This eBook is a reproduction by the State Library of New South Wales from source material that we believe is not currently covered by copyright. The original physical edition is available from the State Library of New South Wales.

The original publication details are as follows:

Title: Papers and addresses by Lord Brassey : imperial federation and colonisation from 1880-1894 / arranged and edited by Arthur H. Loring and R. J. Beadon.

Author: Brassey, Thomas Brassey, Earl, 1836-1918.

Published: Longmans, Green, London, 1895

Digitised under the State Library of NSW's Digital Excellence Program. Due to the nature of the original material or digitisation process there may be instances where the digital copies are not exact matches of the originals. If you have any questions or would like to provide feedback, please email collections.library@sl.nsw.gov.au

PAPERS AND ADDRESSES
BY
LORD BRASSEY

PAPERS AND ADDRESSES
BY
LORD BRASSEY, K.C.B., D.C.L.
IMFERIAL FEDERATION
AND
COLONISATION
FROM 1880 TO 1894
ARRANGED AND EDITED BY
ARTHUR H. LORING AND R. J. BEADON, M.A.
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16th STREET
1895
All rights reserved

EDITORIAL PREFACE

THE present volume contains a selection of Lord Brassey's Speeches, Lectures, and Articles on Imperial Federation and Colonisation between the years 1880 and 1894.

Of Lord Brassey's intimate acquaintance with all that relates to the Colonial Empire of Great Britain, or of the authority of his utterances on the subjects here dealt with, there is no need to speak. But as this volume contains, besides the text of Lord Brassey's own productions, a considerable amount of matter written by the Editors, it is due to the reader to say that their qualification for the work they have undertaken rests upon knowledge of the subject matter gained during several years of official connection with the Imperial Federation League, as Secretary, and as Editor of the Journal, respectively.

It has been their endeavour to supply, in connection with each Speech or Address, not only a sketch of the circumstances of its delivery, but some account of the position of the Imperial Federation movement at successive periods. In doing this they have been enabled, with Lord Brassey's concurrence, so to expand their part of the letterpress as to weave round his speeches something in the nature of a history of the Colonial Question during a period of rapid and very important development.

A. H. L.

R. J. B.

February 1895.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IMPERIAL FEDERATION
AND
COLONISATION
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

General Statement—Imperial Federation Question and Account of the Movement.

In spite of the difficulty of realising, by the aid only of maps and handbooks, the extent and varied resources of the British Empire, the subject once taken up is one from which it is difficult to turn, so absorbing is the theme and so fascinating to the imagination are the prospects which it holds out.

To those who have been fortunate enough to make even a brief excursion from these islands, and to see with their own eyes something of the countries of which Greater Britain is composed, the charm of the subject is greatly enhanced. The possibilities which such an acquaintance unfolds to the minds of those who are also disposed to look into the future are of such a beneficent character that it seems to become a positive duty to seize the opportunities which offer, and to endeavour to do something towards the attainment of some, at least, of the great and high ideals which present themselves.

That Lord Brassey, who has enjoyed not once but many times that ' liberal education' afforded by a visit to the outlying portions of the Empire which has been laid down as necessary to all future English statesmen, should be found taking an active and prominent part in all that concerns its present interests and its future destiny, is not therefore surprising.

It was equally natural that Lord Brassey's lively interest in the welfare of the Empire at large should take the form of an earnest desire for some means of assuring its continued unity, and the advocacy of any measure tending in that direction. In the speeches and papers which form the staple of this volume Lord Brassey has devoted himself mainly to this subject, intimately allied as it is in his mind with that of the maritime defence of the Empire a subject with which also his name is closely identified.

It is a common saying that in these clays events march with a terrible and increasing rapidity. It has probably been a common saying at all times. The truth is that we compare the rush of the smaller and, so to speak, domestic events of the present day with the progress of the really important events of past times which have left their mark upon history, and whose effect is felt up to the present moment. These are necessarily of rarer occurrence, and have required many years of minor events to bring about.

The movement for the Federation of the Empire, in which Lord Brassey lias played so conspicuous a part, may well, in time, result in ono of those great events which make the history of the world, but it will not come as a bolt from the blue—it will not ' happen' as an accident. It will follow from the patient efforts of those who lie under a sense of duty to do what is in their power for the good of the country in which they live and for the Empire with which it is connected, aided by such circumstances as may occur conducing to the same end.

These efforts may seem trivial, they may at times even appear to be abortive; but the work honestly done leaves its mark, and the seed sown, if sound, will bear its fruit in time.

It was about the year 1880, perhaps a little before that date, that the British Empire began to be ' discovered ' by speakers and by writers as a subject worth discoursing upon, and by readers and listeners as one demanding their attention.

Not that the subject was then an absolutely new one, hut until about this period it had not come into general discussion. As early as the forties ' the future of the Empire' was beginning to exercise the minds of some few thinkers and public men. In 1844, Robert Lowe—Lord Sherbrooke—then a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, expressed, in a striking passage, the hope and belief that some day Great Britain would form with the Colonies ' one mighty confederacy, girdling the earth in its whole circumference, and confident against the world in arts and arms.'

A few years later Judge Haliburton—' Sam Slick — was advocating like views ; and not long afterwards Mr. Joseph Howe, Mr. Edward Blake, and Sir John Macdonald in Canada, and Sir Henry Parkes and Sir Julius Yogel in Australia and New Zealand, were giving voice to the same aspirations. In 1857 the Australian Association in London—the germ of the Royal Colonial Institute—distinctly declared for an Imperial Representative Assembly; and in the year that followed the members of this body were endeavouring to bring their ideas under the public notice. In 1871 an article by Mr. Edward Jenkins appeared in the ' Contemporary Review ' under the actual title of Imperial Federation; and among others who, during this period, were writing and speaking on the subject were Sir Frederick Young, Sir John Colomb, and Mr. F. P. de Labilliere; Lord Brassey's name appears in direct association with the subject in the year 1880.¹

But these voices still cried in the wilderness, they were few and far between, and they met with little or no response. The country was still held by the official assumption that the Colonies having attained to the position of self-government could only proceed thence to independence. It was not to be supposed that great self-governing Colonies, with millions of population, would consent to remain for ever under the tutelage of the Colonial Office; national life was essential to every British community, and to this, as Colonies, they could not attain. The obvious course open to them was to cease to be Colonies and to declare their independence. It was merely a question of time and of their prosperity when they would take this step; until it suited them to do so the United Kingdom would be content to do what it could for them in Imperial matters.

At the time referred to the Colonies, especially Australia, were advancing by the proverbial ' leaps and bounds;' independence, colloquially expressed as ' cutting the painter,' was freely discussed in Australia, and contemplated with much equanimity in England. The times were prosperous with the Colonies, Young Australia was getting anxious to try its wings, and England was resigned to the inevitable.

There were, however, a handful of men who, with the Royal Colonial Institute as a rallying point, had for years been patiently and resolutely endeavouring to stem the tide which was thus setting so strongly towards the disintegration of the British Empire.

They clung doggedly to the spirit of their monthly toast, ' The Queen and United Empire,' but it was with difficulty that they held their ground against the almost universal tendency to regard disintegration as inevitable. They were without an alternative proposal, and they lacked a leader.

It was felt that there was much force in the arguments of the Manchester school, the effect of which still lived in the public mind. The Colonies were to the Mother-country—in addition to being her pride and glory—a burden to the taxpayer, a heavy responsibility and a frequent source of friction with other Powers, and consequently a danger. These were the facts put forward by the Manchester school, and their truth can hardly be denied even at the present day, although the inference then drawn from them would not now be accepted. The Manchester school was able to see but one conclusion resulting from these facts, namely, that the best interests of the United Kingdom required that she should be rid of her Colonies as quickly as possible after they had attained self-government.

The alternative of bringing the Colonies into a Federation in which all parties should bear their proper share of burdens, responsibilities and dangers, as well as their share of advantages, privileges and authority, does not seem to have occurred to the Manchester politicians, and it had yet to be put forward as a feasible project by any responsible statesman, at the time of the inception of the Imperial Federation movement. Here, then, was the alternative solution wanting, to counteract both the process of disintegration, feared and resisted by the Royal Colonial Institute, and the active policy of separation advocated by the Manchester school.

The required leader was shortly to be found. Since the years which he spent at the Colonial Office—1865— Mr. W. E. Forster had never ceased to occupy himself with those questions involving Colonial interests which are inseparable from the responsibilities of Empire. At times the heavy burden of his duties in the service of the State absolutely precluded him from giving attention to these matters, but with anything approaching to leisure, he was readily accessible to all wdio had the interests of the Empire as a whole at heart.

In 1875, for example, Mr. Forster delivered an address at Edinburgh on ' Our Colonial Empire,' which, coming from a man in his position, had the effect at the moment of calling the attention of a wider public to the serious importance of the subject.

The following tribute to this side of his character was paid by Lord Knutsford when speaking as Secretary of State for the Colonies, two years after Mr. Forster's death:—' Mr. Forster was a man whose lead upon all Colonial questions it was safe to follow. No man had a more keen interest in the Colonies. No man had a keener sympathy with their wishes and aspirations; and I will venture to say this, that his sound judgment, his varied and extensive knowledge, and his kindly heart, gave him a position on all Colonial matters, in and out of the House of Commons, which none of us can hope to attain.'

The possibilities of good to the world at large, and to his own countrymen in particular, proceeding from the maintenance of the British Empire as a whole had greatly impressed Mr. Eorster, and though from the first he recognised very clearly the difficulties which would beset the enterprise, he felt that it was a goal worth striving for; but to let such an Empire go to pieces without even propounding the question of the possibility of coming to an arrangement whereby it could remain united upon equal terms, would involve this country in lasting disgrace; and he accordingly determined to make the attempt.

At his suggestion a Conference was held in July 1884 at the Westminster Palace Hotel. Mr. Porster presided and stated the object of the meeting in these words:—' We are here to-day because we wish to preserve the unity of the Empire by binding the several parts together, and also because we think the time has come when those who have that wish should meet together to see how they can attain it.' The meeting was attended by a large number of persons whose names were prominent in Imperial affairs, and the list included the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, the Earl of Rosebery, Sir Henry Holland, Mr. James Bryce, the High Commissioner for Canada, and the Agents-General for New South Wales and New Zealand.

The outcome of this Conference was shown in the following resolutions which were adopted

1. That, in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some form of Federation is essential.

2. That, for the purpose of influencing public opinion, both in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, by showing the incalculable advantages which will accrue to the whole Empire from the adoption of such a system of organisation, a Society be formed of men of all parties, to advocate and support the principle of Federation.

A provisional committee was appointed and the Conference adjourned until November, when another meeting took place at which the following resolutions were passed: —

1. That a society be now formed to be called the ' Imperial Federation League.'

2. That the object of the League be to secure by Federation the permanent unity of the Empire.

3. That no scheme of Federation should interfere with existing rights of Local Parliaments as regards local affairs.

4. That any scheme of Imperial Federation should combine on an equitable basis the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and adequately provide for an organised defence of common rights.

The Imperial Federation League was thus established, and during the year 1885 it made rapid progress. Mr. Forster was elected Chairman of the League, and devoted much of his time and personal attention to its affairs. Articles from his pen appeared in the ' Nineteenth Century' early in the year, and were discussed in the press throughout the Empire. In these articles he met the objections and doubts of his critics, answering the inquiry, ' How can the Mother-country be kept united to her Colonies?' with the reply, ' By an organisation for common defence and a joint Foreign Policy.' To the question, ' Why not leave matters alone? he replied, ' Self-government will end in separation if there be no such organisation.'

Several statesmen of the first rank took an active part in the work of establishing the League, notably Mr. W. H. Smith, the Earl of Rosebery, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Sir Henry Holland, now Lord Knutsford, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The General Committee included a large number of influential men of all political parties, belonging both to the United Kingdom and to the Colonies; and mercantile men, distinguished lawyers, Naval and Military officers, and dignitaries of the Church became members.¹

Lord Brassey was at this time cruising in the Southern Seas, and was therefore precluded from taking any part in these fundamental operations. He lost no time, however, in giving his countenance and support to the movement as soon as he heard of it; and upon his return to England in 1886 he accepted the office of Hon. Treasurer to the League.

The work of the Imperial Federation League, dealing as it did with the subject of defence in conjunction with the great question of the future of the Empire, possessed a natural attraction for Lord Brassey, and he threw himself fully into the movement. As will be seen in the following pages, his utterances upon the subject during the last ten years have been very frequent, and they form a comprehensive summary of the history of the movement. They were often undertaken at considerable inconvenience to himself and at very short notice; but they by no means represent the sum of his exertions on behalf of the cause.

He was a constant attendant at the meetings of the League's Council and Executive Committee; much of his time was given to the study of the question, and it was his pleasure to entertain prominent men from the Colonies, with whom he would discuss the question of Federation as it affected their interests, gathering their views, co-ordinating them with those of others, and comparing them with his own experiences gained during the 'Sunbeam ' cruises and his tenure of office at the Admiralty.

In April, 1886, the movement for Imperial Federation suffered a heavy loss by the. death of its first leader, Mr. W. E. Forster, a loss which was keenly felt by all its friends throughout the Empire. There were not wanting, however, men to take his place and lead the movement in the direction which he had pointed. The Earl of Rosebery and Mr. Edward Stanhope were elected President and Vice-President, on the understanding that the one who should hold office in the Government should for the time be Vice-President and inactive, thus insuring a change of Presidents whenever a change of governments should take place.

The Colonies Exhibition held at South Kensington in the summer of 1886 brought a number of Colonial members of the League to London, and a meeting of these was arranged by the League, at which it was determined to use the opportunity for making a strong representation to Her Majesty's Government, urging it to summon a Conference of accredited representatives of the self-governing Colonies, to confer with representatives of the United Kingdom upon the subject of Imperial Defence, and other matters of common interest.

Lord Rosebery was at this time President of the League, but in his unavoidable absence Lord Brassey undertook the duty of introducing a deputation from the Imperial Federation League to Lord Salisbury. The interview between the Prime Minister and the League's deputation had most important results. Within a few weeks a despatch was issued by Mr. Edward Stanhope, as Secretary of State, inviting the Colonies to send representatives to a Conference to be held in the course of the following year.

The Conference thus summoned, which met in 1887, the Jubilee Year of the Queen's reign, was the first official gathering of the countries of the Empire to discuss their common affairs ever held; and it was justly claimed by the League as the direct outcome of its exertions and of the representations of the deputation headed by Lord Brassey.

The Conference during its six weeks session dealt with questions connected with every branch of what may be termed the common affairs of the Empire; but its principal work was to discuss the provision of adequate Naval Defence for the vast territories and wealth which the Empire now possessed. Its operations were not, however, limited to mere discussion; a definite result was obtained in the agreement arrived at with the Australasian Colonies, whereby they undertook for ten years to bear a portion of the annual cost of a special squadron to be maintained by the United Kingdom on the Australian station; the ships not to be moved from those waters without the permission of the Colonial Governments. It cannot be said that this is an ideal arrangement, indeed it is open to very grave objections which have since become apparent; but it was a very important step in the direction of that combination of the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests which was the sine qua non of the League's manifesto.

Apparently it was not found that either the North American or the South African Colonies were disposed to act in a similar manner, and great credit has been justly given by Lord Brassey and other speakers to the Australians for being the first to recognise to this extent the responsibilities attaching to citizenship of the Empire.

Agreements were, however, arrived at between the United Kingdom and the Colonies for the fortification of various points of strategic importance in the maritime defence of the Empire.

Throughout its session the meetings of the Conference, presided over by Sir Henry Holland, were of a thoroughly business-like character, and this first gathering of the accredited representatives of the Empire was very generally regarded as an experiment calling for repetition. Lord Salisbury, when welcoming the delegates at the opening of the Conference, had said:—' This meeting is the beginning of a state of things which will have great results in the future. It will be the parent of a long progeniture, and distant councils in the Empire may in some far-off time look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which all their greatness and all their beneficence have sprung.' At the close of its proceedings these words were echoed by one of the most prominent Colonial Delegates—Sir Samuel Griffiths, Premier of Queensland—who said ' I think we may look forward to seeing this sort of informal Council of the Empire developed until it becomes a legislative body, at any rate a consultative body, and some day, perhaps, a legislative body under conditions that we cannot just now foresee; and that, indeed, meetings such as this will, before long, be recognised as part of the general governing machinery of the Empire.'

The following passage from an article in the ' Times ' of June 21, 1887, marked the change in public opinion brought about by the movement to which this volume of Lord Brassey's speeches relates:—'Imperial Federation is universally recognised as a thing desirable in itself, and not impossible of realisation at some future day, while a practical beginning has been made by the establishment of arrangements for mutual defence of a kind totally new in Colonial history.' It was pointed out that ' during the early years of the reign it was thought impossible that the Colonies should be retained by the Empire, and a powerful school of politicians went so far as to make their separation an object to be distinctly aimed at.' It is worth while noting that in 1850 the ' Times ' itself declared that it would be the ' merest prudery to attempt to blink the fact' that this object was certain to be successfully obtained.

At the time that the Delegates to the Conference of 1887 were being entertained by the friends of the movement in London, Lord Brassey, the Treasurer of the Imperial Federation League, was receiving on its behalf similar honours at the opposite end of the earth. His speech in reply to the toast of the evening at a banquet given him in Melbourne will be found in these pages, but the coincidence is worthy of mention here as evidence of the remarkable reciprocity of sentiment between England and the Colonies which existed at this period.

Imperial Federation had now obtained a definite status among the questions of the day. The subject was under continual discussion.

The years which immediately followed the Conference were probably those of the greatest activity for the Imperial Federation League, and the enthusiasm thus generated carried the movement a long way upon its course.

In 1888 the Earl of Rosebery, as President of the League, delivered two important addresses at Leeds and Edinburgh. In the former speech he pointed out how largely the foreign policy of the United Kingdom had become subservient to Colonial exigencies, and that complications with Foreign Powers were now almost universally due to Colonial interests. ' When you come to approach almost every foreign question at this moment you find the Colonial interest inseparable, and in future your Colonial policy must be a preponderating factor in your Foreign Policy as well.' Under Imperial Federation it would be necessary ' to give the Colonies a right to prompt the voice of England when it speaks abroad to a much greater extent than at present.' He concluded by declaring that he felt it was ' a cause which merited all the enthusiasm and energy that man could give it.'

At Edinburgh, after describing the present state of affairs under which all Imperial expenditure is borne by the United Kingdom, and in consequence the Colonies are without any constitutional voice in Imperial affairs, Lord Rosebery summed up the situation as follows:—' I say this state of things for both sides is anomalous and cannot continue. On the one hand you pay for everything, and that is a fool's bargain for you; and on the other hand, the Colonies may be dragged into a war without a voice in the matter, and that is a fool's bargain for them.' He added, 'I think it is worth our while to ask those Colonial statesmen what are the terms upon which they are prepared to federate, and if they desire to federate at all.'

As will be seen further on, Lord Brassey delivered many addresses upon the Federation question during the years 1888-9, and more than one from the same platform with Lord Rosebery. A host of other speakers followed suit, and the subject was under discussion from one end of the kingdom to the other. The monthly journal of the League, ' Imperial Federation,' did excellent work in collecting and focussing all these expressions of opinion, and its volumes form a complete book of reference upon the subject.

In 1889 Mr. G. R. Parkin, an eloquent Canadian, undertook on behalf of the League a visit to the Australasian Colonies, and delivered addresses in every Colony except Western Australia, with excellent effect. The League in Canada grew and flourished and branches of its organisation were established from one ocean to the other. Generally it may be said that at this period the question of Imperial Federation was under discussion throughout the British Empire, and that, although scepticism and criticism were plentiful, nowhere was consideration refused to it.

Schemes were suggested in all quarters; Federation was declared to be indissolubly bound up both with Home Rule and with Fair Trade, while the advocates of marriage with the deceased wife's sister insisted that Imperial Federation only needed the assimilation of marriage laws of the Empire to insure its success.

It need hardly be said that the League was repeatedly called upon to produce its plan. ' Where is your scheme?' 'How are you going to do it?' was the constant inquiry. But the League was reluctant to be drawn. The task which it had set itself was not that of framing a new constitution for the British Empire, but that of directing public attention to the necessity for making such changes in the constitution as would provide a place for the Colonies in the administration of the common affairs of the Empire. To many this seemed a nice distinction, almost too subtle for public consumption, and murmurs began to be heard as to the impossibility of going on without some more definite object than the two words, ' Imperial Federation.'

In order to meet in some degree that not unnatural demand for an immediate objective, it was decided in 1889 to press upon the Government a repetition in the following year of the Conference of 1887.

An important meeting was held at the Mansion H ouse in November, 1889, presided over by the Lord Mayor, in which Lord Rosebery, Lord Carnarvon and Cardinal Manning took part. Lord liosebery declared that since the Conference of 1887 'he had always felt that the existence of what was called Imperial Federation depended upon the periodical continuance and renewal of such Conferences.' The following resolution was added to the Constitution of the League:—' That the establishment of periodical Conferences of Representatives of the self-governing Communities of the Empire should be the first aim of the Imperial Federation League.'

In June, 1891, Lord Salisbury again received a deputation from the Imperial Federation League. As before, the deputation was introduced by Lord Brassey: the Earl of Iiosebery, who was President at that time, was travelling on the Continent, and, for domestic reasons, taking no part in public affairs. Lord Salisbury's reply to the request of the deputation, ' that the Government should convoke, at the earliest timely date, a Conference of the self-governing countries of the Empire, to consider the question of securing to them a real and effective share in the privileges and responsibilities of a United Empire,' was to the effect that until a definite proposition had been made as to the manner in which Imperial Federation might be carried out, it would not be reasonable to summon a Conference to consider the subject. He added:—' I think we are almost come to the time when schemes should be proposed, and that without them we shall not get very far.'

By the nature of this reply the League found itself compelled to make a further departure from the line which it had laid down for itself, by undertaking the task of preparing a scheme. It was committed to the policy of advocating periodical conferences, but was now told that such were impossible unless a definite scheme of Federation were placed upon the table.

The Council of the League, however, lost no time in taking action upon Lord Salisbury's very pointed suggestion, and an important and representative committee was appointed and drew up the report which is printed in the Appendix.

At the first meeting of this committee Lord Brassey was elected chairman, and throughout its sittings, which extended over nearly a year, he took an active and personal part in its deliberations.

This report, which was unanimous, followed closely the lines of the original resolutions upon which the League was founded, placing the combination of the resources of the Empire for the purposes of defence in the forefront of its recommendations. It declared the essentials of a United Empire to be:—

(a) That the voice of the Empire in peace, when dealing with Foreign Powers, shall be, as far as possible, the united voice of all its autonomous parts.

(b) That the defence of the Empire in war shall be the common defence of all its interests and of all its parts, by the united forces and resources of all its members, and it laid down as a leading principle 'that as all parts of the Empire enjoy the benefits of Imperial Defence, they should contribute to its cost.'

Lord Brassey's knowledge of Colonial sentiment upon the subject of contribution to Imperial expenditure led him to take some pains to present this side of the matter in the manner likely to be the most palatable to the Colonies; and though he has always, as will be seen from his speeches, recognised that such a share of Imperial taxation must inevitably follow upon the increasing influence in Imperial affairs which the Colonies are rapidly assuming, yet he has more than once asserted that the time for asking of them such Imperial contributions has not yet arrived. How long it will be possible to maintain this position, in view of the heavy demands upon the British taxpayer for the increase of the Navy, he has not attempted to define. Those who look forward to a united future for the Empire can only regard it as a matter of time when this question will have to be faced. It is undeniably the crux of the question of Federation, and its satisfactory solution probably depends upon its being taken in hand when time and circumstance admit of its being dealt with deliberately and dispassionately. If it is left to be settled upon the spur of the moment in view of some great Imperial expenditure, such as that involved by a war with a first-class Power, or if it should come up for settlement after such an expenditure has been incurred, as in the case of the American Colonies, it seems almost inevitable that the result should be as unsatisfactory as in that memorable instance.

The Report of Lord Brassey's committee embodied a scheme calculated to provide a gradual solution of this difficulty, and intended to afford a basis for discussion at an Imperial Conference, in compliance with Lord Salisbury's demand for some definite scheme to lay before such a conference for discussion. The scheme contemplated a council of the Empire, charged primarily with the responsibility for Imperial defence - -the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies being directly represented in that council. Contributions for Imperial purposes were to be raised by the Governments concerned, each in its own way, and the proportion to be paid by each country to be determined at periodical conferences held for this and other purposes. The first step recommended by the committee towards carrying out this scheme was the issue to the Colonies of a complete statement, showing ' the general necessities of the Empire in the matter of defence; the means by which defence has hitherto been provided; and the proposed means and estimated cost of providing it by joint action in the future.' The self-governing Colonies would then be invited to send representatives to a conference for the purpose of ascertaining ' the views of the different Colonies enjoying responsible government as to securing the unity of the Empire and meeting the responsibilities of Imperial defence, and for the purpose of determining the basis upon and the method by which contributions should be raised.'

This report was adopted unanimously by the Council of the League, though it is probable that opposition would have been offered upon some points but for a laudable desire for unanimity upon such an important occasion. Such opposition would have been dictated in some cases by a desire to see a more prominent place given to the subject of commercial union, and in others by the fear that a proposal involving contributions to Imperial expenditure would be unpopular in the Colonies. As regards commercial union, the committee had relegated it to the class of subsidiary measures, ' which, if not at first practicable, might become more so with the growth of a feeling of permanent unity,' a course amply justified by the rejection of Sir Charles Tupper's resolution in its favour by the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire assembled in London in the same year. The sharing of Imperial expenditure is of course directly involved in any scheme of Federation, for it is hardly possible to contemplate a federation in which the common expenses are borne by one country of the federation only. The report met with an unusually consentient approval from the Press of this country, while the feeling in the Colonies seemed to be one of disappointment that the steps advocated were not of a more sweeping character.

The League, being now armed with a definite proposition which, in its opinion, might be laid before a conference, renewed its efforts to induce the Government to repeat the successful experiment of 1887 by holding a second Imperial Conference. A change of Government having taken place, Mr. Gladstone was asked to receive a deputation from the League to formally lay before Her Majesty's Government the report of the committee, and to press upon it the desirability of summoning a conference, at which the recommendations of the report might form a basis of discussion. Mr. Gladstone received the deputation in April 1893; it was headed by Mr. Edward Stanhope, who had succeeded Lord Rosebery as President of the League upon the change of Government. Lord Brassey, for the third time, addressed the Prime Minister on behalf of the League, and on this occasion he was at pains to call attention to the stronglyexpressed desire of Canadians for a system of preferential trade within the Empire, though he could not express himself as in favour of its adoption.

Mr. Gladstone, in his reply, specially referred to the Canadian proposals in order to give the following reply to them, conclusive so far as his Government was concerned:—' I do not think I should be dealing fairly with you if I held out any expectation that, so far as I am myself concerned, and so far as my political friends are concerned, we should ever be prepared to propose the consolidation of the Empire by means of reversing again the principles of our commercial relations, and introducing preferences into the terms upon which commodities imported over sea are received in the ports of the United Kingdom.' With regard to ' unity of defence,' he said that, ' while I must not dis guise from you that it is attended with enormous difficulties on every side, yet I certainly conceive that the attainment of that end would be the attainment of an end of enormous value.' Upon the summoning of a conference Mr. Gladstone felt that ' the public mind of the country was too largely occupied at the present moment with very great questions of Imperial interest and domestic interest to allow it to be supposed that any immediate step could be taken.'

The League was thus thrown back upon its own resources, and it became necessary to consider what should be its course of action in the future. Having definitely adopted as its first aim ' the establishing of periodical conferences of representatives of the selfgoverning communities of the Empire,'and having in the last five years approached governments on both sides of politics with a view of obtaining a repetition of the con ference of 1887 without success, the question was raised whether it was possible to continue to work with that as the first aim, and whether some more immediate and practical object was not essential to any further progress of the movement. The whole question of the future action of the League was referred to a very influential small committee for consideration. This committee reported that while on the one hand it seemed impossible to carry on the movement effectually without a more defined and immediate policy, on the other hand, the variety of opinions held as to which were the really essential elements of a federation would prevent any practical direction being given to the work of the League as then constituted.

The situation was thus described in the report:—' It is not in the power of the League either to summon the proposed conference or to prepare the complete official statement, declared to be an essential preliminary to such a conference, showing the general necessities of the Empire in the matter of defence, the means by which defence has hitherto been provided, and the proposed means and estimated cost of providing it by joint action in the future. All that the League could do towards these ends would be to continue pressing successive governments to take the steps admitted to be desirable, if not essential, and having regard to the character of its organisation it is more than doubtful whether such pressure would be likely to be effectual. When a question has reached the stage thus indicated it would seem more expedient to leave the practical issue to the play of the political forces by which government is carried on. On the several grounds that have been indicated it appears that the existing organisation has reached the limits of its effective action. The special report laid before the Prime Minister in April represented the maximum of political principles and opinions attainable, as a homogeneous body, by all the numerous and diverse elements of which the League is composed.'

