarded as an aid to the eventual consummation. In 1850 the want of information on Australia was deeply felt in Parliament when the question of forming Upper Chambers was debated, although the critical return of Mr. Lowe (Lord Sherbrooke) did something to abate it. In 1856, when another and more vital Act of Parliament was carried, a greater knowledge of Australia would have been most important to the Legislature. It is hardly necessary to refer in detail to the transaction of New Guinea, which could not have pursued its dangerous course had proper light existed. Last of all, in November and December, the appointment to Queensland, however unobjectionable in itself, and which I have referred to, became no doubt a blow to the connection of Australia with Great Britain. To what except imperfect knowledge at the Colonial Office could it be attributed? We have also to remember that Australia, beginning as a convict settlement, has need of all the elevating influences which you can bring to bear upon it. The discovery of gold, whatever animation, or wealth, or numbers it created, was not a balance, but an aggravation, morally and socially, of the original misfortune. What sort of Governors have been appointed? Even at best they have been local, and without a general control over the mighty area which stood in need of organizing force, and of regenerating influence. So far, Australia has not even the good fortune of New Zealand. New Zealand has been formed by the rare virtue, indomitable energy, heroic type of Bishop Selwyn, the mature experience of Sir George Grey, the masterly acumen of Gibbon Wakefield, who may be considered as its founder. Australia has never had a mind or character impressed on its mysterious extent and hidden capability, which would suggest the parallel of Washington in the United States, or of many others in Great Britain. Beyond Captain Cook, they have no founder to look back to. It is desirable that such a want should be redressed, even if Imperial Federation is a vision, even if no assistance can be drawn from this extraordinary settlement. Allusion has been made to circumstances tending to relax the bonds between Australia and Great Britain. Another ought not to escape us. It is the hatred which exists of Chinese immigration. It is, of course, seen that the Mother Country cannot, without some inconvenience at Pekin, effectually discourage it. A ground of alienation both economical and social may at any time present itself. But there is a larger view upon this subject I cannot go into this evening. Even if mistaken scruples of economy deter the Government from immediate action as regards Canada and South Africa, the title of Australia to the best support by which her future can be organized would stand alone, and special, and imperative upon them. The Motion offered, it should he remarked, however, does not bind the Government to any course whatever. They may reject the method I prefer, adopt the methods which appear to me inadequate, or hit on means of action which entirely escape me. The Motion only gives the possibility of acting. It gives the possibility of acting, because, without some indication from Parliament or from the public, the Government can do nothing at present. The deputation, brought about the Conference at Westminster. There would have been no Conference if there had been no deputation, and no further course will be pursued unless some agency impels it. There is not any other agency. It has been said that Governments are only gauges of pressure brought to bear upon them. The noble Marquess the First Minister is himself the author, and he is bound, perhaps, to be from time to time the illustration, of the maxim. There are some fallacies which stand in the way of any Resolution which hardly need a serious reply, and yet cannot be wholly disregarded. It is said that time alone will bring about the necessary union. Unfortunately, time is by itself an agent in the opposite direction. Dependencies of large extent, it has been shown, are always on the road to nationality. Time also may produce the war so dangerous to cohesion. Time ought to be embraced by us, but not relied on for this purpose. It is said that commercial union will tend to the political arrangements wished for. Unfortunately, the commercial union is quite beyond our reach, and if we wait for that we shall have to wait for ever. It is said that federation will spring up by gradual process, like the British Constitution. The British Constitution may have been in some degree evolved, but its main features have been brought about by perilous exertions, such as Magna Charta or the Revolution of 1688, of which the anniversary is near us. The true principle is rather: there is a price for everything—results of an extraordinary kind are only to be purchased by remarkable exertion. Objection, therefore, can only come from those who question altogether the necessity of strengthening the Empire. Can they deny the weakness of the Empire? Has it not been seen in various transactions? But that inquiry is superfluous. It is admitted by the language of the Government. It is the foundation and the shelter of the Naval project they are offering. It is true that Naval project, as regards security, and as regards defence, may remedy to some extent the weakness which provokes it. But we are not to forget the volume which the noble Marquess elicited some years ago on purpose to exhibit the range of our guarantees, the insufficiency of power to maintain them. In that volume, which may be considered as a text book of European policy, equally adapted to the novice and the expert, we observe our duties to Portugal, to Belgium, to the Ottoman Empire. It