believe their convictions were sincere - looked upon the Colonies of England, looked upon our connection with India, as a burden to this country, viewing everything in a financial aspect, and totally passing by those moral and political considerations which make nations great, and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from animals. Well, what has been the result of this attempt during the reign of Liberalism for the disintegration of the Empire? It has entirely failed. But how has it failed? Through the sympathy of the Colonies with the mother country. They have decided that the Empire shall not be destroyed; and in my opinion no Minister in this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of reconstructing as far as possible our Colonial Empire, and of responding to those distant sympathies which may become the source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land."

Has the inter

vening period of seventy years wrought any change in the Radical attitude towards the British Empire? Has it in any way modified Radical antagonism to the bands which unite the mother country to the Dominions across the seas? The action of the British Parliament during the recent negotiations with regard to Reciprocity in trade between Canada and the United States demonstrates that present-day Radicals attach no whit more value to the maintenance of the Empire than did their predecessors in 1842. If the Reciprocity Agreement had been ratified, it is now known, from President Taft's letter to Mr Roosevelt, that, in his view, Canada would in time have become an "adjunct of the United States." "I am for it," said Mr Champ Clark, the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, on February 14, 1911, "because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions clear to the North Pole. have no doubt whatever that the day is not far distant when Great Britain will joyfully see all her North American possessions become part of this Republic. That is the way things are tending now." What is the opinion of Mr Bryce, the British Ambassador at Washington: "As regards Canada herself, her material growth might possibly be quickened by Union, and had the plan of a Commercial League, or Cus

I

toms' Union, formerly discussed, been carried out, it might have tended towards a political Union."-(American Commonwealth,' 1910, vol. ii. p. 571.) Lord Haldane expressed the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject in the House of Lords on May 18, 1911, as follows: "The noble Earl seems to think that the British Government throughout these negotiations have been sitting with hands folded, doing nothing. In one sense they have done nothing. They have not interfered, but they have been cognisant at every turn of what has taken place. I doubt whether any negotiations have been more closely watched, or more sympathetically observed. . . . The policy of the Government is to give every facility to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the people of Canada to do the best they can for themselves to enter into this Agreement, and as they think, and we believe, to take thereby the best step they can for the development of Canada." But who was appointed to offer "every facility" on behalf of his Majesty's Government to bring about the Reciprocity Agreement? Mr Bryce, the man in whose opinion a commercial Union would tend to promote political Union between Canada and the United States, and, as a necessary consequence, the disintegration of the British Empire! No wonder that Mr D. A. Thomas, a Liberal M.P., suggested in 1906 that the Liberal Imperial League (which had been formed in 1902 under

Lord Rosebery's auspices to "further every substantial attempt to cement the Empire") should be dissolved, on the ground that "the bulk of the prominent members of the organisation are now members of the Government, and presumably, therefore, have abandoned its policy." No wonder that this League, the ewe lamb of Radical Imperialism, should have ended a pitiful struggle for existence on May 31, 1910, unwept for and unsung! It is to the Conservative Party alone that the people of Great and Greater Britain must look for a scheme by which the Imperial problem can be solved. Why is no declaration of policy forthcoming? Has the the doctor no remedy to offer, or is the remedy to be withheld until the crisis is over one way or the other? Let the Conservative Party beware lest the summons come too late!

It is well to think the matter out. Naval Defence is the keynote of the situation. If it is true to assert that under the conditions which prevail in Europe the current expenditure upon naval armament is the minimum, and not the maximum, which it is incumbent upon Great Britain to incur, having regard solely to her national interests, and apart altogether from her Imperial obligations, then it follows from what has been already stated that not only the maintenance of the Empire, but the very existence of Great Britain as a European Power, is contingent upon the adoption of a scheme

of copartnership in Naval Defence between Great Britain and the self-governing Dominions. Yet the statement is beyond controversy true. What is the primary purpose for which the British Navy is maintained? Not, certainly, for projects of aggression, nor even to defend the shores of Great Britain from invasion. It is to protect the trade-routes of her food supplies and the carrying trade of her manufactures. Whether Great Britain possesses an Empire or not, in either case her food - supplies must be secured. Once let her lose her supremacy at sea, and starvation will render invasion unnecessary. And yet it is quite clear that she cannot alone maintain an unchallengeable Navy! If, then, her political and commercial existence is dependent upon the willingness of the Dominions to bear each its share of the burden of Imperial Defence, is it unreasonable or undemocratic that the Dominions should claim an adequate share of control over foreign and Imperial affairs, and is it fair to ask the self-governing Dominions to remain any longer bound by commercial treaties in negotiating which they were not consulted? "If Canada and the other Dominions of the Empire are to take their part as nations of this Empire in the defence of the Empire as a whole," said Mr Borden on November 24, 1910, "shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole Empire, shall have as citizens of this country absolutely no

voice whatever in the councils of the Empire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the Empire? I do not think that such would be a tolerable condition. I do not believe the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition. Shall members of this House, representative men, representing 221 constituencies in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific,

shall no one of them have the same voice with regard to those vast Imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British Isles has at this moment? It does not seem to me that such a condition would make for the integrity of the Empire, for the closer co-operation of the Empire."

The characteristic genius of the British race has hitherto enabled it to adjust its policy to the ever-changing needs of the time. New circumstances have once again arisen, and it is the duty of British statesmen to find a new policy to meet them.

The new Imperialism is the principle of so uniting the different parts of the Empire, having separate Governments, as to secure that for certain purposes, such as foreign affairs, Imperial defence, international commerce, and postal communication, they shall be practically a single State. There is nothing new or unattainable in such a policy. What is novel is the coincidence of facts which for the first time in the history of the world has brought the policy within the reach of practical statesmanship. Adam Smith, who might

of modern Imperialism, wrote: "There is not the least probability that the British Constitution would be hurt by the Union of Great Britain with her Colonies. That Constitution, on the contrary, would be completed by it, and seems to be imperfect without it." (Wealth of Nations,' Book iv., chap. 7.) And even Cobden, if he were alive, might find it difficult to reconcile some, at least, of his views on Imperial Federation with those entertained by "Little Englanders" to-day. "What is the reason," he said, on April 28, 1853, "that no statesman has ever dreamed of proposing that the Colonies should sit with the mother country in a common legislature? It was not because of the space between them, for nowadays travelling was almost as quick as thought, but because the Colonies, not paying Imperial taxation and not being liable for our debt, could not be allowed with safety to us, or with propriety to themselves, to legislate on matters of taxation in which they were not themselves concerned." Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis!

by the Federalists in America, in Germany, or in AustriaHungary. The fatal policy adopted by Rome and Athens provides a warning to Little Englanders. God grant it may not provide the precedent for British policy in the future! So long as his Majesty's present advisers remain in power the matter must needs remain in abeyance, for your Radical is too narrow in outlook, too introspective in temperament, to be able to view the problem with understanding. Both Mr Asquith and Mr Churchill have recently suggested that by a more systematic use of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which, as of course, the representatives of the Dominions would be invited, a solution of the problem might be found which would prove acceptable to the self-governing Dominions; but, as Mr Asquith was careful to point out on May 25, 1912, "The functions of the Committee, on the one hand, have no reference to policy. The policy must be determined by the Cabinet. On the other hand, we are not in any sense an executive. Both as regards the Army and the Navy, the executive responsibility lies

to lay down principles of policy." No better illustration could be conceived of the failure of Radicalism to appreciate the aspirations of the Dominions! So long as the British Prime Minister lays it down that