The secretary of the League, in a statement made to the Council at its last meeting, indicated the principal divergences of opinion upon practical points which existed among those who were entirely at one in their desire for Imperial Federation. He said:—' There is a party within the League which holds that a Commercial Union of the Empire is essential to any Federation, and there is a party which holds that such a union would not constitute a Federation, or that, in any case, a change in the fiscal policy of this country would be too great a price to pay for it. Again, there are those who hold that the combination of the resources of the Empire for defence is the first and main point in the Federation, and that no permanence of unity can exist without it; and there are those on the contrary who hold that to increase the influence and representation of the Colonies in the United Kingdom is good, but that any addition to the responsibility of the Colonies in this matter is undesirable and unnecessary.'

The recommendation of the Committee was that the League should be dissolved at the end of the year, free play being thus given to the various schools of thought as to the most effectual course of action for bringing about the desired Federation. This course was recommended to the Council in the best interests of the cause of the unity of the Empire, as more prudent than the alternative of attempting to impose upon the members of the League a definition of Imperial Federation to which the League as a whole had not hitherto assented. There was considerable opposition to this step among those who, having worked long and earnestly as members of the League, were very naturally loth to witness its disappearance. On the other hand, there was much truth in the contention that the League was formed for the purpose of advocating ' Imperial Federation' in the abstract, and that, as it had now become necessary to define more precisely what was aimed at, a fresh start should be made. This view was held by Mr. Stanhope, the President, by Lord Rosebery, the late President, by Lord Brassey, the Vice-President, and by the other officers of the League.

After several months devoted to the consideration of this and alternative courses, the report was eventually adopted by the Council, and its recommendation was acted upon at the end of the year 1893. Lord Brassey was at the time in India with the Opium Commission, of which he was the President, but he subsequently expressed his full concurrence with the action of the Council.

Thus was brought to an honourable close the career of the Imperial Federation League, and with it the first stage of the movement for the federation of the Empire. Its useful work in directing public attention to the desirability of making an effort for the perpetuation of the unity of the Empire is generally admitted; it was not allowed to survive the period of its effective action; its existence was not prolonged, as in many instances of such bodies, from sentimental or interested individual motives; having served the purpose for which it was founded, it was brought to an end.

One of the results anticipated from this step by those who were in a position to make the forecast, was that of increased activity among the advocates of Imperial Federation in consequence of the freedom of expression which would be acquired by release from association in the League with others who seriously differed from them upon practical points. So long as the League existed such men were wont to suppress their individual views in the interests of the organisation. The League having been dissolved, they would be free to use the arguments which seemed to them the most effectual. This anticipation seems to be in a fair way to fulfilment. Organisations are already ir. existence, having for their object:—1. The combination of the resources of the Empire for mutual defence. 2. The commercial union of the Empire, a. by means of preferential tariffs, b. l)y means of Free Trade. There is, moreover, a band of volunteer lecturers, who place their services at the disposal of any Society which will provide an audience. In the Colonies, most of the branches established by the League continue their work with undiminished energy, and are now able to express their opinion without any fear of clashing with the views of the cential authorities at home. There need, therefore, be no anxiety lest efforts should relax and the work of the past ten years be thrown away. Even if there were no such organisations as these, eager to seize and make the most of every opportunity of advancing the solution of the question, the matter has now reached a stage at which it cannot be left untouched. The interests of all parts of the Empire inevitably demand its solution.

It cannot be asserted that the solution will, equally inevitably, be of the nature desired by Lord Brassey and those who acted with him. The possibility of a solution in the contrary sense cannot be ignored by anyone who has given attention to the subject. To secure the permanent unity of the British Empire is, however, an object well worthy of any effort which can be devoted to its attainment, and even if the result should be to prove it impossible of attainment, yet these efforts will not have been wasted, for they will have hastened the time when the certain knowledge of this fact is brought home to us. And if this regrettable alternative is inevitable, the sooner we know that fact the better. Most of the decisions which have to be taken upon Foreign Policy, the whole scheme of our National Defence, and many questions vitally affecting our other possessions and dependencies are fundamentally affected by the answers to the question whether our self-governing Colonies elect to form a federation with us or to go their own way.

The foregoing pages give a bird's-eye view of the first phase of the movement for the Federation of the British Empire, extending through the years 1884-93 inclusive. They touch only upon the salient features of the movement, the turning points in its history—and give no idea of the amount of patient work and strenuous effort on the part of numbers of loyal men which it involved. For a record of these, reference must be made to the volumes of ' Imperial Federation' already alluded to; in them will be found invariably mentioned, often set out at length, every event bearing upon the question, every speech delivered upon the subject, every suggestion made for the solution of the problem, and every objection which has been raised to the realisation of the objects aimed at, during these years.

The part which Lord Brassey played in placing this difficult subject before the public in the United Kingdom, in Australia and in Canada, and the earnestness of his desire that the whole Empire should have before it materials for arriving at a satisfactory solution of the 'Problem of National Unity,' will be gathered from the chapters which follow.

¹ For fuller particulars of the history of the idea during this period and still earlier the reader is referred to a paper read before the Royal Colonial Institute in January, 1893, by Mr. F. de Labilliere, on ' British Federalism; its Rise and Progress'— Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, vol. xxiv. pp. 95-120. References to the genesis of the movement will also be found scattered through the pages of the Journal of the Imperial Federation League—'Imperial Federation'—its early history being specially dealt with in the issue for October, 1892—vol. vii. p. 227— and in a then recent article (there cited) in the Atlantic Monthly. It is interesting to note that, though the idea of the unity of the British Empire as it has existed since the earlier decades of the present century is of such comparatively late growth, the views that have since become current had presented themselves to the minds of thinkers and statesmen before the loss of so large a portion of Britain's first Empire by the American Revolution. Twelve years before that event Governor Pownall, in a work on The Administration, of the Colonies, had proposed making of Great Britain and her Dependencies ' a grand marine dominion . ., united into a one Empire, in a one centre, where the seat of Government is.' And every student of the history of the Empire and of Colonial administration is familiar with Adam Smith's chapter on ' Colonies ' ( Wealth of Nations, book iv. chap, vii.), in which the great thinker anticipated nearly every argument that has been used a century later. The Revolutionary War was then in progress. Even if the politicians of that day had been guided by the wisdom of the political thinkers, it was already too late. Absit omen!

¹ A list of the Council of the League in 1888 is given in Appendix III.

CHAPTER II
1880
Lord Brassey's wide Acquaintance with the British Empire:
Address at Bradford on 'Our Colonial Empire'—The Subject
of Imperial Federation comprehensively Treated—The
Leading Place given to Defence—Subsequent Activity of
Chambers of Commerce in the Movement—Coaling Stations
and Lord Carnarvon's Defence Commission.

ON January 21, 1880, Lord Brassey (at that time Sir Thomas Brassey) delivered before the Bradford Chamber of Commerce the very important address on ' Our Colonial Empire,' reproduced in the present chapter. The occasion, as well as the character of the address, was of exceptional interest, in that it was shortly after his return from one of those world-voyages which have made the 'Sunbeam' famous that Lord Brassey thus delivered himself, for the first time in a public manner and in any comprehensive form, of the vast stores of information laid up by him in his travels throughout the Colonies and dependencies of Great Britain, and of the ripe opinions which his unique experience and opportunities had enabled him to form upon the many great questions affecting the social, political and material condition of the various communities constituting the British Empire. It would be an exaggeration to say, in the sense which a literary cant use has given to the phrase, that LordBrassey ' discovered' the British Empire as it exists in this generation, if for no other reason than that Sir Charles Dilke had already in 1868 published his work on ' Greater Britain.' But it is the truth that Lord Brassey had in 1880 been grappling, by means of personal travel and observation, with those ' problems ' of the Empire as a whole, which the author and statesman just referred to came to deal with ten years afterwards in his further work given to the public in 1890.

Even if chronological sequence had not placed it first, no exposition of the general subject could have been found, wherewith to open the series of LordBrassey's speeches and writings on Colonial questions and Imperial Federation, more suitable than this Bradford address of 1880. It contains an admirable summary of the progress and existing condition of Colonial development, and further passes in review all those problems that make up what is succinctly defined as the 'Colonial Question,' the solution of which is believed to lie in some form of Imperial Federation. Two points are especially worthy of note in any general observations upon this paper. The one is the evidence afforded by it of the complete grasp of the whole question which Lord Brassey had acquired at the time it was written—four full years, be it remembered, before the Imperial Federation League was founded. The facts of the situation and all the elements of the problem, the necessities of the case, the precise object to be aimed at, the difficulties in the path, and the conditions of success, are here all understood and appreciated. It is scarcely too much to say that, great though the progress and spread of the idea of Imperial Federation has been, and far as we have travelled (it may be hoped) towards its practical realisation since this paper was written, neither Lord Brassey himself nor others who have been taking part in the same movement ever since have added very much to the knowledge of facts or recognition of principles to he seen in this paper. The other striking point about it is one that is implicitly involved in the observations just made. It is that, as the founders of the League in 1884, so Lord Brassey in 1880 already grounded the case for Imperial Federation on the necessities of Imperial Defence, and recognised as an axiomatic truth the principle that what is the common interest of all should be the common concern of all. In these days, when a disposition shows itself in some quarters to escape from the practical results of the conclusion to be drawn from these premisses, and when any insistence upon that conclusion is resented as though it were some new departure, it is especially important to note the proof given by this paper of Lord Brassey's that the principle of combining the resources of the Empire for common and united defence, and of the duty of all parts of the Empire to contribute their quota, was treated as long ago as 1880 as the essential element of Imperial Federation.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE BRADFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JANUARY 21, 1880.

YOU have asked me to address you this evening on the subject of our Colonial Empire. It is indeed a noble theme. Would that it were in my power to treat it worthily! In the course of many wanderings upon the seas I have visited Newfoundland; I have seen the magnificent scenery of the St. Lawrence, and the thriving cities of Montreal, Quebec, and Toronto. In a recent voyage round the world we touched at Hong Kong, Singapore, Aden, Malta, and Gibraltar. M ithin the memory of the present generation Hong Kong was a barren rock, from which a band of 600 pirates set forth on their lawless expeditions. It has now 124,000 inhabitants, including a civil European population of 3,000 persons, and the annual imports of English merchandise alone are not less than 3 millions sterling. At Singapore, where the English population numbers not more than 1,400, we have established a trade of collection and distribution equal in importance to that carried on from Hong Kong. The native vessels from every creek and harbour of the Eastern Archipelago collect together at the Straits Settlements, and are supplied from our well-managed counting-houses with European manufactures. Aden, which may be compared to a huge cinder lying on the arid coasts of thirsty Arabia, has become, under the beneficent influence of British administration, another great emporium of trade. Its commerce extends on the east to the shores of the Persian Gulf, and southwards to Zanzibar, and far down the eastern shores of Africa. Mocha has been deserted by the Arab merchants since we have established ourselves at Aden. An average number of 800 laden camels daily enter the gates, and the total exports and imports are nearly three millions sterling a year.

It is not necessary, however, to draw upon personal recollections in order to appreciate the fact that, without our Colonies and our foreign possessions, England would fall to the second rank in the family of nations. Maritime States have in all ages of the world exhibited the same desire to establish colonies. Phoenicia, Carthage, and Greece were great colonising States in ancient times. In the Middle Ages the lion of St. Mark exhibited the symbol of Venetian power over the whole coasts of the Mediterranean. The discoveries of Vasco da Gama opened an era of incredible prosperity for Portugal ; and Spain was not less indebted to the discoveries of Columbus. We have followed those illustrious pioneers of colonisation; but we have known better how to use our new sources of wealth, and our conquests have been more enduring.

Trade, as we know, tends to follow the flag. During the period of commercial depression through which we have lately passed, and from which we are now very gradually emerging, it has been in the British possessions alone that the export trade has displayed any growth and elasticity. In a paper by Dr. Forbes Watson, read at the Colonial Institute in February 1878, a comparison is made of our export trade in 1876 and 1869. I propose to bring the figures down to 1878, the last year included in the Statistical Abstract. The figures disclose a significant change in the direction of our external trade. While the exports to foreign countries had risen from 141,900,000l. in 1869 to 195,700,000l. in 1872, and had fallen again in 1878 to 126,611,000l., our Colonial and Indian trade has steadily grown in the same interval from 48,000,000l. to 66,237,000l., or from 25·3 per cent, to 34·4 per cent, of our total commerce.

When we pass from the aggregate figures to examine our Colonial trade in detail, we discover additional evidences of its great importance to the industrial prosperity of our country. The populations of the British Empire in the parts beyond the seas are, in proportion to their numbers, by far the most extensive consumers of our manufactures. It appears from a table prepared by Mr. Frederick Young ¹ that the annual consumption of our merchandise per head is represented by the following figures:—United States, 7 s.; Germany, 9s. 2d.; France, 7 s. 8d. • North American Colonies, 21. 2s. 9d.; Australia, 8l. 10s. 8d. A more elaborate analysis by Dr. Forbes Watson brings out this striking result, that Australia actually consumes per head of population a larger quantity of English manufactures than we require ourselves.

Our Colonial trade is the more valuable because, as Dr. Forbes Watson points out, it is largely composed of articles in an advanced stage of manufacture. Of our exportations of apparel, blankets, flannels, books, cutlery, and other articles of domestic consumption, the Colonies take 16,800,000l., or about 70 per cent, of the total exportation. The proportion in 1869 did not exceed 58 per cent. Of the cotton trade, which forms about onethird of our total exports, two-fifths were taken by the British possessions. Between 1869 and 1876 they increased their consumption of our goods by 6,300,000l.; while our exportations to foreign countries diminished by 4,500,000l. Not only was the aggregate quantity increased, but the goods were more highly finished than those we supply to many foreign countries. The Colonies take 40 per cent, of finished cotton manufactures; they take only 21·9 per cent, of cotton yarns. They take 23·4 per cent, of our woollen and worsted manufactures, and only ·3 per cent, of yarn. They take 40· per cent, of manufactured, and only 3·6 per cent, of pig, iron. They take 17·7 per cent, of wrought and unwrought steel, and 40·6 per cent, of our exportations of hardware and cutlery, and 53·2 per cent, of our exports of implements.

Having shown the importance of our Colonial trade, let us turn to the growth of the Colonies themselves. The statistics of New Zealand have recently been collected by Sir Julius Vogel. In the fifteen years, 1861—1876, gold was exported of the value of 32,117,000l., and wool of the value of 27,719,000l. Since 1870, 1,000 miles of railway and 2,300 miles of road have been constructed, 3,260 miles have been added to the telegraph wires, and 90,000 emigrants have been introduced. I may complete this statement by quoting from a speech of Sir James Fergusson, at a meeting of the Colonial Institute, in March 1877. Referring to the successive results of the public works policy of Sir Julius Yogel, he said that the population had increased from 237,000 in 1869 to 400,000 in 1876, and the value of the wool annually exported from 1,771,000l. to 3,396,000l. The revenue had risen from 1,787,000l. in 1867 to 3,500,000l. in 1876. The rise in the value of private property had been enormous; and he affirmed, from the experience of his high official connection with the Colony, that all this was no ephemeral prosperity, but a final, solid, and enduring progress.

Wool is the staple trade of New South Wales. The number of sheep has increased tenfold in ten years, the number in 1876 exceeding 24,500,000. South Australia with only 237,000 inhabitants has 6,000,000 sheep, and exports nearly 5,000,000l. of produce annually. More than a million acres are under wheat cultivation. Wheat is the great staple of the Colony, and it fetches the highest price in the world. Queensland, though founded so recently as 1859, has a population of 200,000 scattered over her 430,000,000 of acres. Upwards of 700 miles of railway have been made. The general exports in 1876 amounted to 3,740,000l. Between 1860 and 1875 the exports of gold from the Colony amounted to 7,000,000l.

The Statistical Abstract prepared by Mr. Giffen furnishes ample means for comparing our own possessions with foreign countries. In 1875 the average yield of wheat per acre was 14·7 bushels in New South Wales, 15·5 in Victoria, 12 in South and Western Australia, 31·5 in New Zealand, 22 in the Province of Ontario in Canada, 12·3 in the United States, 5·5 in Russia.

Canada a century ago contained less than 150,000 people; it has now 4,000,000 inhabitants. 18,000,000 acres are already under cultivation, and the great prairie or corn-growing region is at least 1,000 miles square. It is intersected by streams described, in the glowing language of Lord Dufferin, as beautiful and varied in their scenery, fervid in the volume of their waters, and flowing for their entire length through alluvial plains of the richest description. Professor Macoun, a botanist, recently commissioned to investigate the subject, has reported that no less than 160,000,000 acres are available in this region alone for farming and grazing, and that one-half of this area was considered fit for cultivation. So destitute of population is this vast region that it has been estimated by Mr. Sandford Fleming that not more than 20,000 or 30,000 inhabitants can be found within a very considerable distance of any part of the 3,000 miles of railway which have been projected to unite the oldest provinces of the Dominion with British Columbia.

'Such,' says Mr. Young, in summing up these marvellous statistics of our Colonial development, ' such is that British Empire which has been so truly described by Lord Carnarvon as the most magnificent picture of administration that the labours of man ever created, or the eyes of man have ever seen.'

We have seen the importance of the Colonies as the consumers of our manufactured products; they are not less essential to us for the supplies of food which they furnish to the teeming population of these islands. Mr. Bourne has shown that we cannot expect in this country a material increase in the life-sustaining abilities of the land. Half of our food already consists of foreign importations. It has been estimated by Mr. Bourne that the demand for imported food and raw material will increase every year by considerably more than six millions sterling. We must proportionately increase our exports in order to pay for these ever-growing importations. We have seen the stagnation in the Continental demand, and the growth in the consumption of our goods in our own possessions. If some of that capital so recklessly squandered in mushroom States had been carefully and gradually expended in our own Colonies, the investors would have obtained a steadier return, and the commerce of this country would have receivfdamore lasting benefit. The Colonies offer an inviting field both for the industrious labourer and the small capitalist. In our own country there is already an ample population, and the openings are few for men of moderate resources. Men without capital, even when gifted with abilities beyond the average, experience a delay of years before they can cover the ordinary cost of living from a professional or a commercial income.

Mr. Bourne, in his recent paper, has urged the duty of colonisation, both on economic and on still higher grounds. By conquest, by discovery, and from motives of philanthropy, we have appropriated a wide space upon the earth. We cannot evade the responsibilities of our acquisitions. We must give to these countries the freedom that we enjoy, the commerce and the agriculture that we have organised, the civilisation under which we live, mid the religion with which we ourselves are blessed. It is only by emigration that this beneficent mission can be accomplished.

We have now passed in review some of the salient facts of our Colonial development. We have just reason to be proud of our wide and growing Empire beyond the seas. It may not always be possible to preserve a common centre for such an Empire, although we have simplified our task to the utmost by yielding to the Colonies an absolute independence in their internal affairs. In this we shall all agree that our noble confederation shall not be broken up for the sake of a paltry reduction in the Navy or the Army Estimates.

We have lately expended large sums for objects of very inferior importance to that of providing for the defence of our Colonies. Captain Colonib reminds us that we have erected costly barracks in the very centre of England in pursuance of a somewhat theoretical plan of military reorganisation, while all our coals for our war and merchant ships are left unprotected throughout the world.

In his ' Recollections and Suggestions,' that great statesman lately departed, Earl Russell, says:—' It may be a matter of doubt whether or no to build up a Colonial Empire; but it is evident that if Great Britain gives up her supremacy from a niggardly spirit of parsimony, or from a craven feeling of helplessness, other Powers will soon look on the Empire, not with the regard due to an equal as she once was, but with jealousy of the height she once held and without the fear she once inspired. To build up an Empire extending over every sea, swaying many diverse races, and combining many forms of religion, requires courage and capacity. To allow such an Empire to fall to pieces is a task which may be performed by the poor in intellect and the pusillanimous in conduct.'

The cost to the British Exchequer of the most valuable Colonies has been brought down to a nominal charge. There is no reluctance on the part of the wealthier Colonies to bear the cost of local defence. Sydney already possesses a turret-ship, the 'Cerberus.' Melbourne has a small navy. At Adelaide an ironclad has been talked of. At Sydney a force of 300 regular artillerymen, a torpedo corps, and a naval brigade of 100 men has been organised. New Zealand possesses an efficient militia as a protection against the Maories. Tasmania has a corps of 800 Volunteers, described to me by Lieutenant Bower of the ' Wolverine,' from whose correspondence these details have been derived, as badly organised, but full of zeal. Both Sydney and Melbourne have been partially fortified. It has lately been determined by each of the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales to expend 350,000l., besides an additional annual outlay of 73,000l., in providing a force of ships, guns, and torpedoes.

The resources of our Colonies are, indeed, ample for every purpose of self-defence. The fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, according to a statement of Mr. Frederick Young, give employment to 1,000 ships, 17,000 smacks manned by 7,000 sailors, and 26,000 fishermen. I am informed by Sir Bryan Robinson, for twenty years Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, that these figures are inadequate. Speaking of the Colony with which he has been himself connected, he says that the male population in 1874 numbered 82,693. Deducting one-half for old men, young children, and a few persons who do not follow a sea-faring life, there would remain 41,347 sailors familiar with square-rigged vessels. The Dominion stands fifth in the maritime tonnage of nations, ranking after Great Britain, the United States, Norway, and Italy, but before Germany and France.

Turning from Canada to the Antipodes, the naval resources of the Australasian Colonies may be appreciated when we consider the immense seaboard of New Zealand, and the distance of a thousand miles which separates it from the Australian continent, and which must inevitably lead to a great development of maritime enterprise and power.

In a paper published in 1872 in the ' Annual of the School of Naval Architecture,' Mr. Barnaby rightly urged that the British Empire, if effectively organised as a maritime confederacy, would be enabled not only to maintain itself in security from attack, but that it would be a guarantee of maritime peace to all the wayfarers on the seas. Organisation, however, was then wanting, as it still is, and it is a work which essentially belongs to a time of peace. The initiative must come from the Mother-country from our experienced statesmen and our numerous body of highly-trained officers, who have leisure for the consideration of these things.

The task before us is difficult, because it has been too long neglected. In a speech at the Crystal Palace in 1872, Lord Beaconsfield expressed his regret that the means and responsibilities by which the Colonies should be defended, and by which, if necessary, this country should call for aid from the Colonies themselves, had not been considered and defined at the time when self-government was conceded. I find an identical expression of opinion in the ' Telegraph,' a Brisbane journal, in an article on a pamphlet on ' A Colonial Naval Volunteer Force,' which I published in 1878. The question still demands solution. Sitting in the chair at a meeting of the Royal United Service Institution, during a discussion on Captain Colomb's paper, ' On the Naval and Maritime Resources of the Colonies,' I remember to have heard Mr. Strangrvays, late Premier of South Australia, declare that the first and most important subject for consideration was that of Imperial unity. He asked whether, if they called upon the Colonies to join with England in a general advance of the whole Empire, they were prepared to give to those Colonies a voice in the question of peace or war? That was the very essence of the question. If England became involved in a great war, it would have one of two effects in connection with her relation to the Colonies. It would either bind England and her Colonies into one vast Empire such as the world had never seen, or it would entirely separate her from those Colonies. Which was the end that they should seek after 1 Was it not that of uniting together into one vast whole the enormous resources of the whole English Empire? Mr. Strangways recommended a Federal Council, which should be consulted on questions of external policy. Sir Julius Vogel, another oxColonial Minister, expresses the opinion that there is nothing impracticable in this proposal, because there is a complete identity of thought in the British people.

The Colonies are sensible of the weakness of isolated action. They know that each Colony is too jealous of the rest to admit of a formidable combination under any other supremacy than that of the Mother-country. They know, to use the words of the leading Sydney journal, that it would cost the Colonies no more to have their naval defence under Imperial than under local control, while they would get much more for their money in the shape of security. The proposal of Mr. Barnaby, that each member of the British Confederation should contribute towards the national fleet in proportion to the volume of their exports, may be made the basis of an equitable arrangement. It may be that some more independent plan in the nature of a perpetual and friendly alliance may be adopted. Whatever may be the final settlement, the indefinite adjournment of this question, simply because it does not happen to be pressed forward by agitation out of doors, is most earnestly to be deprecated. Bitter indeed will be the reproaches heaped upon the statesmen or the party which should be held responsible for having, from mere neglect, brought about the disintegration of the Empire.

The apportionment of responsibility, as between England and her wealthiest and most populous Colonies, is the only difficulty with which we have to grapple. With regard to the points to he defended and the methods of defence, there are no differences of opinion. Few words can be necessary in order to establish the importance of providing for the defence of our coalingstations or the lines of communication with our Australian Colonies and with India and China. Since the introduction of propulsion by steam, of iron ships and iron armour, outlying naval stations are more than ever requisite for supplies of coal and for repairs which can only be effected in port. A steam navy, and more especially an ironclad navy, if deprived of its coalingstations, is practically helpless. The ' Alexandra,'our flagship in the Mediterranean, at her maximum speed does not carry coal enough for three days; at the slower speed of 13 knots she burns 200 tons a day. The limit of her range at full speed does not exceed the distance from Plymouth to Lisbon or, perhaps, Gibraltar.

The recent detention of transports at St. Vincent, at a time when the early arrival of reinforcements at the Cape was a matter of most momentous importance, is another illustration of the necessity that exists for a sufficient number of well-supplied and properly-defended coaling-stations. The importance of securing the British coaling-stations against attack is the more urgent because the foreign coaling-stations in America, the Brazils, in the North Atlantic, the Cape de Verde, Madeira, and Lisbon, and those in the Pacific and Japan, would no longer be accessible. Coal is contraband of war, and as our cruisers would be unable to obtain supplies at the foreign ports to which they frequently resort in time of peace, the replenishment of coal would be one of the great difficulties with which the Navy would have to contend.

The bases on which the Navy would mainly depend in the event of war were enumerated by Sir William Jervois in a paper read before the United Service Institution in 1871:—'Malta and Gibraltar for the Mediterranean; Halifax and Bermuda for the Atlantic; Port Royal, Jamaica, from its position with reference to the West Indies and the Gulf of Mexico; Bombay and Aden; Simon's Bay at the Cape of Good Hope; Port Louis, Mauritius, a harbour in Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong, and some other ports are, in military language, the strategical bases for our foreign squadrons.'

Vigorous efforts were lately made, under the apprehension of a war with Russia, to extemporise defences. Until a recent period Galle, Singapore, and Hong Kong on the line to India and China, and St. Helena, the Cape, and the Falkland Islands on the Australian route, were practically undefended. I have already stated that steps had been taken by the Colonial legislatures to erect defences for Sydney and Melbourne. I am not aware what progress lias hitherto been made, and a letter lately received from a naval correspondent gives a somewhat humiliating picture of the state of affairs so recently as 1878. At that time, he writes, there was one never-failing topic that would excite and interest a Colonial community. It was necessary merely to mention the words ' Russian privateer,'and anywhere in the towns of Sydney, Melbourne, or Auckland the audience would start an animated discussion. Bank managers would explain that there was constantly a reserve of three millions in the Sydney banks, and in other towns a proportionate amount. Others would dilate 011 the useless expense of inadequate defensive works. A strong patriotic feeling existed; and, as a consequence, torpedo corps were extemporised, torpedoes ordered, guns mounted, and every preparation made for a passive defence; but, from first to last, in these English communities, amongst the most enterprising people in the world, nowhere, except in Melbourne, was a single preparation made for active offensive warfare. If we have been remiss in not providing for the defence of our Colonies and coaling-stations, we have been equally supine on the scarcely less important question of dock accommodation. In the last session of Parliament, the First Lord of the Admiralty was perseveringly questioned by Colonel Arbuihnot, who succeeded in eliciting the admission that none of the Colonies have availed themselves of the Colonial Docks Loan Act of 1865, and that, in point of fact, except at Malta, Bermuda, Hong Kong, and perhaps in Australia, we have no dock accommodation for large ironclads away from England.

Returning to the unprotected condition of our foreign naval stations, it may be asked, By what means is the defence to be secured? Not by the sea-going iieet. The main object of our naval policy, says Captain Colomb, should be to maintain our communications by sea by means of sea-going ships, which should be employed, not in the defence of the coaling-stations which are their base of operations, but in cruising on the great sea routes to and from the heart of the Empire, and in blockading the enemy in his own seaports. Fortification, as it has been said by Major Parnell, is merely a form of economy. It secures our ports, and allows our ships to be used more advantageously in offensive fighting. It is as a fence round a field. The farmer could keep off intruders by employing watchmen. A fence is the cheaper method. Fortifications need not be costly. Booms, torpedo-boats, earthworks, a few guns judiciously placed, will protect a port from isolated cruisers. In America, where, in the long struggle with the Southern States, naval operations for the attack and defence of harbours were carried out on a scale of unprecedented magnitude, it is considered that large ironclads are unnecessary, and that heavy guns, rams, and torpedoes are sufficient to make a good defence against a modern fleet. Where a military force is required to man works, the Colonial Governments will doubtless be prepared to raise a local militia, or to organise Volunteers. Where a naval force is required to man a flotilla of rams or torpedo-boats, it should be organised upon the model of the Royal Navy Artillery Volunteers.