leads us to a well-founded incredulity—it was meant to do it—as to how far the United Kingdom, standing by itself, is qualified to execute and meet them. We cannot do it wholly by a Navy, unless indeed considerable bodies of marines are placed on board the further ironclads you organize. It remains only to point out the error of those who, while acceding to the train of reasoning submitted, suggest that this House is not entitled to come forward or point to any sort of action on the subject. The Government, it has been shown, are chained until some agency releases and impels them. It cannot be the other House, which very probably is buried in the Estimates from February to Easter. This House alone is equal to the function. It has not ceased to be the Council of the Realm, as it was before Simon de Montford added representatives in 1265, and before those representatives were separately organized. The House of Lords is deemed by some to be less stable than it used to be. An Upper Chamber and a suffrage more than democratic may be some day irreconcilable. But while the decay of men is quick there is a lingering vitality in institutions and assemblies. A Senate which resolves upon a step to pave the way for union with its dependencies may draw from climes and races the most various an echo to reward, perhaps an echo to immortalize it. But if the House is doomed to pass into abeyance, its last decrees and waning efforts might be well subordinated to the maxim, Turegere imperio populos Romanem memento, and thus directed to transform an overburdened State into a preponderating Nation. On these grounds, and many others I have not been able to advert to, I move the Resolution as it stands upon the paper.

Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the Colonial Conference of 1887 has led to good results, and ought to be the basis of further measures tending to Imperial security.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)

*LORD KNUTSFORD

My Lords, we have heard with interest the speech which the noble Lord has delivered upon a subject in which he has taken great interest, and a subject of which I am the last person to deny the importance. This Empire, though so vast in extent, comprising as it does some 9,000,000 square miles and 321,000,000 of inhabitants, has probably the least systematic organization of any Empire of the present day, or of any of the great Empires which have flourished and passed away. This Empire has been built up by conquest, cession, annexation, and settlement; and the result of those different modes of acquisition has been that within its limits there is a variety of races, of religions, languages, customs, laws, and constitutions, probably unequalled in any Empire, ancient or modern. So far, then, I agree with the noble Lord that there may remain much to be done in re-organizing the Empire. 'To bring together the component parts of the Empire into closer union: to unite more closely the Colonies between themselves by some system of Colonial Federation; and to strengthen the links between the Mother Country and the Colonies by some system of what is called Imperial Federation, is, I admit, not only the dream, but the legitimate aim and object, of Imperial statesmen. But the subject is one of great difficulty and delicacy, and no one can approach, or ought to approach it, without due and careful regard, and full inquiry and examination into the wishes, the views, and the interests of our fellow-subjects in the great Colonies. One is reminded of the reply that the Empress, Catherine II., gave to the philosopher Diderot, who had favoured her with a cut and dried system of reform, and was finding fault with her for not pressing it on the country. Her reply was— Yes, Mr. Philosopher; but you seem to forget the very different positions that we hold with respect to reform. You work on paper, which endures all things, and presents no obstacle to your imagination or your plan; but I have to work on the human skin, which is ticklish and irritable to an alarming degree. That reply is very much in point, I venture to think, with respect to this question. I may agree in the outlines of the picture which the noble Lord has drawn, but I confess I feel great difficulty in filling up the details. One consideration appears to me to lie at the very root of the matter, and to bear strongly upon many parts of his speech. It is this—that looking to the rapid increase and the extraordinary development and great responsibility of self-governing Colonies such as Canada, Australasia, and the Cape, I take it to be clear that any proposals which tend to alter the relations between the Mother Country and the colonies must come, if they are to be of any service at all, from the Colonies themselves in the first instance. Our fellow-subjects in the Colonies view with, perhaps not unnatural jealousy, any proposals which come from this country. They are apt to think—I hope that their belief is unfounded—that we consider too much our own interests, and are not sufficiently alive to their interests and position. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it to be in the interest, not only of the Mother Country but of the Colonies, that they should remain integral parts of the Empire—and, not only so, but that they should be as far as possible more closely united by ties of commerce, increased facilities of communication, and uniformity of laws, and ultimately—if it can be found possible—by their bearing some more direct share, and having a more direct voice, in the Councils of the Empire, and, as a result of that, their bearing a larger share in the defence of the Empire and Imperial responsibilities. But though any Government—Her Majesty's Government or any succeeding Government—would be ready and anxious to consider carefully any well-thought-out scheme which lies in that direction, I believe that any Government would have to be satisfied that the scheme—as I have before said—must come, in the first instance, from the Colonies themselves. The consummation may be devoutly to be wished, but it is a long way off, and those who desire to see closer union must, I think, be contented to wait until the inhabitants of our great Colonies are themselves satisfied that their best interests will be secured by a closer union. These and like questions must be fought out in the Colonies. The noble Lord has admitted—and no one who has read the debates in the Assemblies of the Australasian Colonies can doubt it—that there is a party—I will not stop to inquire how large it is, or whether it is increasing; but there is a party of men who most conscientiously believe that the Colonies are now sufficiently independent to stand by themselves; that they would be better freed from the responsibilities of the Empire; and in fact that it would be better, as they express it, to cut the painter. Well, that is the view of a party in Australasia, and it appears to me, as I think it must to your Lordships, that that is a question which must be decided in the Colonies, and that until it is decided it would be useless, nay, even mischievous, for us to formulate in this country schemes for a closer union. I believe, also, that some system of Colonial Federation must precede any such closer union with this country. If one could look forward and see the great Australasian Colonies federated as the Dominion of Canada is federated; see also the West India Islands federated, and perhaps our Eastern Colonies, it would be within the bounds of possibility that those great federations might be properly represented in this country; but I think it would be absolutely impossible to have any system of representation of the separate Colonies as they now are. For these reasons I confess it appears to me that it would be unnecessary for me to go in detail into the different suggestions that have been made by the noble Lord. Of course, I must not be understood as finding fault with the noble Lord for bringing forward this motion. It is very desirable that independent persons who take keen interest in Colonial subjects should ventilate their opinions for the consideration of people here and in the Colonies, but it would be impossible for me to pledge Her Majesty's Government to any of the noble Lord's suggestions; and in the circumstances it would be premature for me to express any opinion on the part of the Government. The noble Lord spoke of the success of the Conference of 1887. I concur in the hope expressed by the noble Lord that this Conference may be succeeded by other Conferences, because I consider they tend to draw closer and closer those bonds which have been created by a common origin, a common history, and a common allegiance. I hope, further, that any future Conferences will partake more truly of an Imperial character, and will include representatives from the leading Crown Colonies, because, as your Lordships are aware, only the responsible governing Colonies were represented in 1887. But, as the noble Lord has himself pointed out, the decision as to holding future Conferences does not rest with us—it rests with the Colonies themselves. To what was the success of that Conference owing? It was owing mainly to the character of the delegates sent over by the different Colonies. They sent over Premiers, ex-Premiers; men who were then taking their share in the administration of the Colonies, and men who had taken a leading part in the administration of the Colonies; men who had won their spurs in Colonial political battles, and who were men of distinction and experience. They came over at personal inconvenience to themselves, and secured the success of the Conference by lending us their loyal aid, which was based upon their knowledge and experience. But it would be a question for the Colonies to consider when, and under what conditions, they can again spare their leading statesmen to come over here. The noble Lord, in one part of his speech, seemed to think it a very easy thing for a Minister to be spared, and he suggested my going round the world picking up information, and neglecting the Crown Colonies and the duties of my office; but it is not so easy to spare statesmen from the Colonies to come over to this country, and I have never yet heard any proposal that a Conference should be held in one of the Colonies. There is a sufficient amount of jealousy between the Colonies to make it doubtful whether a Conference would be successful if held in any Colony. I think, also, it is not desirable to deal with any question of a Conference until the results of the present Conference have been more fully worked out. There is the question of defence. It must be admitted that the Colonies are deeply interested in the question of defence; but perhaps I may be allowed upon this subject to read to the House the words of the noble Marquess, spoken at the opening of that Conferenc. On this question of defence the Colonies have a very real and genuine interest in the shield which their Imperial connection throws over them, and they have a ground for joining with us in making the defence of the Empire effective, a ground which does not rest upon their allegiance to this country, but which is based on the most solemn and reasonable foundations of self-interest and security. The ships which are to be added to the Australian Squadron are now in course of construction, and all the