A force like our Naval Reserve would also be required to man the crews of sea-going vessels. Mr. Marshall Smith, an experienced master in the Colonial merchant service, reports to the ' Nautical Magazine' of May last that the crews of the merchant shipping of Australia number 5,300, of whom he anticipates that 2,000 would be ready to enrol in the Naval Reserve. Tf the Colonial seamen could be induced to join, the Mother-country could readily furnish the officers and instructors. These are proposals which require forethought rather than money. In a harbour of great commercial importance, such as Singapore or Hong Kong, a small charge upon the tonnage would provide the necessary funds. Where the trade is small, as in the Falkland Islands, the Home Government must pay, just as it now does for Gibraltar and Malta.

I regret that I have occupied so large a share of your time with topics which may appear irrelevant in addressing a Chamber of Commerce. I plead the importance of the subjects I have brought before you, and the necessity of arousing the Government to action. The annual value of the foreign commerce of this country, as shown by the Board of Trade Returns, exceeds 600 millions sterling. To this should be added for the shipping a sum which would bring the total amount at stake, in the event of war, to more than 650 millions sterling. If it could be shown that, with an expenditure of less than a million, our coaling-stations could be made secure, could any Government stand excused before the country which would hesitate to apply to Parliament for the funds required for such a purpose? Under our popular system of Government nothing is done except in deference to external pressure. Agitation is too often the necessary preliminary to all administrative or legislative action. In appealing to the Chamber of Commerce of Bradford, I seek to make use of my present opportunity for a patriotic and a practical purpose. We are here to day on a neutral platform in the centre of a great hive of industry. We acknowledge our dependence on our foreign commerce, and we think it our duty to arouse the Government to a sense of their responsibility for the security of our trade. We desire to proclaim to our sons and our brethren who have gone forth from our shores to settle in the distant dependencies of the Crown, that we admire and are thankful for the energy they have displayed in turning wildernesses into gardens, and in spreading their flocks and their herds over the prairies of North America and the boundless plains of the Antipodes. They are rapidly forming themselves into new nations; but we trust that they may long be content to live together with us beneath the mild ar.d equal sway of our beloved and constitutional Sovereign. Let us send it forth as a message from Bradford that we claim no right of interference with their concerns, while, on the other hand, we are evei ready to obey their call for help. We think that the union of the Anglo-Saxon race is a mutual benefit to all the members of the family. Within a period of time so recent that it seems but the yesterday of history, we have seen the Italians and the Germans united under one Government. We recognise the accession of influence which these nationalities have gained. More lately still, we have felt the pressure of Sclavonic ambition. We have watched the progress of these events without apprehension for ourselves, because we have had confidence in one another. Our communities may be scattered over all the earth, but while we remain united by cne deep national sentiment and England is still a home to all her sons, there is not weakness, but strength, in the wide extent of our Colonial Empire.

The extraordinary growth and progress of the Colonies and the value of their trade to the United Kingdom, dwelt upon in the earlier portion of this address, are more widely as well as more fully recognised nowadays than at the time when Lord Brassey addressed the Chamber of Commerce in so important a centre of a great manufacturing industry as Bradford. The seed thus sown fell on fruitful ground. Not only at Bradford, but at almost all the principal manufacturing and commercial towns in the three kingdoms, including the metropolis itself, the Chambers of Commerce have warmly taken up the cause of Imperial Federation as one intimately associated with the commercial prosperity of the United Kingdom. And though in some cases there has at times been a tendency among the members of such bodies to become entangled in the meshes of those fiscal controversies and theories that have grown round the parent stem of Imperial Federation properly so called, and at times threatened to choke it altogether, nevertheless it is extremely satisfactory to find that Chambers of Commerce have more and more come to recognise the truth of the doctrine inculcated by Lord Brassey further on in the same address, that the primary interest of Commerce is that its channels may he kept open and its communications safeguarded in war as well as in peace—that above all questions of Free Trade or Fair Trade stands that of Safe Trade, and that consequently the Unification of the Empire for purposes of common defence is the one primary and essential object to be aimed at. In later years we shall find Lord Brassey defining in very clear terms his own position on that question of tarifis and preferential treatment of British goods in the Custom Houses of the Empire that have led many away from the quest of the one object without which the attainment of all the others would be in vain—that security, namely, which is the breath of Commerce. We shall see, also, the majority of the Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, represented at the Congresses of Associated Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, declining to give their sanction to tariff policies of the nature referred to, at the same time that they lend a hearty support to those who seek by whatever means to strengthen the Defensive Forces by which the safety of British commerce may be insured throughout the world.

While impressing, therefore, upon his hearers the importance of the Colonial trade (and taking perhaps even a more sanguine view, based upon its course up to that date, of the elasticity of that trade, as compared with that done by foreign countries with the United Kingdom, than the statistics of its later course would altogether justify), Lord Brassey abstains from dabbling in schemes for fostering a factitious increase in the volume of that trade by any adventitious means of doubtful efficacy, and settles down at once to enforce the true moral that the first duty of all those who profit by it is to unite for the purpose of giving it that security from molestation and disturbance which is essential to its vitality and the surest means of encouraging its growth. And so the last two-thirds of his address are concerned exclusively with the question of Imperial Defence. On this subject, which is co extensive with all that is absolutely essential in the field of Imperial Federation, Lord Brassey, as has been said in the few general observations made at the beginning of this chapter, shows an appreciation of all the factors of the problem, and an insight into its conditions to which later experience has added but little. In particular it is important to note how clearly he recognises the need of apportioning the responsibility for Imperial Defence among the different parts of the Empire, and the necessity of giving to those parts which are to undertake a share of the burden not hitherto borne by them the correlative right of representation on a Council of the Empire dealing with the policy and the cost of the affairs to be jointly administered.

It is interesting to mark, in connection with the account given of the unprotected state of the coalingstations and Colonial harbours, how great is the progress that has been made since 1880. Lord Brassey refers to a paper in which Captain (now Sir John) Colomb had pointed to the lamentable deficiencies that then existed in respect to the protection of coalingstations and naval bases. Lord Carnarvon's Defence Commission reported in 1882, though its recommendations were not made public for seme years later; but they were (for the most part) gradually carried into practical effect, and another two years saw enormous strides made in these essential parts of a complete system of Imperial Defence. One necessity that Lord Brassey urged is as great now as in 1880; the necessity, that is, of bringing pressure to bear on the Government and Parliament to get money voted for purposes of Imperial Defence. And what is true of Executives and Legislatures in the United Kingdom is no less true of Executives and Legislatures in the Colonies.

1 Now Sir Frederick Young, K.C.M.G.

CHAPTER III
1886-7
Events between 1880-86—Formation of Imperial Federation
League in 1884—Lord Brassey's Connection with it—His
Speech on introducing League Deputation to Lord Salisbury
in 1886—The Prime Minister's Reply—Results—Imperial
Conference, 1887—Jubilee Year at Melbourne—Speech at
Imperial Federation Banquet at Melbourne—The Colonies
and Imperial Defence.

BETWEEN 1880 and 1886, the next year in which Lord Brassey made any important public speech on the subject of Imperial Federation, a great deal had happened, and the movement had assumed a definiteness of shape and aim that had not belonged to it in the former year. In 1881 had been founded the Imperial Federation League, the genesis of which has already been sketched. Lord Brassey's travels had prevented his taking the part lie otherwise would undoubtedly have taken in the formation of that society; but very shortly after its formation he commenced to take a prominent share in its work and became one of the Honorary Treasurers, a post he held until he was elected to the Vice-Presidency. The existence of the League served to focus the aims of those who had been individually thinking and writing and speaking on the subject, and to concentrate and organise their work. The Colonial and Indian Exhibition held in 1886 proved a further powerful stimulus to the Imperial idea ; and the presence in this country of so many of our Colonial fellow-subjects, including among them numerous well-known and experienced politicians, not only gave opportunity for ample discussion of an informal character, but afforded means for the more organised interchange of opinion in the Conferences that were held by the League within the building at South Kensington during the continuance of the Exhibition.

In this year the Committee of the League decided to take up a deputation to the Prime Minister to urge the Government to call a formal Conference of the Empire or to appoint a Royal Commission, representative of the United Kingdom and of the self-governing Colonies, to suggest means of concerted action for placing the defence of the ports and commerce of the Empire on a satisfactory basis in time of war, and for other purposes calculated to secure- the closer federation or union of all parts of the Empire. Shortly before this deputation was received, the League had been holding, in July, a special two days' Conference at the Exhibition under the presidency of the Earl of Rosebery, Chairman of the League; and this Conference had been followed by a largely attended and most successful banquet, under the same presidency, at which H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Chancellor Herschell, Cardinal Manning, Lord Wolseley, and many other eminent public men were present. In the unavoidable absence of Lord Rosebery in Scotland, it fell to Lord Erassey to introduce the deputation, the Vice-Chairman, the Rt. Hon. Edward Stanhope, being at the time a member of Lord Salisbury's Cabinet, and present with the Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, to receive the deputation.¹ It is worth while to place on record the names of many of those who took part in this interesting and important occasion, as they formed an influential and remarkably representative assemblage. The deputation included:—

Lord Stratheden and Campbell, Colonel Sir Charles Nugent, Mr. James A. Youl, Rev. Canon Dalton, Sir Daniel Cooper (New South Wales), Sir Henry Darkly, Major-General Sir Lewis Pelly, M.P., Sir Dawson Rawson, Colonel C. E. Howard Vincent, M.P., Baron Dimsdale, M.P., Sir Samuel Davenport (late Commissioner of Public Works, South Australia), General Sir W. Crossman, M.P., Mr. A. Staveley Hill, M.P., Mr. D'Alton M'Carthy (President of the Imperial Federation League in Canada), Sir Julian Goldsmid, M.P., Captain Cotton, M.P., Lieut.-Colonel Myles Sandys, M.P., Mr. R. GentDavis, M.P., Mr. L. L. Cohen, M.P., Alderman Sir Robert Fowler, M.P., Colonel Gourley, M.P., Mr. H. Kimber, M.P., Lord Lewisham, M.P., Mr. H. L. W. Lawson, M.P., Mr. David Duncan, M.P., Sir John Simon, M.P., Sir Roper Lethbridge, M.P., Mr. H. Seton-Karr, M.P., Mr. O. V. Morgan, M.P., Captain J. C. It. Colomb, M.P., Mi'. J. Henniker Heaton, M.P., Sir Charles Nicholson (late Speaker, New South Wales), Mr. Wilson Noble, M.P., Sir Samuel Wilson, M.P., Sir Francis V. Smith (late Chief Justice of Tasmania), Lord Castletown of Upper Ossory, Mr. A. Cameron Corbett, M.P., Mr. W. Ewart, M.P., Mr. J. Horne Payne (representing Kensington Branch), General Sir John Watson, V.C. (late Political Resident at Baroda), Mr. W. Mackinnon, Mr. Alexander Turnbull, The Hon. Murray Finch-Hatton, M.P., The Hon. Harold Finch-Hatton, Sir Charles Clifford (late of New Zealand), Mr. John Sweet Distin (delegate from Imperial Federation League in South Africa), Lord Fife, Mr. H. A. Perry, Mr. Sandford Fleming (delegate from Imperial Federation League in Canada), Mr. H. H. Lyman (Treasurer of Imperial Federation League in Canada), Mr. Alfred Simmons, Mr. (J. W. Rusden, Mr. A. McGoun (Secretary of Imperial Federation League in Canada), Mr. H. O. Arnold Forster, Mr. C. Washington Eves, Mr. P. Ralli, Mr. William J. Browne, Mr. S. V. Morgan, Mr. Charles Percy Davis, Mr. F. Young (late Hon. Secretary Royal Colonial Institute), Mr. Gisborne Molineux, Mr. F. P. Labilliere (late of Victoria), Mr. James L. Ohlson (Secretary West India Committee), Mr. G. R. R. Cockburn (delegate from Imperial Federation League in Canada), Mr. P. Vernon Smith (representing Paddington Branch), Mr. H. N. Moseley (Cambridge Branch), Mr. J. Stanley Little (Haslemere Branch, Lord Tennyson, President), Professor A. S. Napier (Oxford Branch), Mr. P. S. Vanderbyl (Cape of Good Hope), Mr. Peter Redpath (representative in England of Imperial Federation League in Canada, representative of Canada at Conference of Chambers of Commerce), Mr. W. McMillan (President of Chambers of Commerce, Sydney, New South Wales), Mr. H. Holbrook (late Minister British Columbia), Mr. P. E. T. Hemelryk, Mr. W. S. Sebright Green (representing Liv erpool Branch), Mr. R. G. Webster, M.P., and Mr. A. H. Loring (Organising Secretary to the League).

SPEECH UPON INTRODUCING A DEPUTATION OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE TO THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY AS PRIME MINISTER, AUGUST 11, 1886.

LORD BRASSEY, in introducing the deputation, said ' My Lord Salisbury,—I have the honour to introduce to you a deputation of the Imperial Federation League. The League was founded under the presidency of the late Mr. Forster, and it now includes seventy-four Members of Parliament, of all shades of political opinion, and several distinguished Governors, ex-Governors, and Ministers of the Colonies. Among those distinguished statesmen I may mention that we include Sir John Macdonald. The object of the League is to secure by Federation the permanent unity of the Empire. We desire to carry out the policy of Federation under proper and prudent safeguards, and I may call your Lordship's attention to the two first provisions of the constitution of the League. They are these:—" That no scheme of Federation should interfere with the existing rights of local Parliaments as regards local affairs;" and " That any scheme of Imperial Federation should combine, upon an equitable basis, the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and adequately provide for an organised defence of common rights."

' We attend here to-day, by your Lordship's kind permission, in pursuance of a resolution of the League to the following effect:—" That a deputation of the League shall attend upon the Prime Minister or Colonial Secretary for the purpose of urging him to call a Conference or to appoint a Royal Commission, to he composed of accredited representatives of the United Kingdom, and of each of the self-governing Colonies, for the purpose of suggesting some practical means whereby concerted action may be taken, (1) for placing upon a satisfactory basis the defence of the ports and the commerce of the Empire in time of war; (2) for promoting direct intercourse, commercial, postal and telegraphic, between the several countries of the Empire in time of peace, and any other means for securing the closer Federation or union of all parts of the Empire."

' My Lord, probably no deputation has ever waited upon the Prime Minister of this country which is so representative of all parts of the Empire. In proof of that, I may say that our deputation includes Sir Samuel Davenport, late Commissioner of Public Works in South Australia; Sir Daniel Cooper, of New South Wales; Sir Lewis Pelly and General Sir John Watson, representing the Civil Service in India; Sir Henry Barkly, late Governor of the Cape of Good Hope; Sir Charles Nicholson, late Speaker of New South Wales; Sir Charles Clifford, New Zealand; Mr. Archibald McGoun, Secretary of the League in Canada; and Mr. W. McMillan, President of the Chamber of Commerce of Sydney. The Marquis of Normanby came to town yesterday for the purpose of attending this deputation, but is unfortunately prevented, by illness, from being present.

¹ In conclusion, my Lord, I desire to say emphatically that we do not expect from your Lordship any expression of opinion in favour of any particular solution of the difficult problem of Imperial Federation, but we do desire to impress upon the Government the desirability of appointing a Conference or a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. We believe that this is the most effective and practical step which could be taken at the present juncture. The speakers who will address you on behalf of the deputation are the Hon. Mr. Service, late Premier of Victoria, who has taken such an important part in Federation in the South Pacific; Mr. Peter Redpath, representing the Imperial Federation League in Canada; and Mr. Vanderbyl, of the Cape of Good Hope.'

In addition to the gentlemen referred to, Captain (now Sir John) Colomb also spoke, and stated that the principle of discussing ' the practical business of the defence of the Empire' in a Conference with the selfgoverning Colonies had approved itself to the late Mr. W. E. Forster as the first practical step to be taken. He pointed out that there had never been direct consultation with the Colonies, communications being filtered through officials and Government departments; and that though there had been an immensity of correspondence and a Royal Commission on Defence, very little had hitherto come of it. It is fair, however, to remember that though but little actual work had been done upon the recommendations of Lord Carnarvon's Commission (which had not at that time been made public), the ultimate outcome of it was to place the coaling-stations and naval bases of the Empire in a far better condition of defence than they had ever been before.

Lord Salisbury's reply was sympathetic. He said it would be difficult to overrate the importance of the deputation and the cause it had in hand; remarked upon the astonishing growth of the Imperial sentiment in recent years; and observed that it would be a great mistake to imagine, because no definite propositions were laid down, that the movement was on that account shadowy or unreal. On the contrary, whilst fully recognising the enormous difficulties in the way, he expressed his belief that the force of the sentiment that had been growing up must find an outlet by some means. He congratulated the deputation that the matters on which it proposed that action should be taken were (unlike such delicate questions as that of removing fiscal barriers and some others that had been referred to) of a limited and practical character, and such as had already advanced far towards maturity, so that there was probably a good deal to be done in connection with them within a reasonable space of time, especially the ' somewhat urgent question' of Imperial Defence. That question, he reminded the deputation, had been under the consideration of the Colonial Governments and of the Home Government for some time. But the difficulties inherent in it were eminently of a nature that could be overcome by communication between the Colonies and the Mother-country, as was proposed by the resolution of the League presented by Lord Brassey and the deputation. Lord Salisbury expressed the hope that the day would come when the Empire would be drawn more closely together for purposes of organised defence; and reciprocated the feelings expressed to him and the desire that the Mother-country and Colonies should act together on those matters which concern their common interests—a desire it was the great object of the Imperial Federation League to enforce. He promised the careful attention of his Cabinet to the suggestions and arguments of the deputation, and concluded: I am sure that we shall approach this question and consider the representations of this deputation, feeling that we are dealing with questions which will affect, for many a generation to come, vast portions of the earth's surface, and many, many millions of the subjects of the Queen.' The views of the deputation and Lord Salisbury's reply were very generally approved in the public Press.

The results of this action of the League, and of the deputation introduced by Lord Brassey to the Prime Minister, are matter of history. As the journal of the League, ' Imperial Federation' (then in the first year of its existence), pointed out at the time, what happened at the deputation was important, but what did not happen was more important still. The old official platitudes were not produced, the old official formulas were omitted. ' The period of government by snubbing is at an end. . . . The Prime Minister of England and the Secretary of State for the Colonies not only receive the advocates of Federation with cordiality, but speak with unmistakable warmth and sincerity of their deep interest in the question, and of their determination to further the cause. Three years ago the whole scene would have been impossible. It is no affair of parties, scarcely even of men. The happy change is merely the outcome of that transformed public opinion which, with incredible rapidity, the League has half created and half revealed.'¹ The Government were not long in making up their minds to act upon the recommendations of the League, conveyed by the deputation that went up in August, 1886. It was decided to convene a Conference in London early in the following year. It fell, appropriately enough, to the late Mr. Edward Stanhope, then Vice-Chairman of the League, to issue the invitations for that Conference as Secretary of State for the Colonies; and on April 4, 1887, the Conference met under the presidency of Sir Henry Holland (now Lord Knutsford), who had by that time succeeded Mr. Stanhope at the Colonial Office, on the latter becoming Secretary of State for War. The importance of the step taken by the League, and its influence on the Governments of the Empire, gave to the League itself a prestige and position not previously accorded to it. A general review of the sentiments of the London and provincial Press on the assembly of the Conference shows this. The claim of the League to be the originator and founder of the movement in its practical shape was fully recognised- though, as has been seen, Lord Brassey and others who helped to build up the League had, individually, before its actual formation, already recognised the needs of the situation and anticipated the main principles on which the question should he dealt with. The League was credited with the only authorised programme on the subject, and was established in the eyes of the world as the head and front of a great political movement, as the pivot and 'official' centre of everything done by those interested in the Federation of the Empire.

Of the actual proceedings and outcome of the Conference it would be too long to speak here. By the terms of Mr. Stanhope's despatch, proposing that such a Conference should be held 'for the discussion of those questions which appear more particularly to demand attention at the present time,' the discussion there of ' any of the subjects falling within the range of what is known as Political Federation' was deprecated on the ground that on basis had as yet been accepted by the Governments concerned. But nevertheless, the idea of Imperial Unity and Imperial Union so pervaded the whole of the speeches and discussions that anyone who should fail to recognise the principle of Imperial Federation in the proceedings of the Conference would be as one who could not see the wood for the trees. The great question set before the Conference as the one, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, at once most urgentand most ripe for immediate consideration, was that of Imperial Defence. The examination of the whole subject by Lord Carnarvon's Commission had led to the execution of extensive and important defensive works in various parts of the Empire. But much remained to be done; and the time had arrived for attaining a better understanding as to the system of defence to be established throughout the Empire. The cordial co-operation offered by the Colonies in carrying out the policy of Lord Carnarvon's Commission, recognised by Her Majesty's Government, seemed to indicate their readiness to arrive, so far as immediately practicable, at a common basis of action. The result, to a gratifying extent, justified the expectations entertained by Her Majesty's Government of the advantage to be gained by the Conference. The question of Defence in all its bearings (excepting that of the support of the Navy itself) was very fully discussed, and an understanding was arrived at on several points of importance, including the contribution since made by the Australasian Colonies towards the cost of the additional ships placed on the station. Various other matters, especially postal and telegraphic communication, also came in for much useful discussion. On the whole it was felt that the cause of Imperial Federation had been substantially forwarded by the meeting of this first Conference of the Empire. Even had less definite and immediate results been attained, the establishment of the principle of such conferences would in itself have been an achievement of the highest value and promise for the future of the cause.

The same year, 1887, was signalized as the Jubilee year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria—an occasion which stirred the loyal and patriotic feelings of her subjects throughout the Empire to an extraordinary degree. Lord Brassey was cruising in the 'Sunbeam' in that year, and it was natural that when he found himself called upon, in the month of June, to deliver an address virtually on Imperial Federation- in Melbourne, he should have felt himself inspired by the great Imperial events that were passing at the time in Great Britain, which gave occasion to the celebrations in which he was privileged to take part in Australia. In the following speech it will be observed Lord Brassey speaks as an officer and on behalf of the Imperial Federation League; the occasion being a banquet given by the Imperial Federation League in Victoria to him as Treasurer of the general body.

The complimentary dinner took place in the Town Hall. Mr. G. Dowries Carter, President of the League in Victoria, and since Premier of the Colony, was in the chair, and among those present were the Premier (Mr. Duncan Gillies), the Postmaster-General of Queensland (Mr. McDonald Peterson), the Mayor of Melbourne, the President of the Legislative Council (Sir James Mac Bain), Mr. Justice Webb, Mr. N. Fitzgerald, M.L.C., and a large number of prominent citizens.

SPEECH AT IMPERIAL FEDERATION BANQUET, MELBOURNE, JUNE 25, 1887.

LORD BRASSEY, who was received with hearty and continued applause, said: —Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, —As the Treasurer of the Imperial Federation League established in London, it affords me the greatest pleasure and gratification to he your guest this evening. Our work in the old country would be of little value unless it were approved and supported by public opinion in these great and growing Colonies. Speaking on behalf of the Imperial Federation League in London, it is proper that I should say that we have no cut-and-dried plans which we are anxious to put forward. We see the great difficulties with which we shall have to contend in arriving at any solution of the question of Federation. With their growth in population, in wealth, and in resources, we anticipate that we shall see more and more displayed a manly and an independent resolve on the part of the Colonies, not only to make provision for their own defence, but to share in the responsibility of the defence of the united Empire. With your increased participation in the burdens, you must necessarily receive an increased share in determining the policy of the Empire. Hence we see looming in the not far distant future the necessity for some further approach to a settlement of the problem of Federation. We do not desire a hasty solution. We should deprecate a hasty solution. We believe that the wisest solution will be of a gradual and piecemeal character, dealing with circumstances wisely as they arise. For wise action when the necessity arises we wish to pave the way by timely and temperate discussion. The views of the founders of the Imperial Federation League were very well put in one of his latest speeeches by a grand statesman of the old country, Mr. W. E. Forster, the first President of the League. He said:—'The idea of the permanent unity of the realm, the duty of preserving this union, the blessings which this preservation will confer, the danger and loss and disaster which will follow from disunion, are thoughts which possess the minds of Englishmen both here and over the seas. These thoughts are expressing themselves in deeds; let this expression continue! At present it helps our cause far more effectually than any possible scheme.'

I am not one of those who ever doubted the loyalty of the Colonies to old England, and, if any Englishman were in doubt as to the feeling of the Colonies towards the Mother-country, the events of the past week in this noble city of Melbourne would have done much to dispel, and dispel effectually, any doubts in that respect. On Tuesday last we saw your noble forces and militia march past like a wall, to the tune of 'The Old Folks at Home.' That may be a somewhat homely melody, but it had a touching sentiment to the spectator from the old country. There followed a ball given at Government House, an entertainment the splendour of which could hardly have been exceeded in any capital in Europe. That entertainment owed its character not merely to the graceful hospitality of the host and hostess on the occasion, but to the eager desire of those who were present to seize the occasion for showing that, along with their pleasure, there was an undying sentiment of attachment to the Queen in whose honour and in whose name that ball was given. On the following day the hall of your Parliament buildings, which by the beauty of their design and the amplitude of their proportions express your greatness in the present and anticipate your growth in the future, was dedicated, with a generous spirit of loyalty, to the name of the Queen. On the evening of the same day we attended a concert of colossal proportions, in which on four several and separate occasions the National Anthem was sung, and on each occasion with increasing fervour. On the following day 30,000 children were brought together, trained to utter the sentiments of their parents in that National Anthem which they sung so well. In journeying in some of the remoter parts of this Colony it was touching to hear the same anthem sung at every opportunity by the little children, who are thus early trained in this sentiment of loyalty.

If we pass from these momentary incidents of the week to circumstances of a more permanent, and perhaps more serious, character, what are the conclusions which an intelligent traveller from the old country may draw with reference to the ties which hind the Colonies to the Mother-country? If he looks at your society and your family life, he finds the same manners, the same habits, the same ways of viewing circumstances and things. Your English tastes are shown in the houses which you build, the clothes which you wear, the food which you eat, and in the goods you buy. The national character of the Anglo-Saxon race is shown as strongly here as in the Mother-country in your spirited devotion to manly sports and pastimes; and when we think of the other ties that bind us —a common faith, a common literature, the same dear mother tongue—it seems to me that scarcely any other conclusion can be drawn by the intelligent traveller than this, that the ties which bind the Colonies to the Mother-country are stronger than those which any legislature or any statesmanship could contrive, and that they are inherent in the innermost life of the people. Gentlemen, you may call the union which binds us an Empire, you may call it a Federation, you may call it an offensive and defensive alliance of the closest kind—you may call it what you will; the name is of subordinate consequence while mutual sympathy and sentiment retain that binding force which, as we have seen in this Jubilee week, you are all so generously prepared to encourage in regard to your relations with the old country.

Perhaps I may say a few words on this occasion with reference to the mutual advantages which are afforded by our remaining together as members of a united Empire. There was a time when the connection was less valued than it is at present, at any rate by some of the eminent statesmen of the old country. Since the days of which I speak great changes have taken place. The map of Europe has been reconstructed on the principle of the recognition of nationalities. The Germans have made themselves into a nation; the Italians have made themselves into a nation. Our tight little island is small indeed in area in comparison with the great territories of Continental Europe. It is small in area, but if we and the children descended from us—these great English-speaking nations which have overspread the world—remain united together, we are the first of the nationalities of Europe.

There are some indications that the maintenance of the unity of the British Empire may be less difficult than might, perhaps, in former days have been anticipated. Science has done much to shorten distances; it has given us the electric telegraph, an improved and improving steamship, and the railways. As the Colonies grow in importance, it must necessarily follow that the Imperial policy will be concentrated more and more upon objects which are common to the Colonies and to the Mother-country. Our foreign policy will be directed to the maintenance in security of the communications between the Mother-country and the Colonies, as an object which is of common interest to yourselves and to ourselves. Looking forward to a not very distant time, it is evident that your growth in population and power will be such that you will have a dominant influence in the waters adjacent to your own shores. With your growth in trade, your relations with India will become closer and closer. You will be in a position not less strong than that occupied by the Mother-country. Your interest will be as great as that of the Mother-country in preventing the hoisting of any flag hostile to your own upon the ports of India. I believe that all the countries that are now parts of the British Empire will hold together, because it will be for their advantage to do so.

Looking at it from the point of view of a citizen of the old country, have we not found in the recent movements of commerce a stronger and stronger illustration of the maxim that trade follows the flag? While other branches of our foreign trade have been languishing, the trade with the Colonies has remained flourishing and elastic. Looking at it from your point of view, there are some considerations which are obvious. We lend you our capital on much easier terms than we would ask from you if you were under a foreign flag, and we hold before you in your external relations the shield of a great Empire.

The advantages of the present arrangement from a Colonial point of view were happily put, a short time ago, in a speech from Sir John Macdonald, from which I will ask leave to quote two or three sentences. Speaking at Montreal, he said:—

'We want no independence in this country, except the independence that we have at this moment. What country in the world is more independent than we are? We have perfect independence. We have a Sovereign who allows us to do as we please. We have an Imperial Government that casts on ourselves the responsibilities as well as the privileges of self-government. We may govern ourselves as we please; we may misgovern ourselves as we please. We put a tax on the industries of our fellow-subjects in England, Ireland, and Scotland. If we are attacked, if our shores are assailed, the mighty powers of England on land and sea are used in our defence.'

There are, perhaps, some who think that the union of the Empire cannot be maintained, because it is difficult to reconcile the impetuosity of youth with the prudence of old age. They think that you may be inclined to make a rush for an object in the impetuosity of youth, and that you will resent the, perhaps, excessive prudence with which the Mother-country holds you back. I venture to say that, upon a wise view of it, we find, as we recognise the characteristic qualities—each quality having, of course, its corresponding defect—of youth and age, one reason more why it may be prudent for you, who are young, to remain in one common bond with the more aged Mother-country. Now the father of the philosophy of history, Thucydides, has put into the mouth of Alcibiades words which contain a great truth:—'Consider that youth and age have no power unless united; but that the lighter and the more exact and the middle sort of judgment, when duly attempted, are likely to be most efficient.' I hope that that philosophic view of the great Greek writer will be illustrated now by the wise policy with which the affairs of the British Empire may be conducted by the mutual and combined influence of the young Colonies and of the dear old Mother-land.

I feel deeply grateful to you for having invited me to be your guest on this occasion, and I most particularly appreciate the presence of so many eminent men at your table. They have not assembled here merely to pay a compliment to me as an unworthy individual. They have come here in order to express the deep interest they feel in the important question upon which the Imperial Federation League is engaged. I shall go back to old England deeply touched by the love which I have seen the people of these Colonies show to that Mother-country, that dear old England, whose greatest pride it is to have been the mother of mighty nations.

It is worth noting that Lord Brassey, here, speaking in the capital and to representatives of the governing classes in one of the most important Colonies in the Empire, did not hesitate to put the case for Imperial Federation before his hearers with a directness and on grounds that some people seem afraid to employ. A notion has got abroad in this country, founded, no doubt, upon the utterances of some of those who most often speak and write among us on behalf of the Colonies, and in support of what they themselves hold to be the Colonial view of these questions—a notion has got abroad that the Colonies are averse to the idea of Imperial Federation because under it they would be called upon to take their fair share in the burdens and responsibilities of Empire. Whatever some of their spokesmen may say, there is happily abundant ground for the conviction that the people of the Colonies generally are neither so selfish nor so unreasonable as to object to take their fair share of Imperial burdens, though opinions will no doubt differ as to what a fair share may be. Lord Brassey, at any rate, felt the ground sufficiently sure under his feet— and no man had more ample opportunities of knowing the real mind of the people he was among—to declare openly, as in this speech, the confident anticipation of the League that, with their growth in population, wealth, and resources, the people of the Colonies would display a manly and independent resolve, ' not only to make provision for their own defence, but to share in the responsibility of the defence of the United Empire.' The corollary of a share in power he, of course, did not lose sight of, and later on he points to the extent to which the aims of Imperial policy are in fact becoming, as time goes on, more and more concentrated upon objects of Colonial interest. The controlling influence of Colonial considerations on the Foreign policy of the Empire is a subject to which further reference will have to be made in connection with the reply of Lord Salisbury to a deputation of the League, again introduced to him by Lord Brassey, four years later.

¹ Lord Salisbury had resumed office on August 3, 1886, after Mr. Gladstone's six months Administration, and received the deputation on the 11th of the same month.

1 Imperial Federation. Vol. i. pp. 245-6.

CHAPTER IV
1888
Return to England: Address on Coaling-stations, London
Chamber of Commerce—Strategical Points in Imperial
Defence—Local Defences not truly Imperial—Professor Seeley
and Lord Brassey at Cambridge: Address there before the
University Branch of the League—Citation of Views of
Colonial Statesmen—Lord Rosebery and Lord Brassey at
Glasgow: Address at the Merchants' House, Glasgow—
Relative Advantages of Unity to Colonies and Mother-country—
Lord Rosebery at Leeds—' Our Foreign Policy is a
Colonial Policy'—Other work done by Lord Brassey in 1888.

THE year 1888 was a busy one for Lord Brassey, in speaking on Colonial subjects on his return from a voyage of 36,000 miles (equal to one and a half times round the globe, let it be remembered), in the course of which he had visited nearly every place of importance in the British Empire lying in the eastern hemisphere, north and south of the line. The Conference of 1887 had been held during his absence from England, but he had been in Australia long enough to hear the opinions concerning it expressed there by some of the delegates on their return to their own Colonies, and he refers to some of these in a speech at Cambridge reported in this chapter. Having been in distant parts of the Empire at such a time, as well as during the celebrations attending the Queen's Jubilee, Lord Brassey had the opportunity of seeing things at this period with an Englishman's eye but from the point of view of the Australian colonist; and this circumstance, coupled with the freshness of the information contained in them, gives an especial interest and value to the speeches of this year 1888.

The first of the three addresses the texts of which are printed in the present chapter is devoted to a branch of the question of Imperial Federation with which Lord Brassey is particularly qualified to deal. Both from his intimate knowledge of naval matters generally, and from the personal and first hand character of his acquaintance with the strategical points in the geography of the British Empire, ho was entitled to speak with authority in the following address on our coaling-stations.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, JANUARY 25, 1888.

IT is almost superfluous to say that it will not be sought to abuse the confidence of the great body under whose auspices we are met by an endeavour to make political capital out of the occasion. All questions of foreign policy, all questions relating to national defences, should be taken by common consent out of the domain of political controversy. The steps deemed necessary to the security of the Empire and its commerce once considered and determined, ministers on both sides are equally bound to obey the mandate of the nation. I gladly acknowledge the efforts of the present Government in the execution of that great plan of defence which was indicated in its broad outline by the Royal Commission over which Lord Carnarvon so ably presided. The object of this meeting is not to find fault with past Governments for neglect, but to keep their successors up to the mark in the future.

At this stage it may be appropriate to observe that the defence of our coaling-stations by fortifications is strictly a measure of economy. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether this or that position is indispensable as a base of naval operations; but, as to the methods of defence, it cannot be questioned that the most costly and the least effective is the detention in port of our cruisers, which should be employed in holding the ocean highways and in blockading the ships of the enemy. Not only are fortifications an economy in that they reduce largely the numbers required to hold a position: they are an economy in regard to the description of force which is necessary. The strong works by which our naval arsenals at home are now defended have not involved the addition of a single soldier to the regular army.

I will not occupy the time of the meeting with the statistics of the case. We all know that the tonnage under the British flag is gigantic in amount, that it forms year by year an increasing proportion of the aggregate shipping of the world, and that its destruction would be tantamount to the ruin of the nation.

From these general observations I turn to the defence of coaling-stations, taking them in the order in which they were visited on my recent voyage of 36,000 miles.

I pass by Gibraltar, Malta, and Aden, because we have the assurance solemnly given on the responsibility of the Government to the Royal Commission, and renewed to the Conference of Colonial representatives, that their defences and armaments will be maintained on a level with modern requirements. With regard to Aden, I desire to call attention to the fact that the outer anchorage is much exposed to the boisterous winds of the monsoon. The inner anchorage is well sheltered, but the depth of water is not sufficient for heavy ships. It could be quite easily improved by dredging. This improvement would be a great convenience for the purDoses of trade.

Crossing the Indian Ocean to Bombay, the remodelling of the defences of that magnificent harbour are being carried out with energy by the Indian Government. The works are undergoing complete transformation. Light guns are being removed, and 38-ton guns —to be ultimately replaced by breech-loading guns— are being mounted. To give complete security to Bombay, two or three monitors, in addition to those already provided, and more torpedo-boats, are necessary. The Bombay flotilla should be manned with crews of Lascars led by British seamen-gunners and marine artillery. The Europeans should be sent out to Bombay when occasion requires. It would not be proper to keep English crews for a lengthened period in harbour-ships in an enervating climate.

At Bombay I had an opportunity of seeing the efficient dockyard maintained by the Indian Government. Its extensive resources, both of workmen and machinery, are largely employed in the maintenance of Her Majesty's ships on the Indian station. It should be definitely accepted that Bombay, and not Trincomalee, should be the chief station for the East Indian squadron.

I made inquiries as to the practicability of raising a corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. Some years ago a force of this description was raised. It was found that the oppressive climate made it impossible for Europeans, whose duties mainly lie in other directions, to undertake heavy gun drill afloat. It would be practicable to man the land defences with volunteer artillery, and the present force of rifle volunteers should be drilled at the garrison guns.

From Bombay we will turn northward to Kurrachee, a port of immense importance as the base for the military defence of the north-west frontier of India. As compared with Bombay, Kurrachee is nearer to England by two days' steaming. In the distance by land to Peshawur there is an advantage in favour of Kurrachee of some 600 miles. By skilful engineering, the entrance to the port, the anchorags, and the wharfage, have been adapted to the requirements of steamships of large tonnage. The defences, both of batteries and torpedoes, are well advanced.

Descending from north to south, with the western shores of the great Indian peninsula never below the horizon, we arrive at Trincomalee, a noble harbour, but unhappily too far distant from the fertile parts of Ceylon to be available for the trade which has been concentrated at Colombo. The dockyard at Trincomalee is in perfect order; but previous impressions that an Imperial Naval Establishment in this position is of doubtful value were not removed by my visit. The resources are most limited; and, looking to the facilities already in existence at Bombay, it is not desirable to extend them. Transferred to the Government of India, the dockyard at Trincomalee could be utilised for the storage and preparation of torpedoes and submarine mines, and for the service of the lightships and lighthouses on the adjacent coasts. Considerable expenditure is being devoted by the Imperial Government to fortifications both at Colombo and at Trincomalee. When the fortifications and guns are provided, the means of defence will still remain incomplete if we have not a sufficient force of artillery to man the works. A mixed corps of volunteers and Lascars should be organised at Colombo, from which detachments could be sent to Trincomalee when necessary.

In connection with Imperial defence, it will not be necessary to notice the ports of Burmah. Splendid as is the development of trade since they passed under British rule, they are not important as bases for the naval operations which it might be necessary to undertake for their protection.

At Singapore we find another noble centre of trade created, as by the enchanter's wand, under the British flag —the accepted emblem, for all uncivilised and halfcivilised races, of justice, order, security, and unrestricted freedom of commerce. At Singapore the Colonial Government have carried out an extensive scheme of defence, planned by officers of the Iloyal Engineers. At the period of my visit the guns which are promised by the Imperial Government had not yet arrived. For the manning of the works the British artillery on the station must be supplemented by a native force.

Singapore has a splendid battalion of 1,000 Sikh police, who could be trained to work the guns. The torpedo defences are, I believe, completed. In addition to the shore defences and the torpedoes, one or more ironclads are required for the protection of the anchorage. I observe with satisfaction that the ' Orion' has been stationed by the present Board of Admiralty in those waters.

Taking a long stretch round Borneo, through the Straits of Macassar, and across the Southern Indian Ocean, we arrive at that remote anchorage which has of late occupied so much public attention. I refer to King George's Sound. The harbour offers perfect shelter to ships of deep draught from every wind. Strategically the position is most important, both from the great distance which divides it from the nearest harbours available for vessels of large size, and because all the trade between Australia and Europe by the Suez Canal, except that from Queensland, passes to and fro in the offing.

The amount required to provide a sufficient armament of breech-loading guns was estimated, I believe, at 19,000l. It must be a matter of universal regret that, on an issue so insignificant, the Conference of colonial representatives should have separated without coming to a decision. Western Australia had readily undertaken the entire cost of the works. The manning of the defences at King George's Sound should be provided for by a small detachment of marine artillery, or by pensioners, supported by volunteers.

I need not refer in detail to the land defence of the great ports of Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The combined expenditure of the several Governments may literally be reckoned by millions, and the supervision of such officers as Sir William Jervois and the late Sir Peter Scratchley is a sufficient guarantee that the patriotic efforts of the colonists have been skilfully directed. The manning of the works and the general defence of the colonies by land are guaranteed by an army of more than 30,000 volunteers of splendid physique, well equipped and provided with a small staff of officers from the Imperial service. A considerable flotilla for harbour defence has been created at Melbourne; Adelaide has a powerful coast-defence vessel, and Brisbane has two efficient gunboats. Naval brigades have been organised both in Victoria and New South Wales. When the ironclads of older date are replaced in our European squadrons by ships of the latest type, I would urge upon the Admiralty that some three or four of the ships, which would otherwise pass into the reserve at home, should be despatched to the Colonies. They would be a valuable reinforcement of the floating defence. They would be the depot ships of the naval brigades. With such ships at their disposal, the drill and instruction would be more efficient, and the naval reserve movement would be encouraged. More highly trained officers are required to raise the colonial volunteer force, both for the sea and the land service, to the highest standard of efficiency. An officer of rank from the Imperial service should exercise a general supervision over their combined forces. An Imperial officer should be placed in command of each regiment, and retired naval officers should be appointed to the Colonial naval reserves. The establishment of an Australasian Naval and Military College, combining the training afforded at home in the schools of the ' Britannia' and of Woolwich and Sandhurst, would be a most valuable institution for the Colonies.

A visit of inspection by Lord Wolseley, under whose command the first contingent sent from the Colonies into the field had the privilege to serve, would, I am confident, be highly appreciated. The preparation for such an inspection would do much to promote efficiency.

Turning homeward from Australia by the northern coast of the great continent, Thursday Island is the first place which demands attention: and here we are once more reminded of the controversy left unsettled by the representatives of the Colonies at their recent Conference. It was admitted that Thursday Island is a point which ought to be defended. An active trade between Australia, China, and India, and all the steam trade between Queensland and Europe, pass within gunshot of the place. An attack on Thursday Island by a considerable force would be warded off by naval means. A few light guns, manned by volunteers, would secure the position from capture by a stray cruiser. At Port Darwin a similar slight defence is required. The harbour is of great capacity, in an isolated situation on the line of trade between Australia and the Straits Settlements. Port Darwin is the landing-place of the cable connecting Australia with the whole civilised world. It is the northern terminus of the railway, already commenced, which the South Australian Government intend to carry across the continent. When the line is completed, it will probably be the best route for the Australian mails.

We cross from Port Darwin to Mauritius. At this admirable harbour and most convenient coaling-station the additional works recommended by the Royal Commission are advancing to completion. The Imperial Government will supply the guns. For the manning of the works a local artillery force should be organised, led by officers and non-commissioned officers of the Royal Artillery. The torpedo defences are complete, and a torpedo service corps is being organised, recruited from the dock-labourers, boatmen, and stevedores, and commanded by thirteen non-commissioned officers of the Royal Engineers.

At the Cape the works for the defence of Simon's Bay were undertaken by the Imperial Government, and are nearly completed. For the defence of Table Bay the Colonial Government are responsible. The works have not yet been commenced, and, as convict labour will be employed, some delay must be anticipated. We may rely that in the end the engagement entered into by the Colonists will be fulfilled. As to armaments, at the date of my visit apprehensions were felt by the local authorities at the Cape that the number of breech-loading guns to be supplied by the Imperial Government would not be sufficient. It was in contemplation to mount the old pattern guns in the newly constructed forts. I trust that the War Office will be supplied with the means of giving a satisfactory armament for all the defences of the Cape.

Following the line of communication between the Cape and England, the necessary works both at St. Helena and Sierra Leone are being vigorously pushed forward. For the manning of the additional woi'ks supplementary local forces should be organised, as suggested for other similar stations.

At Ascension we have a small naval establishment, a stock of coals, and naval stores, which may be valued at 50,000l. There are no effective defences, and it must be a serious question for the Admiralty whether their establishment should not be transferred to St. Helena.

Having now made the circuit of the important points on which the security of our commerce with Australia and with the East depends, I proceed to sum up the various omissions which have been pointed cut in the great scheme of defence which is now in course of execution. Thev are as follows:—

1. At Aden, dredging operations.

2. At Bombay, additional monitors, and the organisation of crews for the harbour-defence flotilla.

3. At King George's Sound, Thursday Island, and Port Darwin, armaments of sufficient force to deny the harbour and the coal supply to light cruisers.

4. At the Cape, additional heavy breech-loading suns.

5. At Colombo, Singapore, Mauritius, St. Helena, and Sierra Leone, a local artillery militia.

Australia may be depended upon to raise an adequate force of artillery volunteers.

This enumeration will scarcely alarm the most zealous guardian of the public purse. A very moderate expenditure, judiciously applied, would fill up all the gaps in our armour, to which your attention has been invited.

Having dealt with the fortifications, it is an obvious remark that they are but a means to the end. In order to give additional support to the Navy in all important positions, the means of repairing injuries sustained in action should be provided. I am not about to suggest additional dockyards. I urge that we should encourage private enterprise to make provision for naval requirements in the emergency of war. The principle has received the sanction of the Legislature in the passing of an Act which empowers the Treasury to make grants towards the construction of graving-docks on foreign stations. By small subsidies, in addition to the large expenditure of private capital, graving-docks, suitable to the needs of the Navy, have been completed at Hong Kong and Vancouver.

Private enterprise should receive encouragement from the Admiralty to provide a graving-dock for Gibraltar, where no docking facilities at present exist. A grant should be made for the enlargement of the existing docks at Bombay by the Indian Government, and for those at Singapore and Mauritius by the Imperial Government. By this plan of co-operation with private enterprise, the means would be provided, at the lowest possible cost, of docking ironclads at every naval station of the lirst-class which we possess on the line of communication between England and the East. I need not remind this meeting that the facilities which we should create for the Navy would be most useful for commercial purposes. The clocks being in private hands, the skilled workmen required would be mainly employed in mercantile work. Their wages would be a charge on the public only when their services were actually required to execute repairs for the fleet.

Foreign nations look with envy on the splendid resources which British commerce creates at no cost to the taxpayers. During the war in China, until the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act were enforced, the French fleet was mainly dependent on our private ship-repairing yards at Hong-Kong; and Mr. Weyl has told us of their conspicuous superiority over the limited resources which were found to exist when the French squadron was compelled to fall back on the national establishment at Saigon. The Dutch squadron in the East is equally dependent on private docks at Singapore; and when I visited Sydney, I found the German cruiser ' Albatross,' which had been stationed for some years at Samoa, hauled up on the patent slip in the yard of a private shipbuilder. In this connection it is proper to refer to the splendid enterprise of the Colonies as an example to the Imperial Government. At Sydney, Melbourne, and the Cape, the Colonial Governments have constructed graving-docks of dimensions sufficient for the largest ironclads in those waters. It should be our policy to take full advantage of the resources created as it were spontaneously, by the maritime enterprise of the country. Let us avoid the great and costly error of duplicating at the public expense the means and instruments which lie ready to our hand, if only we will use them and look for them, in the vast and splendid organisation of the mercantile marine.

I have shown how effectively this principle has been applied in the case of docks. It is equally applicable to the creation of a reserve of cruisers in the mercantile marine. The present Government deserves the hearty acknowledgment of the nation, and specially of the representatives of commerce, for the statesmanlike decision they have taken to give subsidies for the retention of certain selected ships for the service of the Navy in case of war.

In all contracts for Hip. ocean mail services conditions should be imposed, which would secure that the ships to be employed, or at least a certain number, should be adapted, by their high speed and internal arrangements, for conversion into cruisers. The officers and crews should belong to the naval reserve. The armament should be carried on board. In the case of Australia, two ships, in receipt of liberal subsidies, are at all times lying in Sydney harbour. An additional ship arrives every week. If these vessels were effective for conversion into cruisers, we should possess the means of improvising without delay an efficient squadron for the protection of trade.

It is idle to talk of providing for the complete defence of our commerce without the assistance of the mercantile marine. In time of peace the public is impatient of taxation. Chancellors of the Exchequer are anxious to propose popular budgets. The power of the Treasury, as the custodian of the public purse, can never be withstood by the Admiralty and the War Office, except when war is imminent, or a scare has been raised, whicb is certain to subside when the public have become tired of reading sensational articles in the newspapers. What, however, we cannot accomplish by those extravagant methods, which are alone available in the case of a maritime power not backed by a strong mercantile marine, we can accomplish, and at comparatively small cost, by the effective methods which I have brielly sketched.

Time fails me, and I must not pursue this fruitful and suggestive theme. I could show that the same principle of combination may be applied to the manning of the Navy, and that under proper arrangements we might do much to raise the efficiency of that valuable reserve, both of officers and men, which has, by a wise act of policy, been organised in the mercantile marine for the service of the Navy in war.

It will be evident that I have not come here to propound alarmist views. The defence of our coalingstations had been deferred too long; but the work is now well in hand. We had put oil too long the adoption of breecli-loading guns, and we have leeway to make good; but the guns which we are now making will represent the latest advance of science, and we have the assurance of the Government that their manufacture will be pushed forward with vigour.

For those connected with the administration of the great departments of the Navy and the Army, it is impossible to repress the wish that we had larger means at our disposal, and could make more rapid progress in completing fortresses and building ships; but if we compare our position in the present with the past, it can scarcely be doubted that as a naval power we have been gaining in relative strength in recent years. The splen did force of volunteers, tiie reserve for the Army, and the reserve for the Navy, are the creation of the present generation. Abroad we have gained in the mutual affections of the Colonies and the Mother-country. In India our position was probably never so strong in the loyal sentiment of the native populations as it is to-day; and on the last scene of conflict—painful as it is to remember—at the Cape of Good Hope, our Dutch fellow-subjects are warm in their attachment to our liberal and equal rule. The circumstances in which we stand demand continuous effort; they do not justify alarm. I may certainly claim for the plain and unpretending statement submitted to this meeting that it has contained nothing which can wound our national pride, or lower the dignity which rests on a proud consciousness of strength.

The above constitutes a useful summary of the condition and requirements of the fortified places of the Empire throughout by far the largest portion of its extent. By the present time the details are of course a good deal out of date; but the paper retains its value both historically, with reference to the time at which it was written, and as an outline of the main features of the subject to which the details can be applied as they change from time to time.

As instances of the former aspect of the value of this address may be cited the failure of the Colonial delegates at the Conference of 1887, deplored by Lord Brassey, to come to any agreement with the Mothercountry and with each other as to the fortifications of King George's Sound and Thursday Island. These matters have been adjusted since then, but not without much difficulty and the display of a considerable amount of jealousy—especially jealousy of the authority of the United Kingdom, as exemplified at the time of the passing of the Western Australia Constitution Act by the Imperial Parliament, when Colonial witnesses, examined before a Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill was referred, explicitly stated their objections to the retention by the Imperial Government of any jurisdiction within the place assigned for the fortifications at King George's Sound. Although designed to be a base for general Imperial defence, the place was not allowed to be under any but local jurisdiction. This is one of the great drawbacks as regards other places of the same kind in other Colonies as well. Given a Federation for Imperial Defence the difficulty would necessarily vanish. But, as things are, the Empire has to rely for the purposes of general maritime defence, for which the Navy of the United Kingdom is responsible, upon naval bases under the control of Governments which, before a war creates the need of using them, are at perfect liberty to detach themselves from the Empire altogether and carry with them the bases on which the rest of the Empire has depended, and which the Government of the United Kingdom has assisted in making strong. It need not be suggested that such an event is likely to occur. But that is the actual situation, and it is a source of uncertainty and weakness which can only be overcome by means of a binding arrangement between all the countries of the Empire for a joint system of defence and joint property in the means of defence. Another rather unpleasantly significant passage, having an historical interest, is that in which Lord Brassey tells his hearers that at the Cape of Good Hope he found the fortifications at Simon's Bay, which had been undertaken exclusively by the Imperial Government, ' nearly completed,' while those hard by at Table Bay, undertaken by the Government of Cape Colony, were ' not yet commenced.' It is to lie feared that even at the present time things at Table Bay are not advanced to the position they ought to have reached.

The object of these fortifications, it is to be remembered, is not to withstand an attack in force, but to repel hostile cruisers only. The general defence of all parts of the Empire alike is to be looked for in the Navy; and under the arrangements that now exist, while the Colonies assist in erecting and manning the fortifications that provide the minor defence, they as yet take no part at all in supporting the Navy, without which the partial and provisional safety afforded by the forts would be of no value whatever, since without the restraining power of the British Navy there would be nothing to prevent an enemy from attacking in force.

The fortifications at Gibraltar stand on a different footing, being designed to withstand an attack in force, and to afford protection to ships against all comers. The responsibility for this rests with the Home Government, and the want of accommodation at Gibraltar—still unfortunately existing- for repairing, coaling and refitting H.M. ships in time of war lies at their door. In this respect, at any rate, some of the Colonies have shown the Home Government a good example, as in the completeness of the fortifications and harbour defences at Sydney and Melbourne.

Few men have done more for the cause of Imperial Federation than the late Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. By his invaluable work on ' The Expansion of England,' and by numerous other writings, Sir John Seeley has done more than any other man to open the minds of the reading public to the facts of Empire, and to educate them in the lessons which a far-sighted patriotism would inculcate in applying the teachings of history to the political problems of the day. To Professor Seeley's influence at Cambridge was mainly due the interest taken there in the subject, and the formation and maintenance of a well-supported University Branch of the Imperial Federation League. It was fitting, therefore, that it should be by Professor Seeley that Lord Brassey was welcomed when he went to Cambridge to deliver the following address there before the University Branch of the League at its annual general meeting in Februai'y 1888. The meeting was held in the Guildhall, under the Presidency of Professor Seeley, with whom there were on the platform, besides Lord Brassey himself, the Master of Trinity, Dr. McAlister, Canon Dalton, and Mr. J. N. Langley, whilst many distinguished members of the University were among the audience.

Professor J. R. Seeley said that Lord Brassey, in appearing before them, sacrificed private inclination and paid the penalty of being far wiser than other men on the subject before them. Their President, Lord Rosebery, had said that he thought English public men ought to make themselves acquainted with the Empire by actual travel, and that he found his colleagues scared by this expression of opinion. But it could not have scared Lord Brassey. As to the cause they had at heart, there was scarcely any cause about which it was so easy to be sanguine. The difficulties might be great in themselves, but they seemed as nothing compared with the mighty forces which made for it. ' There are causes,' he continued, 'which have reason on their side, but are extremely difficult to explain or to commend to the multitude. Wise men say " this cause ought to win, but unfortunately, such is the stupidity of mankind, it will not win." Again, there are causes of an opposite kind which are popular enough, but popular delusions. They are mere bubbles, whicli burst as soon as they are roughly handled. Public meetings may applaud, crowds may throw up their caps, but serious men, responsible politicians, turn away and hold aloof. Now, T think we may say that Imperial Federation belongs to neither class. It excites enthusiasm everywhere, and more and more the longer it is considered. But it excites also the serious attention of statesmen. Those who turn away from it are not so often practical men as academic theorists. Look over our list of names; our founder was Mr. Forster, our actual President is Lord Rosebery, and our Treasurer is here—I invite you now to listen to him—Lord Brassey.'

ADDRESS TO THE UNIVERSITY BRANCH OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE, CAMBRIDGE, FEBRUARY 1, 1888.

LORD BRASSEY said:—It can easily be understood that I should have been glad to postpone the public appearances which I have lately made in connection with the subject of Colonial Federation and the defence of the coaling-stations. Public duty compels me to make use of the opportunity which presents itself now, and which may not recur. I am particularly glad to obey the call of Professor Seeley and to come down to Cambridge. I appreciate the work which Professor Seeley has done as one of the great apostles in the cause of federation, and if I can do anything to help the Professor, I shall be glad to give my services to the good cause.

It is unnecessary for me to urge upon your attention the various considerations which make the subject of our Colonial relations so important to Englishmen. I might give startling statistics as to the comparative growth of population during ITor Majesty's reign, but those interested could get this information from a remarkable penny publication issued by the Imperial Federation League in connection with the Queen's Jubilee. As Britons, we must be proud of the greatness of our country, the Motherland of many nations in a high and rapidly advancing stage of civilisation. If it is a great achievement to have founded these nations, we should sustain a loss of greatness if our splendid Empire were dismembered.