Colonies, with the exception of Queensland, have passed, with unanimous acclaim, the legislation necessary to secure their co-operation. In Queensland, it is true that, owing to a change of Government, and to the General Election, no Bill has been submitted to the Queensland Parliament. It is also true that Sir Thomas McIlwraith, the present Premier, has pronounced himself against the arrangement; but I have very little doubt that, when the matter is again seriously considered, and long before the time for payment arrives, Queensland will waive any difficulty upon the point, and will see the desirability of not separating herself from the other Australasian Colonies, and also losing the advantage of the increase of the Squadron. I will not go into further details as to the measures for defence. Several measures, such as those for the defence of Esquimalt, Thursday Island, and of St. George's Sound, are under consideration, and I should hope for a speedy decision upon them. Then I may mention one of what may be called the unheroic means of securing closer union, and that is the uniformity of laws. As the noble Lord has stated, several legal subjects of considerable importance were brought forward, and discussed at the Conference, and though they have not yet been finally worked out, they have been carefully considered. I will only refer to three subjects of considerable importance, and to which the delegates attached great weight. One is the enforcement in this country of the judgments of Colonial Courts, and, of course, enforcing also in the Colonies the judgments of the Courts of this country. The second is the enforcing orders of Colonial Courts in Bankruptcy, and in winding up of companies and winding-up estates. And the third was the providing machinery for the speedy recognition in England of probates and letters of administration granted out in the Colonies. Bills have been framed by the Government draftsman on all these points. They have now been sent out to the Colonies, and when we get replies from the Colonies I should hope that we should; be enabled to legislate. There are some other legal subjects with which I think I need not now trouble your Lordships; but, before these legal matters be disposed of, and before we have ascertained by practical experience how they work, I think that, considering there is no burning question that could now be brought before a Conference, it would not only be unnecessary, but would, in truth, be inconvenient to attempt to summon any other Conference for some time. I may very shortly refer to two of the suggestions that the noble Lord has made in default of a Conference. The first suggestion, as I understand it, is that we should call for Reports on the question of Imperial Federation. That appears to me, for reasons I have already given, very undesirable. I think the Colonies would view with great jealousy any attempt on our part to bring forward that question, and to obtain Reports in the manner suggested. The second was—if I may call it—a scrambling general inquiry in which I was to take somewhat a leading part, with some minor officials. Really the same objection applies to that proposal. The person who would be sent out as a Commissioner would have no powers to call any body before him or to get books before him to examine. He must trust entirely to the information that is given him, and. it would be given him reluctantly if he were in an official position. It could be Par more readily obtained by gentlemen; travelling in officially in the Colonies, but with their eyes and ears open. I believe such a semi-official inquiry would not be viewed with favour. In all the circumstances I would ask the noble Lord, as the subject has been ventilated and discussed, and as he is now made aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government, that he would consent to withdraw this Motion. He assumed that it is a Motion that means nothing; but if it means nothing, we should hardly be justified in agreeing to it, and it is hardly worth while for him to press it. But it does mean something as I understand it; it is a Resolution which binds Her Majesty's Government to take some steps in the direction that he has indicated, or to take some abstract and undefined measures which he has not indicated, but which are to "tend to Imperial security." Therefore it must mean that the Government should take some steps at an early stage by Conference, inquiry, or otherwise, and I am bound to state frankly that Her Majesty's Goverment cannot consent to be bound by such an engagement.

*LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

I know the House to be impatient of reply, and I only rise because no one else seems now disposed to do so. Indeed, the noble Lord the Secretary of State has offered nothing which I ought to counteract, nor given reasons for the Motion being avoided. It is true that he has criticized the modes of action I rejected as inadequate, but luckily—and this ought to be noted—he has not said a word against the simultaneous missions I recommended to his judgment. There may not be between him and me the slightest difference of opinion. However, he requests me to withdraw the Motion. I cannot do so, because, if I am permitted to repeat a former phrase, it is the only way to cause a possibility of action, and because no species of objection has been offered to it. If the Government decline to accept the Resolution, they may amend it or move the Previous Question without resistance upon my part. I cannot withdraw the Resolution, and to negative it would be a Vote of Censure on the Conference of 1887, and those by whom it was originated.

On question, resolved in the negative.