What are the prospects of holding together the various parts of our great British Empire? That is the question for consideration. Lord Rosebery has so fully explained the position and policy of the Imperial Federation League that little remains to be said by succeeding speakers. The aim of the League at the present time, as he truly said, is not to formulate proposals for constitutional changes in the relations between the Colonies and the Mother-country, but to cultivate a sentiment. And what is that sentiment 1 In the old country it means a growing feeling of pride in the splendid achievements of her sons, who have gone forth to the waste places of the earth to raise up new nations of English-speaking people. Old England feels the affection of a mother for the Colonies, and she holds before them, in the face of the world, the shield of a great Empire. And what is the sentiment which we wish to cultivate in the Colonie? It is the deep and abiding sense that they are one with us, and that to remain in union with us is the surest means to expand trade, to maintain a command of the sea, and to wield the influence of a first-class State. Union with England secures the abundant supply of capital and at the cheapest rate. Union means a common and an equal share in the glories of our history in the present and the past.

I am glad to know that the policy of the League is thoroughly approved by responsible statesmen in the Colonies. When I lately visited Australia I was entertained, as an officer of the parent society, by the members of the branch established at Melbourne. Anions the guests present on the occasion we had the privilege of seeing the Premier, Mr. Gillies, and this is what he said:—

' Although many persons may, perhaps, think that Lord Brassey may not be as eloquent as Mr. Gladstone, I venture to think that the sentiment which he has expressed this evening has found an echo in the heart of every gentleman seated at these tables. That sentiment is not simply to be recorded in the words " the unity of the Empire." We must add some other words to them before we can completely indicate the sentiment contained in Lord Brassey's address. It is the unity of the Empire truly, but it is also a protest against the dismemberment of the Empire. For any one to say that the unity of the Empire can mean nothing, while the dismemberment of the Empire might mean something, would be to me an utterly unmeaning sentence. To me the unity of the Empire means no possibility of dismemberment; and while that is my conviction, the view entertained by the League in London for the federation of the Empire is one that not only commends itself to me in sentiment, but is one that I will do everything in my power to give effect to. I agree with Lord Brassey that any attempt to mark out the absolute lines and limits upon which this should be done would be extremely rash and unwise; and that what we are more immediately desiring to do is to endeavour to create, and to be convinced that we have created, one united and universal sentiment on this subject; and then, when all are of one mind, to endeavour to see the best way in which our aims can be accomplished. Unity is acknowledged always to be strength, and I have no doubt that if this Colony were polled to a man to-morrow there would be a very small percentage indeed, if any, who would tolerate, as far as their judgment and voice could control it, any dismemberment whatever of the British Empire. Once people are all clearly convinced that some particular thing is unattainable and impossible, like children in like circumstances, they soon give up the game. Now I say that, so far as I know, any attempt at dismemberment of the British Empire at the present hour is absolutely and utterly hopeless. If any one entertains that idea, the sooner he gets it out of his mind the better. In coming here this evening I feel the greatest possible pleasure in being able to say to Lord Brassey that, as far as I know, the sentiments of the people of this Colony—and I can speak as to the sentiments of the Government, and, I feel quite confident, of Parliament also—the strongest possible desire they have is to do all they can to draw closer and closer the bonds of union between this and the Mother-country. The demonstrations of loyalty that have been exhibited during the present week in this Colony and all over the Colonies of the Australasian group clearly indicate, beyond all doubt or question, that that is the united sentiment of the whole of the Australian people. That that sentiment will grow and increase to vast degrees I do not doubt for a moment; and should the hour ever come when their real sentiments are likely to be decided, I don't hesitate to say that there will be no stronger expression of opinion throughout the whole of the Empire than that of those on this side of the sea in favour of supporting the unity of the Empire, and of preventing any disintegration of it whatever.'

Having quoted observations made in my presence at Melbourne, I desire to complete the representation of Colonial sentiment in Australia by quoting from some speeches delivered at about the same date in Sydney, at a dinner given by the Premier, Sir Henry Parkes, to the surviving members of the first Legislative Assembly of New South A Vales. All the speeches breathed the same sentiment. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Sir John Hay, said that ' they indeed felt the full advantages of union with the Mother-country, and recognised that they could only by maintaining it reap the benefits of the independence which they had obtained. Such was the feeling of the first Legislature of the Colony, of which they were the living representatives, and such had continued to be the feeling of Australians ever since. . . . The union of the Empire was not merely a sentiment; it was a necessity, if not for the mere existence of the Empire, certainly for its greatness. That Great Britain should remain in intimate union with its Colonies of Canada and Australia was absolutely necessary for its expanded trade, for its command of the sea, and for its influence as a first class State; and that the Colonies should remain united with Great Britain was almost necessary for their safety, and entirely so for their rapid extension in commerce and wealth.'

Sir John Robertson, a former Premier, ' hoped and prayed that the Colonies might so build up themselves that they might be a credit to our race; that they would so build themselves up that they would not sever themselves from the old country by any paltry rubbish—such, for instance, as the federation of the Colonies to the exclusion of the old land. What did we owe to the other Colonies? Nothing! What did we owe to the Mother country? Everything! '

I will quote from one more speaker, Sir W. Manning, a distinguished judge. In proposing the toast of the Union of the Empire he said:—' Union we have at present between Great Britain and all her existing Colonies, in every sense short of that intimate federation which has been so much discussed of late under various forms. . . . Perfect unity may not be attainable with bodies of people so remote from each other and having each its local interests; but God grant it may be the Empire's happiness to have as much of it as can be won and kept by patriotic feeling, by national pride, and the ties of race and blood, and by wise statesmanship and well-governed temper, both at home and in the Colonies. For my own part—old colonist as I am—I have never for one moment felt myself to be other than as a unit in the Great British Empire, and have never conceived of this country as other than an integral part of it.'

Turning to the state of public opinion at home on the subject of federation, the change that has taken place was described by Lord Derby in a speech delivered at Edinburgh. ' For years,' he said, I after I entered Parliament, in 1849, the doctrine which found most favour was that a Colonial Empire added nothing to real strength, involved needless expense, and increased liability to war. But now everybody is for holding the Colonies which we have got, and many people are in favour of founding new ones.'

The mutual advantages of union were powerfully urged by Mr. Deakin at the Colonial Conference:—'We cannot imagine any description of circumstances by which the Colonies should be humiliated or weakened, or their power lessened, under which the Empire would not be itself humiliated, weakened, and lessened. And we are unable to conceive any circumstances under which the wealth or power of the Colonies would be increased, which would not increase in the same degree the wealth and status of the Empire.'

The general view, thus eloquently put, may be illustrated by reference to every department of the affairs of the State. It is eminently true in relation to diplomacy. If they lost their membership of the Empire, the Australias would lose the services of our diplomatists, and the support derived from the knowledge that the whole weight of the Empire would be behind them in any representation which might be made to the French or other Governments on matters in which the Colonies are interested.

The connection with the British Empire is not less valuable to the Colonies in relation to naval defence. In support of proposals for a contribution to meet the cost of a reinforcement of the Australian squadron, Admiral Sir George Tryon truly said, ' The British Admiralty can give to the Colonies the advantage attached to a force organised on our system. It can supply officers and men trained to modern ships and modern appliances. It can give homogeneity to the whole forces of the nation; and it could do this at a cost far less than would be entailed by any other plan that has yet been devised.'

In the organisation of their land forces, although the assistance rendered from home has been comparatively slender, it has been of no small advantage to the Colonies to obtain the services of Imperial officers. At the Colonial Conference a desire was expressed for the appointment of an officer of rank as Inspector General. It has been further suggested that the colonel of every militia regiment should he selected from the regular army.

In considering the policy to be pursued by the Mother-country in relation to the defence of Australasia, it should not be put out of view that the Colonies have spent altogether fourteen millions of money on their defences, and that they have now a force of 31,000 men and an armament of 600 guns.

It may be difficult to frame plans for closer federation. Something is gained if we admit its desirability. Much is gained if it is known that statesmen in all parts of the Empire are giving consideration to the subject, not with the view of bringing about separation, but with the earnest desire of cementing our union more closely. At the recent Colonial Conference the advisability of establishing a body of an Imperial character to deal with the question of defence was brought strongly into view by the discussion relating to defence in its financial aspect. It was Mr. Service who truly said that the Parliament sitting in London is, in a sense, only a local Parliament for the United Kingdom. There are certain Imperial functions which it would be desirable to deal with by the establishment of a council which would include representatives from the Colonies. In assisting the joint contribution for common objects, whether for naval defence, for harbour defence, for postal subsidies, for ocean telegraphs, or for any other Imperial object, the Government at home is hampered, and the several Colonies are hampered, by the fear of opposition, probably raised for party purposes. These difficulties were brought into view by the Conference; but the meeting of that Conference was a proof of the mutual confidence and the deep affection which bind together the Mothercountry and her children.

Though we have not arrived at a stage when plans for the purpose can be formulated, the problem of federation is constantly in the contemplation of statesmen both at home and in the Colonies. Speaking in the Sydney Parliament on November 26, 1887, on the second reading of the Australasian Naval Force Bill, the Premier, Sir Henry Parkes, made use of these words:—

' Now, whatever might be the future of these Australian Colonies, ho for one did not believe it would be a copy of anything that had gone before. He did not believe that at any time these Colonies would copy the constitution of the United States. He did not think they would copy any of the ancient republics. He believed it was within the range of human probability that the great groups of free communities connected with England would in separate confederations be united to the Mother-country—not by any scheme which had been called Imperial Federation, but by the Empire being a compact central power, and the groups of free communities, such as the North American Colonies, these Australian Colonies, the African Colonies, and the settlements of India, would be great groups of independent peoples connected by one new bond with the parent State. And he also thought that in all reasonable probability, by some such distinct bond, even the United States of America would be connected with this great English people. He believed the circumstances of the world would develop some such new complex nationality as that, in which each of the parts would be free and independent while united in one grand whole which would civilise the globe. That was the hope he had of the nation and its future progress and civilisation.

' He believed that England at this moment was the greatest and most influential governing Power on the face of the earth. He said the most influential governing Power—because she had a greater and wider-spread moral influence in the affairs of the world than Germany, or France, or Russia, or the United States: and because she wielded that power and influence with consummate skill, and exercised it more beneficially than any Power which had exercised its influence in any period of human history. She had been the great civiliser throughout this century.'

While we have no plan to propose, the Imperial Federation League may justly claim some credit for having initiated the first great Conference of representatives of the Colonies in London. When the present Government took office, a deputation from the League laid a proposal before Lord Salisbury for a Colonial Conference, which was favourably received. The happy results are equally appreciated in the Mother-country and in the Colonies.

In the absence of a plan, we have seen in recent instances what sentiment can accomplish. We have seen it in the raising of a regiment in Canada to help us in the Crimean war. We have seen it in the despatch of a contingent to the Soudan. We have seen it in the complete success of the Colonial Conference. I was in Australia at the time when the representatives of the several Colonies were returning to their homes, and saw the enthusiastic welcome which was accorded them. I should like to conclude with a few words taken from a speech delivered at the time to which I refer by Mr. Deakin to his constituents in Victoria. Referring to the Conference, he said, ' Of all the signs of the times within recent years among English-speaking people no sign has been more important than that Conference with closed doors. And what sign of the times has appeared which has expressed and symbolised as that meeting did the greatness, the extent, and the magnitude of the British Empire? What a story of enterprise, what a romance of the energy of the race, what a tale of the past, and what a promise for the future is written in that Conference! '

The reference is interesting to the speech made by Mr. Duncan Gillies, as Premier of Victoria, at the banquet in Melbourne given to Lord Brassey in the previous year, his own speech on the occasion having already been printed. It was not only very natural and appropriate but it was distinctly serviceable that he should take this opportunity, shortly after his return from Australia, of letting people at home hear, by means of actual quotations from their speeches, the sentiments expressed by leading men in the Colonies when addressing gatherings of their own people in their own Colonies. This Lord Brassey has done here, not only in the case of Mr. Gillies, but by quotations from many other leading politicians of Australia.

A meeting in connection with the Glasgow and West of Scotland Branch of the Imperial Federation League was held on October 24, 1888, in the Merchants' House, for the purpose of hearing an address by Lord Brassey. Amongst those present were:—Lord Rosebery, Sir James King (Lord Provost); Mr. Hozier, M.P., Sir Charles Tennant, Sir J. Gibson-Maitland, Sir J. Bain, Sir Frederick Young, Sir Hugh Montgomery, Colonel Harrington Stuart, Professors Gairdner and Ramsay, and the Rev. Dr. Marshall Lang.

Letters of apology were read from the Marquis of Lome, the Earl of Glasgow, President of the Branch, and others.

Lord Rosebery, having been invited to take the chair, said:—My duty is a very simple one. It is that of introducing Lord Brassey to a Glasgow audience on the subject of Imperial Federation. We are perpetually told that Imperial Federation is a noble dream, but nothing more, and that it must be put in a more concrete form before it can recommend itself to men of business. Now Lord Brassey is not a dreamer of dreams. He is no visionary philosopher; he is no random rhetorician. He is a man of business; but he is more than a man of business, he is probably the greatest amateur traveller at this moment. Lord Brassey lias travelled through the British Empire, not in the simple, broad manner in which some of us perform that task for want of time, but he has, so to speak, looked into every nook and crevice of the British Empire, into every part of it, and this man of business comes back to you and will tell you that he is convinced that Imperial Federation is a necessity for this Empire—a necessity of the near future.

ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE MERCHANTS' HOUSE, GLASGOW, OCTOBER 24, 1888.

LORD BRASSEY, who was received with applause, said: — I appreciate very highly the honour of being invited to address a meeting in Glasgow in the short interval of rest which the day of business affords. Appearing here as one of the treasurers of the Imperial Federation League, I have a subject of great importance to bring before you. It is a subject which, if not yet ripe for legislation, is certainly ripe for the discussions which, under a popular Government, must precede legislation. What is the object of the League which I represent? Broadly stated, it is to preserve that noble British Empire which Scotchmen have done so much to build up and to maintain. What is the foundation upon which the maintenance of the union must rest? Upon the natural and mutual affection of the Mother-country and the Colonies. It is the first aim of the League to cultivate that sentiment; and it is with deep satisfaction that we note the many indications both at home and in the Colonies of the growth of that sentiment. It is striking its roots more deeply, and spreading more widely, day by day. At home we have had the Colonial Exhibition, and the cordial interchange of kindnesses to which it gave occasion. More recently we have had that successful Colonial Conference, the first, but not the last, of those deliberations which must gradually lift us up to the establishment of a standing council of advice on the external policy of the Empire. I have recently had an opportunity of gauging the public feeling of the Colonies towards the Mother-country. I witnessed the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee in several parts of Australia. At Melbourne I saw a Colonial army—8,000 strong— march past to the tune of 'The Old Folks at Home.' Again and again, on every public occasion, I heard ' God Save the Queen' sung by young and old, with an intensity of feeling which gave to our grand old National Anthem a deep political significance. To our Colonial fellow-subjects the Queen is the personal emblem of that unity of the Empire which they value with patriotic devotion and are firmly resolved to maintain. The Colonies have lately had an opportunity of showing their loyalty to the cause of Imperial union in a practical form. At the Colonial Conference they were invited, and agreed, to bear the cost of a special squadron for Australian waters. This is an earnest of their willing, ness to share in the burdens of taxation for Imperial defence. In several of the Colonial Parliaments the Australasian Navy Bill passed through all its stages by acclamation in a single sitting.

Let us briefly pass in review the advantages which the unity of the British Empire offers to all its members. We have seen within the span of a single generation the map of Europe completely reconstructed. Dynasties have succumbed to nationalities; Germans, Greeks, Slavs, Italians, are coming together. How shall we hold our own in face of this new adjustment of political power? Is it not clear that, if we wish to retain our high place among the nations, we Britons must stand shoulder to shoulder, as members of one united nationality? The union of the Empire is a source of strength to the Colonies not less than to ourselves. As independent governments, their representations might be unheeded at Berlin and at Paris. As member's of a great Empire, they command respectful attention. Our diplomacy will be more and more effective as it is seen that we mean to stand together, regarding the interests of the Colonies as our interests, and their concerns as our concerns.

In relation to naval defence, union with the Empire gives to the Colonies the protection of a great Navy, at the least cost, and with an efficiency not attainable in a small service without traditions and without experience. While the Imperial connection is helpful to the Colonies, it secures a valuable addition to the maritime resources of the Empire. The mercantile marine of Canada ranks fifth in the merchant navies of the world. The maritime population, owing to the great development of the fisheries, is numerous, out of all proportion to the great tonnage of the shipping. No country in the world offers such a splendid field for the recruitment of a naval reserve. Australian shipping enterprise is less extensive than in Canada, but the appropriation of public money is exceedingly liberal for the purposes of naval defence.

In relation to military strength, by preserving the unity of the Empire we receive a valuable reinforcement; in fact, the same principle applies to military matters as to naval. We provide the standing army of the Empire. The Colonies give us a force in reserve. The census of 1881 showed that the North American Colonies contained more than 450,000 men of the military age, and I believe I am correct in saying that one-fifth of the number have been trained to arms. In Australia the organised force of militia, including a large proportion of most efficient cavalry, may be reckoned by thousands. In New Zealand the Volunteer force is over 10,000 strong. Looking to the geographical position on the flank of India, it is evident we may rely for effective support from Australasia in the defence of the Eastern Empire.

If we consider the Colonies as customers for British goods, the connection is surely well worth preserving. The Colonies and India take 35 per cent, of the whole value of our exports. Our trade with the American dependencies has increased more than twentyfold, and with Australasia fiftyfold, within the term of the Queen's happy reign. Our Colonial trade has shown growth and elasticity at a time when trade was shrinking or stationary in every other quarter of the globe. It has been our policy in the past to give to the Colonies an unrestrained freedom in their fiscal legislation. They have, for the most part, adopted a strong protectionist policy, but they have put the Mother-country on the footing of the most favoured nation. The value of that position is sufficiently attested by a comparison of the volume of our exports to North America north and south of the Canadian frontier.

It is difficult to see how the interests of any Colony would be advanced by union with another State which would treat them with less liberality than the Mothercountry has displayed. In Canada proposals have been made for a commercial union with the United States. Let us trace the probable consequences of such a policy. They have been very clearly pointed out by the veteran Premier of Canada, Sir John Macdonald. Commercial union with the United States would mean a hostile tariff to Great Britain. A hostile tariff would make us less disposed than we now are to defend Canada. Hence, commercial union with the United States would lead to separation from the Mother-country. Annexation to the U nited States would be the next step, and submission to the fiscal laws of that country—to conditions laid down in the interests of the Pennsylvanian ironmasters and the New England manufacturers—would mean certain ruin to the rising Canadian industries.

Passing from trade and commerce, the financial benefit to the Colonies from the Imperial connection is sufficiently obvious. It enables them to raise the loans they require for the development of their resources on terms which would certainly not be accepted if they came to us as independent States.

Unity brings to the Empire yet another source of strength. It enlists in the common cause the abilities of the rising statesmen of the self-governing Colonies. The power of these men made itself felt, and was most fully recognised, on the occasion of the Colonial Conference. The unity of the Empire is worth preserving, not alone for the material advantages which it gives. Citizenship of our far-extending Empire gives to each of us an ennobling sense that we share in all that makes the British Empire great—in its commerce, in its power, in its literature, in its history, and in all the work it has done and may yet do in the cause of freedom. The passionate desire to keep the Empire together is a sentiment at which the cynics may smile; but it is a sentiment, as the Master of Trinity so well said in his eloquent speech in London, that statesmen will turn to account.

Having urged the advantages of the Imperial connection, I may make the admission that there is a party in the Colonies, not formidable, however, in numbers or influence, who are in favour of severing the connection with the Mother-country. They argue that, as independent States, the Colonies would be better able to follow the path of peaceful progress along which they have been moving. They think they would be more free from the risks of war for dynastic interests, or for adjustments of boundaries in distant regions of the earth with which they have no concern. The course which has been pursued in recent years by our Foreign Ministers under successive Governments must tend to allay the apprehensions of an aggressive policy. The objects chiefly in view in the direction of the foreign affairs of the British Empire at the present time are to guard India from external foes and to make our communications with our Colonies secure. These are objects of common interest to the Colonies and to ourselves. Already the influence of the Colonies is a guiding force in the external policy of the Empire. But we shall arrive in due time at something more than a tacit understanding, and the Imperial Federation League is not without a policy, in relation to the inevitable changes of the future. That policy was indicated in the admirable speech by Lord Rosebery at Leeds. It is the aim of the Imperial Federation League to prepare the public opinion of this country for the admission of the Colonies to a larger share than they have yet obtained in the direction of the external affairs of the Empire.

The first step to Imperial federation is Colonial federation. In Canada the Government has been remodelled on the principle of federation, and we may look in the near future to a federation of the Australian Colonies. In the interval which must elapse before a scheme of Imperial federation is matured, the Colonies will be growing in wealth and population and culture. With their growth we must be prepared for a demand for a larger share of control. Most thoroughly do I concur with Lord Rosebery, that it will be wisdom to make some sacrifice of our insular freedom of action on behalf of our giant offspring abroad.

I hope I have given sufficient reasons for the existence of our League. It was organised under our first president, Mr. Forster a name never to be mentioned without veneration by Englishmen—to help in the great cause of the unity of the Empire. Under another statesman of great power and promise, we are steadfastly labouring to-day with the same lofty aim. As an old yachtsman and a man of many voyages, I will express the hope that 1 may sometimes be able to carry to the Colonies the assurance of the regard in which they are held at home, and bring back some message of reciprocal affection. If this, the most cherished aim of my life, be in any degree fulfilled, I believe that I shall be doing the best service to my country which it is in my power to render.

The speech made by Lord Rosebery at Leeds to which Lord Brassey refers in the above address was an important one. It had been delivered by Lord Rosebery only a fortnight or so before the Glasgow meeting, in reply to an address presented to him by the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. After alluding to the supreme interest of commerce in this country, Lord Rosebery took occasion to point out the extent to which our Foreign policy has become a Colonial policy. ' A great change,' he said, ' has come over the whole of our Foreign policy during the last twenty years. I think you will see a greater change in the next twenty years. Our Foreign policy has become more of a Colonial policy, and is becoming every day more entwined with our Colonial interests. Formerly our Foreign policy was mainly an Indian policy; it was mainly guided by considerations of what was best for our Indian Empire. That brought us into many complications which we might otherwise have avoided, but which we felt were rightly faced to save so splendid a possession: but now, owing to causes which I will point out to you, Colonial influences must necessarily overshadow our Foreign policy.

' In the first place, our Colonial communities are rising to a pitch of power which makes it natural for us to listen to them whenever they make representations on their own behalf and they do make constant representations oil their own behalf. In the next place, we find that the other Powers are beginning a career of Colonial aggrandisement. We formerly did not have in our Foreign affairs to trouble ourselves much with Colonial questions, because we had a monopoly of Colonies. That monopoly has ceased; but consider for a moment, as matters stand now, how largely our Foreign policy is a Colonial policy.

' Why, our principal question of Foreign policy at this moment may be said to be the Fisheries dispute between Canada and the United States. It is difficult for some of us— it is difficult at any rate for myself to consider the United States as a Foreign Power, but the United States in these Colonial questions has interests totally different from ours or those of Canada, and in dealing with Canadian questions it is clear that the voice of Canada must sound loud in the councils of the Foreign Office. If you look a little further you find a constant source of irritation in Newfoundland in regard to the Fisheries question, which rendered it impossible to ratify a Convention made on the subject with France. That, again, shows the extent to which Colonial policy has become Foreign policy. When you look at Africa you find a similar change. If you look at some of the maps that are published you will see the whole continent portioned out among the various Powers; which means that instead of your policy being an insular Foreign policy, you aie now a Power with boundaries adjoining those of three or four European States on the continent of Africa. We pass now to Asia, we pass to Thibet. You have alluded to the question of trade with Thibet. I confess I am in favour of a pacific solution of that question, of the extension of commerce, by carrying it forward peacefully and not by force of arms. But in Asia, again, we do not find ourselves free from this Colonial trouble. France has got a great territory there. We are adjacent to French territory in Asia, which again makes us almost a co-terminous Power with France where we used not to be.

' Pass on to Australia. In the Pacific you have two spheres of influence, of England and Germany, as accurately marked out as the division between Yorkshire and Lancashire. You are a co-terminous power with Germany in the Pacific. In questions relating to the Pacific the voice of your Colonial community in Australia must be loudly heard, the voice of Australia must be almost paramount in the councils of the Foreign Office with regard to these questions. Take another instance of what I mean. The two questions which we had to regulate with Germany, in 1886 at any rate, were questions relating to Zanzibar and Samoa, questions relating to the Colonial development of Germany and quite outside ordinary European diplomacy. When you come to approach almost every foreign question at this moment you find the Colonial interest inseparable, and in future your Colonial policy must be a preponderating factor in your Foreign policy as well. Just think what a wide interval separates the Foreign policy I have endeavoured to describe from the Congress of Vienna, when we were engaged as our sole concern in apportioning the map of Europe.'

These considerations, Lord Rosebery went on to say, led liim to another point of our policy on which he thought Chambers of Commerce should assist in forming public opinion. ' The people of this country,' he said, ' will, at a not too distant time, have to make up their minds what footing they wish their Colonies to occupy with respect to them, or whether they desire their Colonies to leave them altogether.' This question, he said, was worthy of the consideration of our great commercial communities on the ground of commercial interest alone, if on no other, and that consideration should be prompt, because the question of the retention of our Colonies might be sprung upon us at any moment by some unforeseen accident. And then he came to the particular point to which Lord Brassey alluded. 'You cannot,' lie told his hearers, 'obtain the great boon of a peaceful Empire, encircling the globe with a bond of commercial unity and peace, without some sacrifice on your part. No great benefit—no such benefit as that can be obtained without a sacrifice. You will have, as I think, to admit the Colonies to a much larger share in your affairs than you do at present. You will have to give them a right to prompt the voice of England when it speaks abroad to a much greater extent than at present. You must be prepared for demands, sometimes unreasonable, such as spoiled children make. You must be prepared in some respects to diminish your own insular freedom of action on behalf of your giant offspring abroad. But to my mind the sacrifice is worth it.

' The cause which we call Imperial Federation, for want of a better name, is worthy not merely of the attention of Chambers of Commerce, but of the devotion of the individual lives of the people of this country. For my part, if you will forgive me this little bit of egotism, I can say from the bottom of my heart that it is the dominant passion of my public life. Ever since I traversed those great regions which own the sway of the British Crown outside these islands I have felt that it was a cause which merited all the enthusiasm and energy that a man could give to it. It is a cause for which anyone might be content to live; it is a cause for which, if needs be, anyone might be content to die.'

Lord Rosobery's speech at Leeds, as well as Lord Brassey's address at Glasgow, evoked considerable comment, almost always favourable in tone, in the public press, and so far fulfilled in themselves the aim of the League, preparing public opinion for the constitutional changes necessary to carry out the policy of Imperial Federation.

In the same year, 1888, Lord Brassey made some other important contributions to the discussion of Colonial questions. In February he read a paper before the Royal Colonial Institute on ' Work and Wages in Australia.' In the same month he delivered an address in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester on the subject of State Colonisation, and followed this up in the follow ing November with a paper on the same subject in Liverpool. These papers are not, perhaps, sufficiently germane to the general subject of the speeches printed in this volume to find a place among them in the body of the work; but they are of considerable interest and value in themselves, and, as bearing expressly on Colonial questions generally, although not directly on the ' Colonial Question' specially so-called—viz. the Imperial relationship of the Colonies with the Mother-country and with each other—are clearly entitled to a place within the covers of this volume. These matters are accordingly placed in the Appendix.

To the paper on ' Work and Wages in Australia ' has been appended a thoughtful speech, made by Lord Dunraven, from the chair, in the discussion that ensued upon the reading of the paper.

There is added to the papers on State-aided colonisation a very instructive letter upon the results of an experiment in Canadian colonisation, addressed by Lord Brassey to the ' Times' two years later, in 1891.

CHAPTER V
1889–91
Address at Keighley Chamber of Commerce—League Dinner:
His Speech in Reply to ' The Navies of the Empire '—The
Duke of Westminster and Lord Brassey at Chester: Lecture
on ' Our Colonial Empire' there—All-importance of Imperial
System of Defence—The Colonies should be invited to join
—The League and a Second Conference—Correspondence
between Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury—An Imperial
Council of Defence: Speech at a League Meeting in Liverpool,
1890—Resolution moved by Lord Bràssey at Annual
Meeting of League—Lord Houghton and Lord Brassey at
Leeds, 1891—Circumstances of Time, Behring Sea, Newfoundland
Fisheries, Australian Federation—Speech at Leeds—A
Colonial Council—Defence Question Ripe for Settlement—
Not so that of Customs Union—Conferences and Commissions—Sir
Bevan Edwards's Report on Australian Defences—
Speech in House of Lords on Military Contributions of
Crown Colonies—Lords Knutsford and Kimberley and Mr.
Stanhope on same Subject—Article in ' Nineteenth Century'
—Speech at Public Meeting at Brighton.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE KEIGHLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MARCH 8, 1889.

LORD BRASSEY began by observing that the Imperial Federation League, with which he was closely connected, had been doing its best to collect statistics as to trade, and a work dealing with this question had been prepared by Sir Rawson Rawson. The statistics compiled showed how elastic was British trade. British and Irish exports grew from 122 millions in 1857 to 221 millions in 1887. After dealing with questions of trade depression, English shipping, and foreign protective tariffs, he continued by saying that in the growth of the population within the Colonies we had a very important element contributing to the prosperity of our own country. One of the most effective means of developing trade in the Colonies was by lending them money at a cheap rate, and by preserving the unity of the Empire.

The unity of the Empire might be preserved by fostering and cultivating the sentiment of mutual regard. Sentiment counted for a great deal in the practical affairs of the world, and depend upon it, every kindly word publicly expressed at home in relation to the Colonies would help to promote the great object in view. Hardly anything any Government had done could have been more wise and fruitful in good than the invitation which resulted in bringing together for the first time, in the heart of the Empire, representatives from all parts of the Empire for mutual consultation, which took place in connection with the great Colonial Conference a year or two ago. He happened to be in Australia when the representatives returned home, and he knew that the kindness shown in the old country was most thoroughly appreciated by the Colonies, and would never be forgotten.

To maintain the unity of the Empire he was prepared to go a good deal further, by giving practical expression to this feeling of legislative action. He was prepared— he did not say to-day, he did not fix a date—to assent to the establishment sooner or later of a Council of Advice, which should represent—probably in proportion to population—all parts of the Empire in the department of Foreign Affairs. He recognised that the necessity for consulting such a Council might hamper a Foreign Minister, and that for certain purposes it would he a let and a hindrance. Perhaps we could not follow a certain line of policy so well if we had to confer with the Council as if we were able to act for ourselves; but, on the other hand, he foresaw in the establishment of such a Council an enormous development of strength for the purpose of the mutual defence of all parts of the Empire.

Referring to the assistance rendered by a single Colony at the time of the Soudan campaign, his Lordship said that if we were in a greater difficulty assistance would be given in a far larger measure; and we might look forward to a few years hence, when the Colonies should have grown so powerful that they would be in a position, if so minded, to give such assistance to the Mother-country as should make her secure against any possible combination. Again, they would offer a very great inducement to the Colonies to remain bound up with the Mother-country if our Navy were maintained at such strength as to create in the minds of our Colonial fellow-subjects a thorough confidence in our power to give them protection.

He held it to have been a wise step—a most wise step—on the part of the present Government, to invite the Australian Colonies to contribute along with the Mother-country to the joint expenses of maintaining the Navy. Depend upon it, in proportion as we made the Navy efficient, and as we convinced the Colonies that by a contribution to the common purse they would obtain a cheaper and a better protection than they could possibly improvise by establishing independent navies of their own, we should by that means, as well as any other, practically contribute to the maintenance of the unity of the Empire. He was not there to discuss the question of the Navy, but he would say that the Navy was obviously itself one of the chief links by which in a practical way the Mother-country and the Colonies were bound together. He hailed with satisfaction the proposals now before Parliament.

At the dinner of the League—at that time an annual event—held in June of this year, Lord Herschell being in the chair, Lord Brassey replied for 'The Navies of the Empire ' included in the toast of ' The Services of the Crown.' He said:—

SPEECH AT LEAGUE DINNER, 1889.

Lord Herschell and Gentlemen, I have much pleasure in responding for the Navy. The subject is a large one, and I cannot, in the few words I shall address to you, treat it in many of its aspects. I will confine myself to the point of view from which we regard the Navy as members of the Imperial Federation League. As such we all recognise the services of the Navy—the essential services of the Navy as the pioneer of our great colonising enterprises, and at the present time, and in all time to come, the Navy is the shield—the effective shield— that the United Empire holds in front of every one of its Colonies for protection against all external foes. I cordially congratulate the present Government on the success with which they have carried through an arrangement by which we have been able to reinforce— to largely reinforce —ur fleet in Australasian waters by means of the joint contributions of the Colonies and the Mother-country. That arrangement was the most important practical outcome of our first Colonial Conference. I hail the success of that Conference. It is, I think, a happy augury for the future.

I would urge upon the Government another suggestion, having for its object the strengthening of our naval position in the Colonies. When I was in Australia I was impressed with the desirability of the establishment, at an early date, of a Naval College upon the lines, though perhaps not quite on the scale, of that which we have at home on board the ' Britannia.' I am quite sure if we desire the Colonies cordially to contribute in ever-increasing sums, we must be prepared to give commissions in the services largely to Colonial officers. The means by which that idea can be best carried out is by the establishment of a Naval College on the Australasian seaboard. I should like to see another such college in Canada. I believe such schools would not only be valuable from a purely naval point of view, but would give the Colonies additional public schools, inspired by the traditions that are derived from such a great service as that of the Navy.

I must not omit to mention the Colonial Navies. Amongst the recollections I most value of a recent journey in the Australasian Colonies, not the least interesting are the Coloinal Navies. We have great cause to appreciate the public spirit which has been displayed by our Colonies in the inauguration of these young forces, and we may look upon them with a deeper interest, because we know that, so long as the present deep feeling of mutual affection exists, the strength of those naval forces is our strength, just as much as our strength is their strength. I thank you very much for the way in which you have honoured this toast.

In October, Lord Brassey delivered a lecture on 'Our Colonial Empire,' at Chester, the Duke of Westminster taking the chair, and there being present also H.R.H. the Duchess of Teck and the Princess Victoria of Teck, now Duchess of York. It was characteristic and natural—and yet it might not have occurred to everyone to do it—that, on being invited to deliver an address in the county where his family had been settled for centuries, Lord Brassey should select a subject tending to cultivate the spirit of patriotism which, in his opening sentences, he so truly associates with that love of ' home' of which the love of ' country' is but the widest expansion. And the form of patriotism which he sought to inculcate was, it is needless to say, the highest and broadest of all, not only National but Imperial.

Like other speeches of this and the previous year, the following is an exhaustive review of the position of the Colonies and the Colonial question by the light of his own unique experiences.

LECTURE DELIVERED AT CHESTER, OCTOBER 22, 1889.

IT was my privilege, many years ago, to hear Lord Palmerston's speech, delivered as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, to the assembled Volunteers at Dover. In his stirring appeal to the patriotism of his audience, he said, and said truly, ' A man should begin by loving his home and his family. Next he should love his parish, and then his county; and if he loves these, he will he certain to love his country well.' Speaking for myself, I have a warm attachment to the ancient city and county of Chester, and I hope that my local affections for this place may be some help in cultivating a sense of patriotism.

Having received your kind invitation to deliver an address, I have been guided in the choice of a subject by the desire to turn to best account for the present occasion such experiences as I have gained in a varied and active life, and especially as an old yachtsman. It is not in everybody's way to have traversed the wide seas as I have done, and to have visited every part of that great British Empire on which the sun never sets. In the course of voyages, I have been led to Newfoundland, our most ancient Colony, barren and bleak, but rich in its harvests of the sea. I have visited the maritime provinces of Canada, whose shipping ranks among the most important of all the merchant navies of the world. I have ascended the St. Lawrence to the historic city of Quebec. I have seen Toronto and Montreal, creations almost of the present generation, yet already worthy to be the capitals of provinces as big as kingdoms. Taking an eastward sweep, I have followed along the line of our great and invaluable coaling-stations, from Gibraltar to Hong Kong, and back by way of the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, and Sierra Leone. T have seen the snows of the Himalayas and the harbours of Ceylon. I have circumnavigated Australia. Having seen so much of our vast Empire, it is natural to cherish a patriotic hope that we shall not, by any failure of statesmanship or want of sympathy, allow these spreading branches to be severed from the grand old stem from which they have sprung.

I have referred to my personal experiences; but you, citizens of the noblest colonial Empire which the world has yet seen, will not need the opportunities of travel in order to feel a pride in our other and greater England which lies beyond the seas During the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, when we were passing in review the national progress of her fifty beneficent years, the growth of the Colonies was one of the most fascinating and popular topics which came prominently into view. In the fifty years 1837 to 1887, the area governed by the Queen, exclusive of Great Britain, increased from 1,100,000 to 8,400,000 square miles; the European population of the Colonies increased from 2,000,000 to 10,000,000; the coloured population from 98,000,000 to 262,000,000; and the State revenues from £24,000,000 to £122,000,000.

The maintenance of the Colonial connection is of value as a source of strength for the defence of the Empire, not less than as an outlet for our commerce. When I was serving at the Admiralty, it was my duty to consider how best we could meet the growing forces of the Continental Powers. The consolidation of empires on the basis of a common nationality was in active progress in all parts of Europe. If we were to hold our own against the fleets and armies of our powerful neighbours, it seemed essential that the British nation should remain undivided. Every step to consolidation and unity strengthens the defences of the Empire. The offers of assistance which we have from time to time received from Canada, the co-operation of her voyageurs on the Nile in the sad expedition to Khartoum, the proffered help from South Australia in a time of difficulty in South Africa, the contingent sent from Sydney to the Soudan, the services of the native troops of India in the field in Egypt—all these are incidents which have shown to the world the wide resources at our command. In all the English-speaking Colonies the Volunteer movement is popular, and considerable forces have been enrolled. When I was in Australia at the period of the Queen's Jubilee, I was deeply impressed with the military bearing and the great numerical strength of the forces which were reviewed by the governors of the Colonies on that occasion. In Australasia an effective commencement has been made in the organisation of naval forces for coast and harbour defence. Canada, which has a seafaring population of 47,000 men inured to the hardships of one of the most turbulent oceans of the world—admirable recruits for a powerful naval reserve—unfortunately has done little in the way of naval preparation. As yet the Colonies have not looked beyond their local self-defence. Hereafter they will do more. Australasia will be the commanding Power in the Pacific and the South Seas; and in the defence of India she will be able in coming years, from her advantageous strategical position, to render invaluable aid to the Mother-country.

Turning from the Imperial to the Colonial standpoint, it is obvious that serious loss would ensue to the Colonies from separation. Taking first the material interests of the Colonies, it is evident that they would suffer seriously. Separation would mean a much higher charge for those abundant supplies of capital which have been hitherto furnished by the Mother-country on such easy terms. Over one hundred and fifty millions of British capital have, it is computed, been directly advanced to the Australasian governments. Canada has borrowed some sixty millions. These loans have been indispensable for the material advancement of the Colonies. They have been expended on railways, canals, and public works ; and the extension of these essential facilities to the development of our Colonial prosperity, it is evident, would be seriously injured by any change which made it more difficult to borrow money from London. Certain it is that the Colonies would not borrow in London on the easy terms now accorded if they appeared as external Powers, and not as members of the great British Empire.

The value of the Imperial connection may be put on higher and nobler grounds than those which are connected with material interest. Sir Alexander Gait, the late Canadian High Commissioner, in a speech delivered in Scotland, expressed himself as follows:—' Canada should not desire separation. What is the future it would give us? We would become an insignificant independent country. At present we belong to the greatest Empire in the world. It is our pride and our boast that we do so; but if we separate and drift off, we exercise no influence on human affairs.' It will be interesting to note some other recent declarations from men whose position entitles them to be regarded as representatives of public opinion. Canada is at present most ably represented in this country by her High Commissioner, the successor of Sir Alexander Gait, Sir Charles Tupper. He is a member of the Imperial Federation League, and he has boldly advocated in the meetings of the League what I may call a forward policy for the League, on the lines approved by his predecessor in office. There is good reason to believe that the voice of these representatives, these High Commissioners whom we so cordially welcome to this country, is truly the voice of the Canadian people. An article recently published in the ' Quarterly Review,' and attributed to a writer of great authority and experience in Canadian affairs, gives much encouragement to the friends of federation. He tells us that the people of the Dominion of Canada are firmly resolved on working out their own future apart from the United States. They have been resolutely and successfully building up, not only a political, but a material independence. In Lower Canada, the French population support the British connection as the best guarantee for the preservation of their institutions and their language intact. In the province of Ontario, traditions of loyalty to the British connection maintain a potent influence over the descendants of those who withdrew during the War of Independence across the Canadian frontier.

Such being the state of opinion in Canada, let us hear what the responsible ministers of Australia have said on this great question. Sir Henry Parkes is the oldest in years, and ranks second to none in personal authority, among the statesmen of Australia. The discussion in the legislature of New South Wales on the Bill for giving responsible government to Western Australia, has recently afforded him the opportunity to give expression to the views which he has long consistently held, and which I have had the privilege of hearing from his own lips. ' I have no dream,' he said, ' of separation, or of a different form of government from that of the parent State. As an Australian, I aspire to create in the Antipodes a glorious chain of free commonwealths; but I desire that these commonwealths should remain in alliance with the grand country from which all Australians have sprung.' Dui'ing my visit to Australia, I was the guest at Melbourne of the local branch of the Imperial Federation League. Mr. Gillies, the then Prime Minister, gave to the occasion the important sanction of his presence; and in his speech he made an earnest declaration of his adhesion to the cause of federation, and to a policy of drawing closer and closer the bonds and links of the Imperial connection.

We find the same opinions held even in colonies where the British settlers are in a minority of the population. At the Cape I had the opportunity, during a recent visit, of learning the views of Sir Gordon Sprigg, the Premier, and Mr. Hofmeyr, the leader of the Dutch party in the Cape Parliament. It may be interesting that I should mention that Sir Gordon Sprigg was formerly a reporter in the gallery of the House of Commons. The period of his professional career in that position was the period when Mr. Cobden was in his prime, and that experience, depend upon it, has not been without value to Sir Gordon Sprigg in the important position which he now holds in the Cape of Good Hope. Well, Sir Gordon Sprigg, though dependent on the Dutch for his majority, is a thorough Englishman. Mr. Hofmeyr, though a Dutchman, has no desire whatever to weaken the British connection. He knows quite well that if our protection were withdrawn, the important strategical position at the Cape would be immediately seized by one or other of the great Powers, and that the Dutch population of the Cape would look in vain, under their new rulers, for the liberty and the considerate treatment which they enjoy under the British flag. Lord Carnarvon, as he has shown in his article in the ' Fortnightly Review,' left the Cape with the same impression. He feels assured that England, if well advised in her policy, may look with confidence to the true and loyal support of the able and eminent leaders of Dutch opinion at the Cape.

I have quoted the opinions of Colonial statesmen. Now, how stands the case at home? Shortly after the accession of the present Government to power, I had the honour of introducing a deputation from the Imperial Federation League to Lord Salisbury. In the course of his reply, the Prime Minister used these sympathetic words:—'I do not ever remember any feeling having grown up so suddenly and obtained such a rapid increase, both in this country and in the Colonies, as the desire which is expressed for Imperial Federation. . . . The great object which is before this League, and which it has been the desire of this deputation to enforce, is that the Mother-country and the Colonies should act together on those matters which concern their common interest. That is a desire which, I believe, statesmen will always have to keep before them, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will reciprocate the feelings which have been expressed in this room. I will lay before them what you have suggested, and take care that your arguments shall be well considered by the Cabinet, and I am sure that we shall approach this question and consider the representations of this deputation, feeling that we are dealing with questions that will affect for many generations to come a vast portion of the earth's surface, and many, many millions of the subjects of the Queen.' We have a later declaration from Lord Salisbury, arising out of the proceedings of that Conference which was convened in the year following that interview to which I have referred. This is what he said about the Colonial Conference: — 'We are all sensible that this meeting is the beginning of a state of tilings which is to have great results in the future. It will be the parent of a long progeniture, and distinguished councillors of the Empire may, in some far-off time, look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which all their greatness and beneficence have sprung.'

I have cited some weighty opinions in favour of the policy of Imperial Federation. It remains to ask ourselves whether the time is ripe for action on this great question. Let us gladly acknowledge that the relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies as they now exist, managed with tact and judgment, leave little to be desired. But if we look a few years ahead, we can clearly foresee that the changed conditions will require new adjustment. It is evident that, by the close of the century, the growth of the Colonies in population and in wealth will have been so considerable as to make it impossible, at any rate most extremely arduous, for the Mother-country to provide unaided for the defence of the Empire. Already both Canada and Australia have assumed the responsibility for their local defence. Australasia, under the recent agreement which grew out of that Colonial Conference, will share with the Mother-country the charge for the maintenance in Australian waters of naval forces for a wider sphere of defensive operations than one of mere coast and harbour defence. A call such as we have already made upon the Australian Colonies cannot be often repeated without admitting the Colonies to a share in the direction of the external policy of the Empire, even though they make no direct contribution to naval and military expenditure. The Colonies, in so far as they are open and liable to attack, are exposed to bear the brunt of any war in which the Mother-country may be engaged. The necessity for paying deference to Colonial opinion and Colonial interests is already practically acknowledged more and more in the foreign policy of this country. Our statesmen instinctively shrink from engagements and commitments in all matters in which Colonial interests are concerned. From all these considerations, it is evident that we cannot much longer — I use these words not measured by the period of time of a single human life, but with reference to the life of the nation —we cannot much longer remain under the present loose arrangements.

I may claim, therefore, for the Imperial Federation League that it is doing good service by keeping the great question with which it deals under the consideration of the public. It is not the business of the League to formulate schemes of federation. When public opinion is ripe, it will be for responsible statesmen at home and in the Colonies to formulate plans, to exchange views, and to arrive at a settlement. During the present year, the League has suggested another Conference for the purpose of discussion, and deliberation. In a friendly reply, Lord Salisbury has expressed the opinion that, for the present, the proposal is premature. He desires to see further progress in Colonial confederation, and some movement on the part of the Colonies themselves. I have said that it is not the part of the League to formulate plans. Our president, Lord Rosebery—we keep ourselves in a perfectly neutral position by selecting our president from the Opposition and the vice-president from the Cabinet—has not gone further as yet than the enunciation of a general principle. 'The federation we aim at,' he said, 'is the closest possible union of the various self-governing States ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free development which is the birthright of British subjects all over the world—the closest union sympathy, in external action, and in defence.'

Various proposals have been put forward for the practical application of the main principle. That which seems to command, as yet, the most general favour was originally suggested by Earl Grey, some ten years ago. Earl Grey proposed the appointment of a federal committee selected from the Privy Council. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Greswell, in an essay to which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was awarded. Among the judges were Mr. Froude and Sir Rawson Rawson. ' The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr. Greswell, ' must be an independent body, constitutional in its origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its decisions.' Such a body we have already in existence in the Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have done service to the State. To this body, Colonists of distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representatives would or might be given to every part of the Empire, in proportion to the several contributions to the expenditure for the Imperial defences. The success with which the Senate of the United States has discharged its most important functions as a council of advice to the President in the department of foreign affairs may be cited as a practical illustration and a welltried model, which those who may hereafter be charged with the responsibility of devising a similar institution might with advantage keep in their view.

With the growth of great communities and the ever increasing labours of government in countries of a high and complicated civilisation, the method of devolution seems to offer the only practical solution. But if, in relation to all questions of local administration, the tendency has been to draw farther apart, on the other hand the possibilities of unity have become, and are daily becoming, greater in relation to other, and perhaps higher, aspects of human life and effort. Steam and the telegraph are potent factors in Imperial Federation. By these agencies, the preservation of the national unity is rendered more and more practicable. Looking outside the sphere of politics, facility of intercourse is making England more and more the social centre of the Empire. The ancient Universities of the Mother-country may long remain the great Imperial seminaries of learning; our courts of law may remain the supreme courts of appeal. Learning, science, and the arts may have their centre in our noble capital. The Sovereign who reigns over our United Kingdom will, I trust, through all time remain the living personal symbol of the unity of all English-speaking people.

Perhaps I have been arguing for federation too much on grounds of utility and necessity. Let me, in conclusion, commend federation as a grand idea. Every one of us is greater individually by retaining his citizenship in the noblest Empire upon the earth. England, the universal Mother-land, does not limit her affectionate interest and her care to the inhabitants of these tight little islands. She feels—England feels—the instinctive love of a mother for those stalwart younger sons who have gone forth to rear up other Englands in the parts beyond the seas. Let, then, the same patriotism animate us all.

In the foregoing address it is again to be remarked that after a brief introduction Lord Brassey at once comes to the absorbing question of Defence, and points to the mutuality of the advantage that would accrue both to the Mother-country and the Colonies if the defences of the Empire were conducted upon a common system and by joint effort, instead of separately and independently. Great value also attaches to the review of the opinions of Colonial statesmen and political leaders as to the Imperial connection. Such men as Gait and Tupper in Canada (Sir John Macdonald had been referred to in a previous speech), Parkes and Gillies in Australia, Hofmeyr and Sprigg in South Africa, are cited as witnesses to the recognition by the leaders of politics in every group of Colonies of the advantages of union, and of the readiness of the people of the Colonies to retain their places in the Empire and do their duty by it.

Many such men are committed in a sense to the principle of Imperial Federation, and to be consistent with their professions they should not shrink from giving practical effect to that principle by showing their readiness when called upon to join actually and substantially in that combination of the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests and for the provision of an organised defence of common rights which it is the object of Imperial Federation to effect. Lord Salisbury, who is also quoted, spoke of the Conference of 1887 as to be 'the parent of a long progeniture.' The Colonies have not as a matter of fact been as yet formally invited to attend a second Imperial Conference in London. Special circumstances have no doubt intervened to place obstacles in the way of the assembling of such a Conference; but there is no reason to doubt that successive Governments have shrunk from issuing an invitation, in part from the knowledge that it might not have been altogether readily accepted in every quarter; or, if the invitation were accepted, that the beginning of a joint system of Imperial Defence made in 1887 might not, as yet, be materially advanced.

It would be distinctly discouraging to have to conclude that any reluctance to attend a Conference in London might be due to the nature of the propositions which would naturally be made on the part of the Imperial Government for extending the principle of Colonial co-operation in providing the means of Imperial Defence. The difficulty of leaving their own Governments, which has sometimes been suggested on this side of the water as a reason why Colonial statesmen should hesitate to accept such an invitation, is obviously somewhat overrated; since it has not been found to place any obstacles in the way of a Conference of some of the leading politicians of the most distant Colonies of Australia and South Africa being assembled recently at Ottawa, to discuss projects in which the Colonies themselves were specially interested, and to the furtherance of which they decided that the United Kingdom should contribute.

Lord Brassey refers specifically in this speech to the attempt made by the Imperial Federation League, again, in that year, 1889, to induce Lord Salisbury to summon another Conference at an early date, and to the latter's friendly reply, in which he expressed the opinion that for the present such a proposal was premature, and his desire to see a move on the part of the Colonies themselves. The Conference desired by the League was for the purpose of reporting on 'the possibility of establishing closer and more substantial union between the Mothercountry and the Colonies, to the advantage of the whole Empire.' This, Lord Salisbury, in the reply he addressed to the request conveyed to him by the President of the League (Lord Rosebery), said it was ' not within the province of Her Majesty's Government' to do. ' If the Colonies desire to consult together for this purpose ' (the reply continued), 'they can select representatives to do so without any summons or assistance from us. The intervention of Her Majesty's Government in a matter where their assistance is not required would only lead to misapprehension.' In this somewhat inverted doctrine of Imperial responsibility, Lord Rosebery expressed (in a further letter) the inability of himself and the League to concur. 'We think,' he said, 'that meetings of the Colonies on this subject without the intervention, and under a presidency other than that of Her Majesty's Government, should be deeply deprecated. We cannot help feeling that that view requires reconsideration, both from the point of view of Imperial unity and the supremacy of the Crown.'

At Chester Lord Brassey asked if the time were not ripe for action on this great question. In answering his own question he acknowledges that the existing relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies left little to be desired, if managed with tact and judgment. But looking a few years ahead he foresees that changed conditions will require new adjustment of these relations, and concludes that we cannot much longer remain under the present loose arrangement. Lord Rosebery virtually gave expression to the same opinion in the reply just quoted from, addressed by him, on behalf of the League, to Lord Salisbury. ' It is not any Government of Canada or Australia,' he went on to say in that letter, written a few months before Lord Brassey spoke at Chester, ' that can summon a Conference to bring about the realisation of the " growing desire to draw closer in every practicable way the bonds which unite the various portions of the Empire;" it is only the Government of Great Britain. We would further remind you that five years ago the Right Hon. W. H. Smith ' (a member of Lord Salisbury's Cabinet) ' moved a resolution that " in order to avert disintegration and to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some form of Federation is indispensable.'" That was the resolution moved at the 1884 Conference when the League was started, which, being passed with some modification of its terms, became the formal expression of the reasons which called the movement into existence. Lord Rosebery's letter concludes:— ' We therefore cannot think that we are premature in urging on Her Majesty's present Ministers that a subject so recognised and so pressing, which was excluded from the Conference of 1887, should be considered at a further gathering of the various States of the Empire.' That further gathering has yet to come about.

The brief examination of some of the proposals made for giving effect to the principle of Imperial representation with which this speech concludes is of interest for purposes of comparison with the idea of an Imperial Council of Defence, put forward in the Report of the Special Committee of the League of which Lord Brassey was chairman, issued in 1892. That Committee had before it all the materials on which to form a judgment, provided by the proposals here referred to and numberless others of varying importance. The tentative character of the propositions laid down by that Committee affords some measure of the inherent difficulties of the problem. But in making such a comparison it is to be remembered that a body consisting, as for the most part that Committee did, of responsible public men, was not likely to commit itself either to so definite or so advanced a programme as individual thinkers acting on their own sole responsibility. The Report itself will come to be dealt with in a subsequent chapter.

Early in the following year, 1890, Lord Brassey presided at a meeting held in Liverpool in connection with the Imperial Federation League, at which the principal address was delivered by the League lecturer, Mr. G. R. Parkin. Lord Brassey, as chairman of the meeting, made the opening speech.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT LIVERPOOL, JANUARY 23, 1890.

He commenced by referring to considerations which would be appreciated by men of business. The value of the over-sea Imperial trade, he said, was computed at 1,200 millions a year. One-third of that total was carried on between the Colonies and India, and the Mother-country. Of our exported manufactured goods —the most important branch of our trade, because it gave employment to the teeming millions of our industrial population—one-half was consigned to those countries. It was justly remarked in a recent article in the 'Times':—'We are proud of being partners in a business of dimensions without parallel and difficult to realise, and we are resolved to keep whole and undivided the family that has created it, and in whose hands it is desirable that the business should remain.'

It was obvious that to the Colonies separation would mean a higher charge for those abundant supplies of capital raised in London almost as cheaply by Colonial Governments as by that of the Mother-country. That money had been usefully spent in the Colonies in the construction of 15,000 miles of railways, in forming canals, on water-works, schools, public buildings, defences and harbours. Consolidation on the basis of a common nationality had been in active progress in recent years in all parts of Europe. If they were to hold their own against the fleets and armies of powerful neighbours, the British nation must remain undivided. Was the time ripe for action on that great question? Were they ready at home for Imperial Federation? Were they ready to accept the conditions on which Imperial Federation depended? Were they ready to admit the Colonies to a voice in the direction of those affairs of foreign policy in which they had a common interest with themselves?

It was certain that they could not always remain where they were. As the Colonies grew in wealth, in population, in commerce, we could not bear the sole responsibility of defence, even though the task were limited to the naval defence of the Empire. The appeal already made and promptly answered by Australia for contributions towards the charge for the naval forces in their waters must some day be renewed. With larger contributions to the expenditure would come the stronger claim to representation. We did already in effect consult and consider the views and interests of the Colonists with more solicitude than before. There was a growing anxiety in Downing Street to avoid commitments which would not be approved by Colonial opinion. It would be a step further in the same direction to create a Council of Advice in which the Colonies would be represented, and to which, as to the Senate of the United States, the consideration of foreign relations would be specially entrusted.

Various proposals had been put forward. Earl Grey suggested the appointment of a Federal Committee selected from the Privy Council, representation being given to every part of the Empire in proportion to the several contributions to the expenses of Imperial Defence. It was not, however, the business of the League to formulate schemes of Federation. When public opinion was ripe it would be for responsible statesmen to exchange views and to arrive at a settlement. Lord Rosebery had not gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of general principles. ' The Federation they aimed at,' he said, ' was the closest possible union of the various self-governing States ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free development which was the birthright of British subjects all over the world—the closest union and sympathy in external action, and in defence.' Lord Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial Government for the present to Conferences summoned at frequent intervals. The task of those Conferences would be, not legislation, but the free and full discussion of common interests. He had himself lately been much engaged in dealing with labour disputes, and his experience had taught him to appreciate even more highly than before the exceeding virtues of a Court of Conciliation. Unrestrained discussion between the representatives of conflicting interests had been most effective in preventing strikes and lock-outs. The frequent meetings of the representatives of the Mother-country and the Colonies would, in the same way, prevent the dismemberment of the Empire.

Lord Brassey proceeded to say:—' I desire, in conclusion, to express my deep conviction that Federation, under a well-considered and statesmanlike scheme, should not be condemned as an impracticable dream. The mechanical improvements of the age in which we live are potent factors in Imperial Federation. The Colonies and the Mother country are bound by the closest ties. Facility of intercourse is making England more and more the intellectual centre of the Empire; our ancient Universities are thronged with Colonial students; the decisions of our Courts of Law are everywhere accepted as precedents to be followed in the Courts of the Colonies; the bonds of unity are cemented by those old memories and traditions which make every Colonist speak of the Mother-country as " home," and which fill us in the old country with pride as we watch the splendid growth and enterprise of the Colonies. It may be that, in ordinary times, unity will chiefly consist in the external forms throughout the Empire, and all government will be carried on under one flag and in the name of the same Sovereign. But even so, we shall, every one of us, be the greater individually by remaining citizens of an Empire on which the sun never sets, and when the hour of trial comes, if it ever does come, our unity will be more than an idea: it will be a League of mutual Defence against external foes.'

In May of the same year Lord Brassey moved a resolution on a subject of some historical interest at the fifth annual meeting of the Imperial Federation League, presided over by Lord Rosebery, the Chairman of the League. In the previous January the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada had passed a loyal address to the Queen for the purpose of repudiating the aspersions upon Canadian loyalty that had recently been so freely cast about both in the United States and even in Canada itself. At the meeting of the League in London, Lord Brassey moved the following resolution:—'That this meeting expresses its profound gratification at the terms of the loyal address adopted by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, and congratulates the Imperial Federation League in Canada upon the effect which is being produced in the Dominion by means of its exertions.'

SPEECH AT ANNUAL MEETING OF THE LEAGUE, MAY 22, 1890.

In moving this resolution Lord Brassey said:—

After the interesting speech of the noble Chairman, who never fails to put something attractive before us when he pleads the cause of Imperial Federation, and after the admirable and full speech that you have just heard from the chosen representative of Canada, it is not necessary that I should detain you with more than a few words in moving this resolution. I am particularly desirous to call attention to recent expressions in Canada of loyalty to the Mother-country. In December last, Sir John Macdonald, the British Prime Minister of Canada, made an important declaration. He said:— ' There is nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by separation. I believe if any party or person were to announce or declare such a thing—either by annexation with the great Republic to the south of us, or by declaring for independence—I believe that the people of Canada would say "No." ' This speech of the Prime Minister was followed a month later by the resolution moved in the Canadian House of Commons by Mr. Mulock. It was seconded by a French Canadian Member, and was carried unanimously in a full House. These are the terms of the address:—'We have learned with feelings of entire disapproval that various public statements have been made, calling in question the loyalty of the people of Canada to the political union now happily existing between this Dominion and the British Empire, and representing it as the desire of the people of Canada to sever such connection. We desire, therefore, to assure your Majesty that such statements are wholly incorrect representations of the sentiments and aspirations of the people of Canada, who are among your Majesty's most loyal subjects, devotedly attached to the political union existing between Canada and the Mother-country, and earnestly desire its continuance. We feel assured that your Majesty will not allow any such statements, emanating from any source whatever, to lessen your Majesty's confidence in the loyalty of your Canadian subjects to your Majesty's person and Government, and will accept our assurances of the contentment of your Majesty's Canadian subjects with the political connection between Canada and the rest of the British Empire, and of their fixed resolve to aid in maintaining the same.'

The noble Chairman referred to the circumstance that our Report contains no new proposal of a specific character touching the great problem of Imperial Federation. I do not consider that it is necessary that such proposals should be made in order to justify the existence of our League. The work which this League is practically established to carry forward—the work which it is essential we should always be carrying forward—is the cultivation of a feeling of attachment between the Mother-country and the Colonies. If that feeling of attachment did not exist, Federation would be useless; but if that feeling does exist, the British people—who are always remarkable for their aptitude as practical men—depend upon it, will never fail to find means by which to give expression to that sentiment. At the present time the work we have to do in connection with the Colonies relates chiefly to the Defence of the Empire. I am glad, and I am sure we are all glad, to know that the Colonies support with more enthusiasm than heretofore the measures proposed for self-defence; and, depend upon it, many years must go by before the safe-guarding of the great routes from the Mother-country to the Colonies can be done by any other force than that of the great British Navy. I myself have been a wide traveller through the British Empire, and I have before me visions and living impressions of the greatness of those new countries which have sprung up from our race, and I have at all times the greatest satisfaction in doing anything which it is in my power to do to promote and strengthen the connection which exists between the Mother-country and the Colonies.

1891.

On March 13, 1891, a large and influential meeting in support of its movement was organised by the Imperial Federation League at Leeds. The chair was occupied by Lord Houghton, and among those present were a large number of representative men from various parts of the West Riding interested in the subject and favourable to the object of the gathering, namely, the formation of a branch of the League at Leeds. Lord Brassey was present and made an important speech.

Many events had contributed to bring the whole subject much before the minds of the public in this country during the preceding twelve months. The difficulties between Canada and the United States in the Behring Sea had tended to some exacerbation of feeling between the peoples of those two neighbouring countries, whilst party feeling ran very high in Canada itself, and gave rise to much heated discussion upon the value of the Imperial connection. The occurrence of grave international difficulties on either seaboard of British North America had brought into prominence the Imperial responsibilities devolving on Her Majesty's Ministers and the people of the United Kingdom, from purely Colonial questions. In their Annual Report issued in 1890, the Council of the League had called attention to this feature in the following paragraph:—' The questions arising out of the claims of the United States over the sea fisheries in the Behring Sea, and the encroachments of the French beyond their fishing rights on the shores of Newfoundland, have accentuated to some extent the question of the relations of the various parts of the Empire to its foreign policy, which the League has always been anxious to see placed on a more sound and definite footing.' At the general meeting of the League at which this Report was presented, Lord Rosebery, who presided, had called especial attention to this paragraph, which, he said, tersely as it was put, and so framed as to avoid controversial matter, he believed to indicate in a compendious way the inconvenience of our present arrangements. He pointed to the informal nature of the control which the Colonies were able to exercise over the conduct of affairs specially affecting their interests, and summed up the purpose of the League in a single sentence, saying that ' we seek to base our Empire upon a co-operative principle. At present the Empire is carried on—it is administered— successfully owing to the energies of the governing race which rules it, but in a haphazard and inconsequential manner.

The strong movement then going on in Australia for intercolonial federation had also the effect of setting men's minds on the wider problem of Federation, which it was hoped would be facilitated by such local grouping. Unfortunately, the hope that Australia would soon be federated has not yet been realised, nor does the prospect appear any better, if so well, now as then. But, as Lord Brassey has observed in one of these speeches, we must not judge of the course of events and the periods of time they occupy by the standard of the life of an individual, so brief in comparison with the life of nations.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT LEEDS, MARCH 13, 1891.

LORD BRASSEY said he rejoiced to have been able, as a treasurer of the Imperial Federation League, to accept the invitation to attend that meeting held in the good cause of the unity of the Empire. He was not ashamed to admit that he did not come with a cut and-dried plan of federation. He was content with a more modest mission; and he believed the League could do something to stimulate affection towards the Colonies. With regard to the mutual advantages which would accrue from preservation of our Imperial unity, it was unnecessary to enlarge upon them. The Colonies provided us with wider markets for our industries, a wide field for emigration, and large opportunities for the profitable employment of our resources, and all this without any restriction upon their liberty of self-government.

The sea power of Great Britain—an invaluable instrument for peace and civilisation—was as necessary for the Colonies as for the Mother-country. The Colonies had done their part; they had made their forts secure by powerful fortifications, and their Volunteer force might be numbered by tens of thousands. They had begun to provide a flotilla for coasts and harbours, and at the present time a powerful fleet was about to be placed in Australasian waters, to the cost of which the Colonies had made a handsome contribution. United the Mother-country and her Colonies had a power for defence which was irresistible. Separated, we in our small and over-peopled island, our Colonies scattered abroad all over the face of the globe, would present a painful contrast to the weight, dignity, and power which we possessed as a united Empire.

The questions to be asked were, whether the circumstances of the time were such as to call forth serious changes, whether fiscal or of a constitutional nature; and supposing such changes were called for, what should be their nature and extent. These questions were never more important than to-day. Our difficulties with France in respect to the Newfoundland coast, the embittered feelings evinced by the Canadian elections, and the proposed plan of Australasian Federation, were things which no statesman or political party could pass unheeded. He was not afraid of the prospects of the future. Old and staunch Liberal as he was, he should not shrink from saying that, in the department of foreign affairs, we had at this time a skilful pilot at the helm.

The time seemed to him to be ripe for the serious consideration of the relations between the Mother country and our Colonies. Many schemes of federation had been propounded, and many degrees of federal union were possible. A proposal had been brought forward for the admission of representatives of the Colonies into the House of Commons. France and Spain admitted representatives from their Colonies into their Chambers of Deputies. Personally, he was prepared for such a step. But it was obvious that such a proposal as that had not yet been put before the country in such a way as to demand and to have received adequate consideration. Another proposal was that there should be constituted a great Council of the Empire which would have functions similar to those of the Committee of the Senate of the United States duties which embraced advice on foreign affairs. For such a proposal we were less prepared than we were for the admission of representatives of the Colonies to the House of Commons. It was clear that such a proposal as the constitution of a great Imperial Council would take something away from the power of the existing House of Commons, and he doubted whether we were at present ready for such a constitutional change. There were other similar proposals deserving attention, but it was clear that they were not ripe for treatment, either in Parliament or at a Colonial Conference.

The appointment of a Colonial Council to advise with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as the Indian Council advised with the Secretary of State for India was a more limited proposal, and for this the time was near at hand, if it had not already come. As an example of what it seemed practicable to do, he might refer to the recent Presidential decree under which a Colonial Council had been created in France, with provision for the representation of the Colonies, in association with other members possessing special knowledge and qualifications. The great Departments of State—science, finance, and commerce—had their representatives on the French Colonial Council.

Another proposal which had been warmly advocated, and especially by the Protectionists, was that for a Customs Union between the Mother-country and the Colonies. It could not be said that at the present time proposals for a Customs Union were ripe for settlement, or even for discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts of the Empire. The Mother-country had been committed for more than a generation to a policy of Free Trade. By our policy of free imports of food and raw materials we had so cheapened production that we were able to compete successfully with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. Half the bread which was eaten in this country was made from imported flour; half the products of our looms were sold in foreign markets. Vast as was its volume, our trade was sensitive in the highest degree to the smallest alteration of condition. It was only by a small percentage that we had an advantage over our competitors in cheapness of price; and if we were to lose that advantage, the consequences would be fatal to a large section of our industrial population. It would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without the most careful and exhaustive inquiry. It might be alleged by those who argued for a Customs Union that some readjustment of our fiscal system in favour of the Colonies would be attended by no appreciable or permanent enhancement of price in this country; while, on the other hand, we should be far more than compensated by the monopoly which we should enjoy in the Colonial markets. These were questions of the greatest difficulty and gravity, in relation to which British statesmen might well hesitate to take a leap in the dark.

When we turned from changes of tariff to Imperial defence, we had before us a problem which had reached a more advanced stage, and the consideration of which it was not desirable much longer to postpone. Lord Salisbury had recently stated his objections to the proposal advanced by Lord Dunraven for a conference of Colonists to meet in London with a view to a re-apportionment of the cost of naval defence as between the Mother-country and the self-governing Colonies. The friends of Imperial Federation would agree that it was idle to ask the Colonies to make a pecuniary contribution to the cost of maintaining the army and navy, unless we were prepared to give a proportionate representation in Parliament, or in a new Imperial Council to be created for the purpose of dealing with defence and controlling the external relations of the Empire. It might be long before such a proposition was seriously entertained. We might, however, take concerted action for defence without the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be difficult to carry out. It was undoubtedly most desirable that such action should be taken.

In an able paper recently read before the Royal Colonial Institute by Sir Bevan Edwards, who had recently returned from an official visit to Australia, we were reminded that, when considering great questions of international defence, we were met at the threshold by an insurmountable difficulty. We had it on the authority of the Royal Commission on the administration of the Admiralty and the War Office that ' no combined plan of operations for the defence of the Empire in any given contingency has ever been worked out or decided upon.' Before proceeding to concert any plan, we must first be informed as to the share which the Colonies would take in the responsibility for their own defence. To maintain themselves in security it would not be sufficient for the Colonies to work with a narrow view merely to the passive defence of their own ports. If the communications between the Australian Colonies and the Mother-country were interrupted, the consequences would be not less fatal to the Colonies than to ourselves. It was as much their concern as our concern that the defence of the coaling-stations should be secured by adequate garrisons, works, and guns, and that the Imperial fleet should be of sufficient strength to give security to the trade of the Empire. With their growing population and wealth, and their improved military organisation, we might look for help from the Colonies in furnishing garrisons for the coaling-stations. They might help us at Halifax and Vancouver, at the Cape, in Mauritius, at Singapore, and Hong Kong. The Colonies might further help us in the protection of the trade in which we had a common interest, by the equipment of cruisers. The costly fleets of battle-ships and their auxiliaries required for offensive operations in European waters could not for many years be sent forth from the Colonies. Auxiliary cruisers could be provided by the disposition of the Colonies to aid in an emergency. We had some signal illustrations in the time of the Crimean War. The 100th Regiment was raised in Canada in a few weeks; and in 1878, when war was supposed to be imminent, large offers were made from Canada to furnish a contingent. When it was thought that we were hard pressed, New South Wales sent, at its own cost, a tine battery of field artillery and a splendid battalion of infantry, to stand shoulder to shoulder with the forces of the Mother-country in the burning deserts of the Soudan.

Hitherto it had not been necessary or desirable to ask the Colonies to come to our aid under any definite engagements. Circumstances were in the process of change. The Colonies were more able to bear their share of burdens, and we might fairly claim that they should come to our relief. They might contribute to a common purse to be held by an Imperial Council. They might contribute to the Imperial Exchequer, the administration of the army and navy remaining as at present. They might, and probably would, prefer to add to the forces under their immediate control, agreeing with the Mother-country as to their sphere of action in certain contingencies, which might be anticipated and discussed at a Colonial conference.

Now, as to the time when a conference such as we proposed might with advantage be called. Lord Salisbury had, in a recent speech, properly reminded us that the statesmen at the head of affairs in the Colonies could not without grave inconvenience quit their posts for the purpose of meeting in conference in London. It was evident that such conferences must be rare, and that they must not be called unless we. had clearly in view an adequate subject, and one which was ripe for settlement. The subjects which were ripe for immediate consideration seemed to be three— (1) Concerted action for Imperial defence between the forces of the Mother-country and those of the Colonies; (2) establishment of a Colonial Council to work with the Secretary of State; (3) inquiry into our trade relations. The two former might be referred to a Colonial Conference, and the time for the summoning of such a Conference would have arrived when the Convention now in session at Sydney had completed its task. The inquiry into our trade relations might be more appropriately entrusted to a Royal Commission.

He had endeavoured to confine himself to the principal aspects of one question. It was difficult to discuss it without an appeal to the noble sentiments which should be aroused in the cause of the unity of the British Empire. As individuals, we were each the greater—whether living in the Mother-country or in the Colonies—because we belonged to one great dominion, on which the sun never set, and which, with the fullest privileges of self-government in local affairs, was united under one Queen, had one aim, one language, one literature, one code of laws, one history, and was secured from attack by one army and one navy. It had been by gallant efforts that the Empire had been built up. We should be unworthy of the privileges which we inherited if, for want of timely care and thought, or from lack of sympathy and indifference, we suffered it to fall to pieces.

His Lordship concluded by moving the following resolution:—

' That in the opinion of this meeting the question of the consolidation of the Empire demands the immediate and continuous attention of all responsible statesmen, and that an earnest representation be made to the Prime Minister to urge upon him the convocation at the earliest timely date of an Imperial Conference for the purpose of considering the possibility of creating an Imperial Council, or of otherwise arranging a scheme of constitutional representation by which the self-governing Colonies shall share with the Mother-country in the management of Imperial affairs in general, and in particular of our joint foreign and commercial relations, means of defence and methods of communication, and by which the burdens, benefits, and responsibilities of the Empire shall be more equally distributed.'

In this address Lord Brassey very clearly recognises that the time was at hand for some step forward. He shows himself not afraid to face the necessity for formulating some kind of scheme whereby the objects of Imperial Federation may be carried into practical effect, though, for the moment, nothing more revolutionary is proposed than the creation of some such Council as that of the Secretary of State for India. The tenor of Lord Salisbury's reply to the next deputation that waited upon him, only a few months after the date of this speech, is thus in a manner adumbrated, as well as parts of the Report of the Special Committee following upon Lord Salisbury's speech. But these matters, and Lord Brassey's own important share in them, will come in for full treatment directly. Meanwhile, there are just two or three points in particular which it is important to note in the present speech. One is the clear and unmistakable enunciation of the speaker's attitude towards those schemes of tariff-reorganisation which would, whatever their object or the intention of their framers, have the effect of re-introducing the principle of Protection into the fiscal policy of this country. As a life-long Free-trader Lord Brassey will have none of them. Another point is one which is found in almost every speech in this collection—the paramount importance of Imperial Defence. 'That,' Lord Brassey said at Leeds, ' was a problem which had reached a more advanced stage' (than others he had been referring to), ' and was one the consideration of which it was not desirable much longer to postpone.'

Besides Lieut.-General Sir Bevan Edwards, whose paper before the Royal Colonial Institute is referred to in the speech, other high authorities had within the course of the preceding twelve months been dealing with the subject. Not to mention the official Report on the Defences of the Australian Colonies made by Sir Bevan Edwards himself, the general question had received very full and informing treatment in Sir Charles Dilke's 'Problems of Greater Britain,' published in 1870; and Lord Carnarvon, who had presided over the Defence Commission appointed in 1882, had read an instructive paper before the London Chamber of Commerce. The Defence Committee of the League, which included men of no mean authority on the subject, had also put out a valuable report during the same period. On the occasion referred to in this speech at Leeds, when Lord Salisbury stated his objections to a proposal advanced by Lord Dunraven for a Colonial Conference for the purpose of re-apportioning the cost of naval defence between the Mother-country and the self-governing Colonies, the Prime Minister had expressed the opinion that if the Colonists were invited to confer for this purpose they might answer:—' Imperial Defence gets on very well now: the money comes from somewhere;' and that, if they were to be asked to contribute, they would say, ' We should like to consider the matter at home for some time before we join your deliberations.' Lord Salisbury's view is perhaps not altogether without the justification of prescience. It is true the Colonies have not since been actually invited in a formal manner to attend a Conference for the purpose indicated. But there is at the same time some reason for believing—as has been already noticed—that the chief reason they have not been so invited is that Her Majesty's Ministers had pretty broad hints that an invitation for such a purpose would not (as Lord Salisbury put it) ' excite that enthusiasm throughout the Empire' which Lord Dunraven seemed to suggest. Lord Brassey, nevertheless, than whom no one has proved himself more tender to Colonial susceptibilities, while admitting that hitherto nothing of the sort had been necessary, declares categorically that we may fairly claim now, in the altered circumstances of the time, that the Colonies should come to the relief of the British taxpayer by contributing to a common purse to be held by an Imperial Council or otherwise. These subjects Lord Brassey then thought were ripe for discussion: —Concerted action for Imperial Defence, and the establishment of a Colonial Council to work with the Secretary of State —to be referred to a Conference; and the subject of inter-Imperial trade relations, more appropriately to be entrusted to a Royal Commission. It will be interesting to note the development of these views in the period of the Imperial Federation League's history immediately following the speech at Leeds.

Before passing on, however, to those important steps in the movement it may be noted that two or three days before delivering the above address at Leeds, Lord Brassey had taken part in the discussion that ensued on Sir Bevan Edwards's paper at the Royal Colonial Institute already referred to. In July of the same year, also, Lord Brassey, from his place in the House of Lords, called attention to a question having a very close bearing on the general subject of Imperial Defence, viz. the contributions made by some of the Crown Colonies to the cost of fortifications and of the maintenance of garrisons subserving general purposes of Imperial Defence.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 24, 1891.

LORD BRASSEY rose to call attention to the increased military contribution demanded by the Imperial Government from the Colony of the Straits Settlements for the maintenance of the garrison. He said, in calling attention to the increased military contribution which had recently been demanded from Singapore, his chief desire was to give to the Straits Settlements Association, on whose behalf he spoke, the satisfaction of being heard by their Lordships, and of receiving from the Secretary of State an explanation of the reasons which had guided the action of the Government. As an impartial Court of Appeal for every dependency of the Crown which considered that it had a grievance, Parliament was a powerful link to bind the Empire together.

He would begin with the admission that the Straits Settlements owed their prosperity to the protection afforded by England, and might rightly be called upon to contribute to the cost of Imperial defence. The grievance alleged was that the amount asked was excessive, and that the demand was made without previous warning or consultation. It was not necessary to dwell on the importance of Singapore as a link in the chain of fortified stations which gave protection to our trade with the East. The importance of the possession had been greatly enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal and the increase in the number of steamers. The defences of Singapore were carefully considered by the Royal Commission on the defence of the coaling-stations. The additional works recommended had been constructed by the Colony at a cost of 81,000l. The Imperial Government had provided the armaments. In addition to the cost of the defensive works the Straits Settlements had paid a military contribution, amounting for the year 1868–9 to 59,000l., and for the subsequent years to 50,445l. per annum. Up to this point the Colony had cheerfully given the co-operation which had been asked by the Home Government.

The complaint which it was his duty to submit arose out of the despatch received from the Secretary of State in 1889. The Colony were suddenly called upon to contribute 100,000l. per annum out of a total military expenditure estimated at 136,000l. In addition they were to pay 60,000l. for barracks; and they maintained a fine body of armed Sikh police for local defence and the maintenance of public order. The Colony objected to the demand which had been made on the ground that the garrison and the defences were mainly for the protection of stores of coal kept at Singapore for the general purposes of Imperial defence. The Straits Settlements complained that the charge which had been laid upon them was heavier than any which had been demanded from any other Crown Colony.

It was true the revenue was considerable, but it was precarious, depending, among other sources, upon the opium farms, which were becoming less and less productive. The Governor of the Straits Settlements, under orders from home, was compelled to exact the payment required from the Colony, but he did so under protest. In his despatch of February 1890, he stated that he was wholly unable conscientiously to support the claims which Her Majesty's Government had made, and that every member of the Executive Council, in voting for the payment demanded, voted against his conscience. He hoped that the Secretary of State, in his reply, might be able to announce some modification of the present demands, or at least to give explanations which might remove the sense of injustice which at present existed.

In conclusion, it was scarcely possible to deal with a particular case apart from the general question of the distribution of charge for Imperial defence as between the Mother-country and the several Colonies and dependencies of the Crown. The subject called for a fuller inquiry by a commission. It was desirable to establish a standard of strength at which the navy and the naval stations should be maintained. It was desirable to determine the share of the burden which the Mother-country ought to bear, the mode in which the self-governing Colonies might best co-operate, and to fix the basis on which the contributions of the Crown Colonies should be assessed. The subject was too grave to be taken up at the fag-end of a fatiguing session, but he hoped it might be entertained at a later and more favourable opportunity.

The relation of the Crown Colonies to this question is an aspect of it that has been too much left out of sight. The people of the Crown Colonies, as well as those of the United Kingdom, are sufferers by the unjust burden imposed upon them, through the immunity from contribution hitherto extended to the people of the selfgoverning Colonies. It will not be out of place to print here the official reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as well as the observations of Lord Kimberley, who subsequently held that office.

Lord Knutsford said:A suggestion has been made of reference of the whole subject of Imperial Defence to a Commission or Committee. Such Commission or Committee might be useful in reporting upon the whole question of Imperial Defence, and in laying down principles which might guide Her Majesty's Government in deciding what contributions might be fairly looked for from the Colonies. It might, for example, report whether and how far the British taxpayer should be relieved from the payment of the whole Naval Defence of the Empire, or how far the fact of the naval expenditure being undertaken by the Mother-country should be considered in deciding what military contribution a Colony should be called upon to pay. But it is manifest that such a report, unless supported by evidence given by Colonial statesmen qualified and authorised to give evidence upon the question, and to explain the views of Colonial Governments and Legislatures, would not carry much weight in the Colonies. Nor, again, could such a report, even if supported by such evidence, be held binding on our great responsibly-governed Colonies. It might be of some assistance to Her Majesty's Government as laying down general principles, and it would tend to strengthen their hands both in this country and perhaps in the Colonies when they were seeking assistance; but it would not relieve the Government of the day from an inquiry into each particular case, as the amount of contribution which can fairly be demanded must depend upon the special circumstances of each case—as, for example, upon the financial position of the Colony, its revenue and expenditure, trade, and other local considerations. He then proceeded to explain that the Straits Settlements in 1867 made a good bargain for itself, when, in order to get rid of the heavy military and naval charge imposed upon it by its connection with India, it was transferred in its own interest and at its urgent desire to the Imperial Government, which only agreed to take it over on the express condition that no additional expenditure should be thrown on the Imperial Exchequer by the change. The Home Government, in now asking for a larger contribution, were not bearing hardly or unfairly on the Colony, which, if its military expenditure had continued on the Indian scale, would now have had to pay 236,000l. a year instead of the present sum of 100,000l., or only 15 per cent, of its revenue. The population of the Colony paid 3s. 6d. per head, while the corresponding charge amounted in the United Kingdom to about 16s. per head.

Lord Kimberley thought that the Colony in that case had no good reason for complaint, and that it was only just to the British taxpayer that it should bear its fair shareof an expenditure by which its own extensive trade was protected.

The same matter had been the subject of a regular debate about the same time in the House of Commons, when its bearings on the general question were more fully brought out. Mr. Stanhope (Secretary of State for War), referring to the Cape, said he thought that Colony ' ought to contribute more largely than it did, but the House of Commons could not compel the Cape to make a larger contribution.' As a private member put it, speaking later in the debate, ' there was this element of shabbiness about it—that the Government would not persist in the demand on Colonies which could resist it,' but only did so in cases like that of Singapore, a Colony unable to offer any effectual resistance. The question is now, as it was then, whether the time has not come—not for ' insisting' on contributions from the self-governing Colonies —that cannot and should not be, since they are free agents, free to choose their own course, even though one alternative should mean their ultimate separation from the Empire—but whether the time has not come when, as Lord Brassey put it in his Leeds speech, we may fairly ask them to come in and take their proper part.

Tn the September number of the ' Nineteenth Century ' in this year, Lord Brassey had a paper in which the whole subject of Imperial Federation was passed under review.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION AS RECENTLY DEBATED

ARTICLE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, SEPTEMBER 1891

(Reprinted by permission from the Nineteenth Century)

It has been computed that the public debts of the Empire, exclusive of the British National Debt, amount to 528,000,000l., of which nearly the whole is held in Great Britain. In addition to the public debt, British capital to the amount of several hundred millions has been privately invested. As borrowers on the Stock Exchange the Colonies hold a position inferior only to that of the Mother-country herself. The lowest rate at which the Australian Colonies have been able to borrow is 3½ per cent. The present average rate of their indebtedness is 4¾ per cent. Canada borrows on equally advantageous terms. A policy of union, steadily pursued, will improve the position of the Colonists on the London Exchange. A policy of separation would destroy confidence. The more recent efforts to raise money have been less successful than those of earlier date, because separation has been under discussion. The money raised by loans is applied to objects of the highest public utility. Railways have absorbed by far the largest proportion of the expenditure. The other heads of outlay include water-supply, schools, public buildings, defences, and harbours. The development of Colonial prosperity would be seriously hampered by any change which made it more difficult or more costly to borrow money in London. Great Britain lends the money required to raise wool, mutton, and minerals. She offers the best market for the sale of all surplus Colonial produce.

The Colonies are of value to us, not only as a market, but as a field for emigration. When other nations are vainly seeking an outlet for their surplus population by annexation within the tropics, we are peculiarly happy in having acquired for the British people a wide stretch of territory in the temperate zone. The climates of Australasia are exceptionally favourable to a British population. The death-rate ranges from 16 per thousand in Victoria to 10.29 per thousand in New Zealand.

In relation to defence, to remain united is of equal advantage to the Mother-country and to the Colonies. As a military Power we do not aspire to compare with the nations of Central Europe; hut we have an army of more than 200,000 men. We have a first class armyreserve of 50,000. We have 116,000 in the militia, and a third of that number in the militia-reserve. We have 227,000 volunteers.

The sea-power of Great Britain is as necessary to the Colonies as to the Mother-country; and they could not create it for themselves. In their observations on the report by Sir Bevan Edwards, the Colonial Defence Committee insist that the security of Australasia rests mainly on naval defence. The transport for a large expeditionary force could not be prepared in the advanced bases of any European Power without the fact being known. Such an expedition could not reach its destination until the British Navy had suffered disaster.

Our Navy has been brought to its present condition by the traditions of the past, by the experience of service in every part of the globe, by peace-manceuvres on a vast scale, and, lastly, by the maintenance in the highest attainable perfection of training-establishments for every branch of the service. Our gunnery and torpedo schools, the Naval University of Greenwich, the schools for the training of naval architects and naval engineers, are indispensable for efficiency, and could not be provided by the comparatively narrow resources of independent Colonial Governments.

While the Mother-country must take the main responsibility for the naval defences of the Empire, the Colonies, on their part, can give substantial aid. The census of 1881 showed that Australasia had a population of over 450,000 males of from twenty to forty years of age. The most important cities and ports are protected by formidable works and modern armaments. A commencement has been made, notably in Victoria, in providing flotillas and naval brigades, for coast and harbour defence. A fleet of cruisers has recently been completed, at the joint charge of the Mother-country and the Colonies.

Canada has a population of five millions; with a registered tonnage of over a million and a quarter, and a seafaring population of over 47,000 men, she ranks fourth among the maritime nations of the world. She possesses elements out of which a powerful naval force could be organised. An Imperial naval reserve force should be enrolled and drilled in the Canadian ports.

If we remain one Empire we have at our command forces which are practically irresistible. If we separate, our small over-peopled island, and the young communities which we have called into existence, scattered over the globe, would present, in their weakness, a contrast painful to contemplate, by the side of the solid weight, dignity, and power of a united Empire.

The sentiment of unity is strong in every part of the Empire. The people of the Dominion of Canada are firmly resolved on working out their own future apart from the United States. They have been resolutely and successfully building up, not only a political, but a material independence. In Lower Canada, the French population support the British connection as the best guarantee for the preservation of their institutions and their language intact. In the province of Ontario, traditions of loyalty to the British connection maintain a potent influence over the descendants of those who withdrew during the War of Independence across the Canadian frontier. We find the same opinions held even in Colonies where the British settlers are a minority of the population. At the Cape, I had the opportunity, during a recent visit, of learning the views of Sir Gordon Sprigg, then the Premier, and of Mr. Hofmeyr, the leader of the Dutch party in the Cape Parliament. The Dutch population well know that, if our protection were withdrawn, the important strategical position at the Cape would be occupied by one or other of the Great Powers. They would look in vain, under other rulers, for the liberty and considerate treatment which they enjoy under the British flag. The late Lord Carnarvon left the Cape impressed with the firm conviction that England, if well advised in her policy, might implicitly put trust in the loyalty of our Dutch fellow-subjects at the Cape. Turning to Australia, the assembly of the Federation Convention afforded an occasion for an eloquent declaration on the part of Sir Henry Parkes of loyalty to the old country. The Australians, while wishing to become one people, to share one destiny, and to convey to the world that they had the resources, the intellect, and the enterprise which would enable them to win distinction among the nations of the earth, earnestly desire to remain in the constellation of free States which form the British Empire. It has been said by Lord Bosebery, with equal eloquence and truth, that we have never had any difficulty with regard to the feeling which it was our wish to discover and promote. That feeling exists everywhere. We have never had to light the fire, so to speak, of Imperial Federation. We have only had to breathe on the burning embers and kindle the flame.

The pride of the Mother-country in the Colonies has been attested by many proofs: by the success of the Colonial Exhibition and by the warm welcome extended on all sides to our visitors. The same cordial feelings were once more aroused on the yet more important occasion of the Conference of Delegates from all parts of the Empire, called together, with wise statesmanship, by the present Government in 1887. In reply to a deputation from the Imperial Federation League, which urged the desirability of summoning such a conference, Lord Salisbury used these sympathetic words:—

' I do not ever remember any feeling having grown up so suddenly and obtained such a rapid increase, both in this country and in the Colonies, as the desire which is expressed for Imperial Federation. . . . The great object which is before this League, and which it has been the desire of this deputation to enforce, is that the Mother-country and the Colonies should act together on those matters which concern their common interest. That is a desire which, I believe, statesmen will always have to keep before them, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will reciprocate the feelings which have been expressed in this room. We shall consider the representations of this deputation, feeling that we are dealing with questions that will affect for many generations to come a vast portion of the earth's surface and many, many millions of the subjects of the Queen.'

At the opening of the Colonial Conference, Lord Salisbury, in welcoming the delegates, said:—

' We are all sensible that this meeting is the beginning of a state of things which is to have great results in the future. It will be the parent of a long progeniture; and distinguished councillors of the Empire may, in some far-off time, look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which all their greatness and beneficence have sprung.'

The Imperial Federation League has recently been urged by Lord Salisbury not to rest content with the advocacy of general principles. The time had almost come when schemes should be proposed. In Canada and in Australasia there was an unwillingness to acquiesce precisely in the present state of things. Hitherto we had been following in the lines traced by the late Mr. W. E. Forster, taking every opportunity ot showing that we considered the Colonists our countrymen, and every Colony part of the common country. It had been held that the League fully justified its existence, if it could contribute in any degree to foster and to spread a feeling of affection for the Colonies in the Mother-country, and could send across the ocean from time to time to our Colonial fellow-citizens a message of good-will.

Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general principle:—

' The federation we aim at (he has said) is the closest possible union of the various self-governing States ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free development which is the birthright of British subjects all over the world—the closest union in sympathy, in external action, and in defence.'

A proposal which has been warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts of the Empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more than a generation to a policy of Free-trade. By our policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. Half the bread which is eaten in this country is made from imported flour; half the products of our looms are sold in foreign markets. Vast as is its volume, our trade is sensitive in the highest degree to the smallest alteration of condition. It is only by a small percentage that we have an advantage over our competitors in cheapness of price; and if we were to lose that advantage the consequences would be fatal to a large section of our industrial population. It would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and exhaustive inquiry. It may be alleged by those who argue for a customs-union that some readjustment of our fiscal system in favour of the Colonies would be attended by no appreciable or permanent enhancement of price in this country, while, on the other hand, we should be far more than compensated by the monopoly which we should enjoy in the Colonial markets. The late Sir John Macdonald believed that some form of customs-union was not impracticable, and that a duty too small to affect the retail price of bread in England might confer immense benefits on wheat-growers of Canada. Sir Charles Tupper asserts that a duty of ten shillings a quarter on corn imported from foreign countries would not add a halfpenny to the price of the four-pound loaf. A duty of five shillings would give an enormous advantage to the Colonies, and would never reach the consumer. Colonial statesmen are not in a position to form a wholly unbiassed opinion. The difficulties of the case were clearly stated by Lord Salisbury in his reply to a deputation of the United Empire Trade League:—

' if you give preferential treatment to your Colonies it must be that you tax the similar goods to the rest of the world, and that the Colonies are to command a better price for their goods than they would obtain under restricted competition. A better price for the vendor means a more disagreeable price for the consumer; and we have yet to receive proof that the people of this country are in favour of a policy of preferential taxes on wheat, on corn, and on wool.'

Lord Rosebery has recently declared that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hofmeyr at the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial Government for the present to conferences, summoned at frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League. It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important questions of common interest to the different countries of the Empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result of that conference was the recognition by the Australian Colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the Australian Governments.

Lord Rosebery holds that the question of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the future. They must be held periodically and at stated intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour which it is in their power to give. The task to be accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If we have these conferences, if they were allowed to discuss, as they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in authority or in weight.

Lord Salisbury, in his speeches recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. They should not be called away from their important duties unless we have questions of adequate importance, and proposals fully considered and clearly defined, to submit for consideration. On the other hand, Lord Salisbury admitted that it was impossible to come to decisions on grave questions affecting the Empire as a whole without personal communication with Colonial statesmen.

In appealing to the Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out some pregnant hints. To make a united Empire both a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly more urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a protection.

We may take concerted action for defence without the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be difficult to carry out. An inquiry by a Royal Commission into the means and requirements for Imperial defence is a first essential step, which has been already delayed too long. We have it on the authority of the Royal Commission on the Administration of the Admiralty and the War Office, that 'no combined plan of operations for the defence of the Empire in any given contingency has ever been worked out or decided upon.'

We owe the measures recently taken to secure our coaling-stations to the labours of a Royal Commission. A Commission on Imperial Defence would collect information from the intelligence branches of the army and navy, and might establish, at least for some years to come, the standard of strength at which the British Navy should be maintained. With a careful and exhaustive report in their hands, embodying the views of those most competent to advise, the Government could determine how much of the naval force required should be provided by the Mother-country. This point being decided, we could then proceed to summon the Colonies to a conference, at which it would be our duty to submit definite proposals for consideration. To maintain themselves in security it will not be sufficient for the Colonies to work with a view merely to the passive defence of their own ports. If the communications between the Australias and the Mother-country were interrupted the consequences would be not less fatal to the Colonies than to ourselves. It is as much their concern as our concern that the defence of the coalingstations should be secured by adequate garrisons, works, and guns, and that the ocean-routes converging on their ports should be guarded by a fleet of sufficient strength to give security to the trade of the Empire.

To the Australasian Colonies the most probable danger lies neither in territorial aggression nor, so long as efficient land-forces are maintained, in raids upon Colonial ports, but in the loss of mercantile ships in the neighbourhood of their ports. The costly fleets of battleships and their auxiliaries required for defensive operations in European waters could not, for many years, be sent forth from the Colonies. Auxiliary cruisers could be provided. The Colonial naval forces could operate under the general direction of the Imperial naval commander-in-chief of the station. Unity of action and the disposition to provide the ships and the men required would be promoted by conceding the privilege, too long withheld, of flying the white ensign of the Royal Navy on the public vessels maintained by the Colonial Governments..

In what has preceded, the grave difficulties of the subject have not been ignored; but Imperial Federation is a problem which may worthily engage the best intellects and the most accomplished statesmanship for its solution.

In the ' Halifax Evening Mail' it has been well said by an able Canadian journalist:—

' It is true there is a great deal that is vague and undetermined as to the scope, the constitution, and the consequence of Imperial Federation. The limits of the jurisdiction of Imperial and local legislatures are not settled as yet; neither is the mode of contributing the proportionate contribution; neither is the extent of the Imperial liabilities of the partners; neither is the method of electing Imperial representatives. It is not determined whether a measure of commercial reciprocity between all parts of the Empire will precede or follow Imperial Federation. But there are some things that are pretty clear and easy to understand in connection with Imperial Federation. It means a pooling of the offensive and defensive resources of the Empire, the gaining of strength by cohesion, the binding of the bundle of sticks by firm cords, the hooping of the staves of the barrel, of which operations Judge Haliburton and Joseph Howe long ago clearly foresaw the need. It involves the representation of the self-governing Colonies in some Imperial legislative body, and their participation in the Imperial government and Imperial expenses. It means paying our shot and shouldering our reciprocal responsibilities like Britons. The consummation of this scheme will make us part owners in every Imperial establishment in every part of the world, peers with our fellow-Britons, instead of Colonists or dependents. It is like going into partnership with one's mother, instead of staying tied to her apron-strings. Our recent troubles with the United States certainly argue that we cannot prudently wait as we are till we are rich enough and populous enough for independence. Federation would force the thoughts of our public men to expand. It would oblige our voters to consider their Imperial as well as their provincial interests. It would breed statesmen, instead of parochial politicians. It would not be as costly as independence, and certainly not more costly than union with the United States.'

In December of the same year Lord Brassey presided at a public Imperial Federation meeting at Brighton, organised by Mr. Gerald Loder, M.P. for the borough, at which the principal address was delivered by Mr. Parkin.

SPEECH AT BRIGHTON, DECEMBER 4, 1891.

LORD BRASSEY said:— This was a question the great importance of which was being impressed on the whole of the Empire. It was not strictly a question of commerce. The English had been called a ' nation of shopkeepers,' and if by that was meant that the quantity and quality of the goods made and supplied by the British people were better than those of other nations, then he did not suppose they would find much fault with what was intended as a reproach. But sentiment no doubt entered largely into the question of Imperial Federation. Every subject of the Queen must feel that it was better to belong to one great Empire than for that Empire to be broken up into isolated communities, each isolated community being thrown on its own resources. This could only mean the weakness of the isolated communities, whereas there was strength and security in union. An universal Imperial tariff had been discussed, and also the defences of the Empire. As matters stood, the Mother-country held herself responsible for the defence of the whole Empire. Still, there was a strong disposition shown by the Colonies to share in this defence. The Australian Colonies, in fact, had practically relieved the Mother-country of the defence of their coasts; Canada had done much; and South Africa had done something. Dealing with the navy, and the necessity for the protection of our trade routes, Lord Brassey said a real Imperial service could only be organised by the Mother-country, and not by any one of the Colonies, if separated —which he hoped they would never be. There could be no doubt that, for a long time to come, the defence of the Empire would be more effectively secured by one combined force than by the Colonies and the Mother-country acting independently of each other. They had a chain of coaling-stations which no other Power had ever had or could ever hope to have. But it was desirable that there should be an exhaustive inquiry into the actual condition of the requirements—looking ahead—of our naval defences. It had been said that England should have a navy equal to any other two navies in the world. He accepted that, as applied to the line-of-battle ships. When they looked to their commerce they did not find cause for complete satisfaction.

He went on to speak of the need of a Royal Commismission to thoroughly investigate the question, and he recommended that it should be a Roving Commission, so that the statesmen at the head of affairs in the Colonies might be consulted without the inconvenience of coming to London. This also would create further interest in the question in the Colonies, though the Colonies were much more alive to the question of Imperial Federation than perhaps the Mother-country was inclined to think. Referring to the suggested representation of the Colonies in the Home Government, Lord Brassey said it was an old-established maxim that taxation should go with representation. They might have a real Imperial Federation—an Imperial Cabinet of Defence—and help each other very much, without organic constitutional change.

The principal event in the history of the Imperial Federation movement that took place in 1891, the deputation of the League introduced by Lord Brassey to the Prime Minister, will lie better dealt with apart in a separate chapter.

CHAPTER VI
1891
Motions in Parliament advocating Second Conference—Important
Utterances of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Goschen—Action
thereon of Council of League—Deputation to Lord Salisbury:
Speech of Lord Brassey on introducing Deputation—The
Prime Minister's Reply—Speech from Chair at Annual Meeting
of League—Appointment by League of Committee to
frame Report—Lord Brassey Chairman.

IN addition to the addresses, &c. quoted in the preceding chapter, Lord Brassey took a leading part in 1891 in an event in the history of the Imperial Federation movement that demands a chapter to itself. In this year the League again sent up a deputation to Lord Salisbury; and the circumstances attending and following upon that occasion are of very special interest and significance. The deputation of 1886 had been instrumental in procuring the convocation of the first Imperial Conference held in the following year. In 1889 it will be remembered the Council of the League had decided again to approach the Prime Minister for the purpose of impressing on the Government the desirability of repeating that experiment without further delay; but after the correspondence referred to in the preceding chapter the matter of a deputation remained in abeyance, for various reasons, until the year 1891. The circumstances that led up to the deputation of this year require some elucidation.

In February 1891 motions were brought forward in both Houses of Parliament, by Lord Dunraven and Mr. Howard Vincent respectively, asking in effect that a Colonial Conference should be called for the purpose of considering the trade relations of the Empire—Lord Dunraven's resolution including also the formation of a fund for certain purposes of Imperial Defence, which he proposed to raise by means of a small duty on foreign goods, upon the lines of the policy associated with the name of Mr. Hofmeyr, of the Cape. These motions elicited utterances of considerable weight and significance both from Lord Salisbury and from Mr. Goschen, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both Ministers exposed the difficulties and the fallacies of what has been by some abuse of terms called commercial ' Federation.' Lord Salisbury pointed out that preferential treatment of imports from the Colonies meant in effect a tax on foodstuffs and raw materials—wool, corn, meat. Mr. Goschen said that any reciprocal opening made for the exports of the United Kingdom in the Colonies might (he could have said ' would almost of necessity ') be on so small a scale as to be but a slight return for the sacrifices of trade made to obtain them, and that the utmost the Colonies showed any inclination to do was ' to keep a wall ten feet high against us and make it eleven feet high against foreigners.' Mr. Goschen added a warning which it would have been better if those members of the Imperial Federation League who favour these fiscal arrangements had borne in mind. ' I hope,' he said, ' the Colonial movement, as it is called—that is, a movement for closer union with the Colonies—will not be prejudiced by any suspicions that its champions have got a kind of sneaking desire to promote Protection at home. . . . Protectionists lurk in many places. . . . Some of them mingle with the Bimetallists. . . . Others join the Imperial Federationists and wrap themselves round in the folds of the Union Jack. I trust we may he able to keep separate this question of closer union with the Colonies; because I am afraid, being in favour of that closer union myself, if it is suspected of too much of the Protection taint, it will not have that influence on the masses which we desire. I am anxious to keep the whole of this great question, in which I feel as deep an interest as any man, out of those questions which may prejudice it when we come to have it argued on platforms.' On the question of Defence Lord Salisbury seemed ready almost to acquiesce in that view which, as already mentioned in the preceding chapter, he attributed to the Colonists in his reply to Lord Dunraven — the view, namely, that ' Imperial Defence gets on very well as it is; the money comes from somewhere.' His Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the other hand, showed abetter grasp of the situation. 'Nothing,' said Mr. Goschen, ' would be pleasanter to me than to see the taxpayers of this country relieved of some of those gigantic sums for naval defence which they, almost alone, contribute at the present time. I am bound to say that the amounts contributed by the Colonies towards naval defence in its broadest sense are extremely insignificant. . . . Therefore I should be only too glad that Colonial statesmen should approach the idea that there should be a wider area over which our Imperial Defence should be spread; and nothing would give me greater pleasure, personally, than if representative men connected with the finances of the various Colonies conferred together as to what changes, if any, might be made on both sides.'

The speeches of the two Ministers on the whole were considered of such great importance by the Executive Committee of the League that a special meeting of the Council was convened to consider them and their bearing on the policy and action of the League. At a Council meeting held to consider the matter, in March, Lord Brassey was in the chair ; and the subject gave rise to so considerable a debate that the meeting was adjourned to a date in April. Lord Reay, Mr. Munro Ferguson, M.P., Sir John Colomb, M.P., Mr. Howard Vincent, M.P., Mr. E. W. Beckett, M.P., Sir Lyon (now Lord) Playfair, M.P., Sir John Lubbock, M.P, Mr. Bryce, M.P., the Earl of Winchilsea, and Mr. Osborne Morgan, M.P., among public men in the Imperial Parliament, and Mr. G. W. Rusden, Lieut.-Gen. Laurie, and Mr. Oliver, among Colonial politicians, took part in this important debate. Lord Rosebery, the President of the League, was abroad at the time, and not taking any part in public affairs. The following was the resolution finally passed:—

' That in the opinion of this Council the present grave situation with regard to Newfoundland on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the proposal to authorise the investment of trust funds in Colonial stocks, call for an authoritative examination of the present constitutional relations between the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies.'

' That the Prime Minister be requested to receive a deputation from the Imperial Federation League to urge the convocation, at the earliest timely date, of a conference of the self-governing countries of the Empire, to consider the question of securing to them a real and effective share in the privileges and responsibilities of an United Empire under conditions which are consistent with the present political Constitution of the United Kingdom, and with the self-government possessed by the Colonies.'

The deputation was received by Lord Salisbury at the Foreign Office on Wednesday, June 17.

In the absence of the president, Lord Rosebery, the deputation was introduced by Lord Brassey, the senior Treasurer of the League. The vice-president, the Right Hon. E. Stanhope, M.P., Secretary of State for War, did not, in accordance with precedent, take any part in the proceedings.

The following members of the League expressed their intention of attending the deputation, which nearly filled the large chamber at the Foreign Office:— Earl of Aberdeen, W. M. Acworth, Lord Addington, Edward A. Arnold, Talbot Baines, T. Henry Baylis, Q.C., R. J. Beadon, H. R. Beeton, F. Faithful Begg, Mackenzie Bell, Colonel Hy. Blundell, C.B., M.P., S. B. Boulton, Right Hon. Sir George Bowen, G.C.M.G., Lord Brassey, K.C.B., Hon. T. A. Brassey, Oscar Browning, Professor E. C. Clarke, Sir Charles Clifford, Bart., Sir John Colomb, K.C.M.G., M.P., Sir Daniel Cooper, Bart., G.C.M.G., John Corbett, M.P., Frank Debenham, Sir Henry Doulton, General Sir J. Bevan Edwards, K.C.M.G., Sir William Farrer, James I. Fellows, R. Munro Ferguson, M.P., Samuel Figgis, Hon. Harold Finch-Hatton, Rev. T. Flavell (New Zealand), Moreton Frewen, Sir A. T. Gait, G.C.M.G., J. T. Agg-Gardner, M.P., Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, Sir George Harris, Sir Alfred Hickman, Hon. H. Holbrook, George Howell, M.P., Colonel P. R. Innes, W. Culver James, M.D., Lieut.-General Sir W. Drummond Jervois, G.C.M.G., C.B., Henry Kimber, M.P., Lord Lamington, Lieut.-General J. W. Laurie, H. L. W. Lawson, M.P., J. Stanley Little, G. W. E. Loder, M.P., General Lowry, C.B., J. M. Ludlow, C.B., R. A. Macfie (of Dreghorn), Alexander McArthur, M.P., Herman W. Marcus, Right Hon. G. O. Morgan, M.P., O. Y. Morgan, M.P., S. V. Morgan, Walter Y. Morgan, Major W. V. Morgan, Walter Morrison, M.P., C. Freeman Murray, Kenric B. Murray, Captain Cecil W. Norton, George R. Parkin, James Rankin, M.P., Pandeli Ralli, Professor Cyril Ransome, Sir Rawson W. Rawson, K.C.M.G., C.B., John G. Rhodes, George W. Rusden, Sir John Simon, W. T. Stead, Silvanus Trevail, C. L. Tupper, C. E. Howard Vincent, C.B., M.P., Colonel John Watts, B.S.C., Robert G. Webster, M.P., Rev. J. E. C. Welldon (Head-Master of Harrow), H. F. Wilson, Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, Leedham White, Sir James A. You], K.C.M.G., Sir Frederick Young, K.C.M.G., Major-General R. Young, and Arthur H. Loring, secretary, Imperial Federation League.

The following gentlemen, specially appointed as representatives of their several branches, attended the deputation in that capacity:—Bradford—Theo. Peel, E. P. Arnold-Forster; Cambridge University— Professor E. C. Clarke, Professor Sir Thomas "VVade; Cleckheaton—Arthur Anderson; City of London— H. Daw, Walter B. Whittingham; Edinburgh— It. A. Macfie, R. Munro Ferguson, M.P., Hugh Rose; Hammersmith—Bingham Watson, R. P. Richards; Hampstead—V. S. Fletcher, J.P., L.C.C.; Hastings— Arthur Wells, W. Stubbs, J. P., E. W. A. Moore; Kensington—General E. O. Leggatt, J. R. Kindersley; Leeds—Talbot Baines, Professor Cyril Ransome; Morley—E. F. Scholes, B. P. Henworth.

The Right Hon. Sir Lyon Playfair, who was to have been the principal speaker, was prevented from being present by a severe cold.

Sir Alexander Gait, late High Commissioner for Canada, who was appointed by the Imperial Federation League in Canada to represent them upon the deputation, was also prevented from attending by illness.

Letters regretting their inability to attend the deputation were received from the following:—Right Hon. the Earl of Meath, Right Hon. Viscount Monck, Lord Claud Hamilton, Lord Castletown, Admiral the Right Hon. Sir J. C. D. Hay, Bart., Sir George G. Stokes, Bart., M.P., Sir Richard Temple, Bart., M.P., Sir F. Milner, Bart., M.P., Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., Sir William Foster, Bart., Sir Henry Barkly, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., Sir Frederick A. Weld, G.C.M.G., Sir George Paget, K.C.B., General Sir Richard Harrison, K.C.B., Sir Julius Vogel, K.C.M.G., Sir Francis Y. Smith, Sir James Anderson, the Veil, the Archdeacon of London, Right Rev. the Bishop of Durham, Right Rev. Bishop Perry, Sydney C. Buxton, M.P., W. F. Lawrence, M.P., Hugh Watt, M.P., Colonel Myles Sandys, M.P., Hamar Bass, M.P., the Rev, the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, the Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, Professor Montagu Burrows, Professor Postgate, and Rev. Canon Browne.

SPEECH INTRODUCING DEPUTATION TO LORD SALISBURY, JUNE 17, 1891.

LORD SALISBURY, in introducing to you the deputation whose names are on the paper which I hand to you, I may perhaps venture to remind you that five years ago I was charged with a similar duty. To-day we regret the absence of Lord Rosebery from causes which I am sure you will appreciate, and the absence of Mr. Stanhope is sufficiently justified and explained by the fact that he is a member of the Cabinet over which your Lordship presides. Our last interview was followed by a Colonial Conference. The decision to summon that Conference reflects, we all think, great credit upon the Government over which you preside, and I am sure that I shall be interpreting your own feelings when I say that the success which marked that Colonial Conference was largely due to the tact displayed by one of your colleagues, Lord Knutsford, in the important duty of presiding over its proceedings.

I shall not be wasting words if I say that the Imperial Federation League has been established for the purpose of promoting a closer union between the Mother country and the Colonies. We have no cut-and-dried schemes of Imperial Federation. We have no views as a League with reference to a Customs Union, or other fiscal measures. Our main object is to exercise some influence over the general drift of public opinion, and when we contrast the general state of public opinion in regard to our Colonial relations at the present time with that which prevailed in the period before the late Mr. Forster established the Imperial Federation League, we have no cause to be dissatisfied with the result of our efforts.

The views of the Imperial Federation League as to the practical steps to be taken at the present time were clearly expressed at a large meeting held a little more than a year ago at the Mansion House. At that meeting Cardinal Manning, the late Earl of Carnarvon, and our president, Lord Rosebery, were present. A resolution was passed to the effect that ' The holding of periodical conferences of the self-governing communities of the Empire should be the present aim of the Imperial Federation League.' The request which I have to submit to your Lordship to-day on behalf of the deputation is embodied in a resolution adopted by the Council on April 13 last. The resolution was to this effect:— ' That the Prime Minister be requested to receive a deputation from the Imperial Federation League to urge the convocation, at the earliest timely date, of a conference of the self-governing countries of the Empire, to consider the question of securing to them a real and effective share in the privileges and responsibilities of a united Empire, under conditions which are consistent with the present political constitution of the United Kingdom and with the self-government possessed by the Colonies.'

I would urge as a reason for making this request at the present time, that five years have elapsed since the last Colonial Conference was held. If I am to suggest the business with which the Conference should deal, I may admit that public opinion is not yet matured with reference to the difficult question of the participation of the self-governing Colonies in the control of the foreign policy of the Empire. At the same time, I would venture to urge that the subject might with advantage be discussed. The question of Imperial defence is in a more forward stage. Imperial defence was a main subject of the discussions which were held at the last Colonial Conference, and since that Conference important events have occurred. I would particularly refer to the visit of inspection by General Edwards to the Australian Colonies. The report of General Edwards has made Australian statesmen sensible of the importance of united action. The note of federation has been sounded by Sir Henry Parkes, and it has met with a warm and a cordial response. What the Australian statesmen are endeavouring to do for themselves, that, we venture to urge, Her Majesty's Government should do for the United Empire.

At the present time the people of the United Kingdom have to bear the entire cost of the protection and the diplomacy of the Empire. It is scarcely possible that this condition of affairs can long subsist. In the near future some readjustment of burdens will be required. Already the Colonies have done much to assist us by charging themselves with the responsibility of their own home defence. In the near future they may do more ; and just as India assists by sending her troops to form a large part of the garrison of Aden, so it seems reasonable to anticipate that the Australian Confederation may help us at Singapore or at Hong Kong, and so, too, the Canadian Dominion might help us in the West Indies, in Bermuda, and at Halifax.

We leave to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government the decision of the time at which such a Conference might with greatest advantage be held. The information which is necessary is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and we leave ourselves entirely in your Lordship's discretion. Before I sit down—speaking on behalf of a body which happily knows nothing of party —I am expressing what we all feel when I say that no statesman has done more in recent years for the cause which we have at heart than you, my Lord, have done by your able and skilful conduct of the department over which you preside.

The other speakers who addressed the Prime Minister were the Right Hon. G. Osborne Morgan, Sir Daniel Cooper (Australia), Lieut.-Gen. Laurie (Canada), Lieut.Gen. Sir W. Jervois, and Sir John Colomb, M.P.

Lord Salisbury's reply was of such importance that it must be given in full. He said:—

'Lord Brassey, my Lords and Gentlemen,—I have to thank you for a very interesting discussion, and to assure you that I have listened with the very greatest interest to all that has been said. No one can be more deeply convinced than I am of the profound importance of the subject with which you deal. It is nothing more nor less than the future of the British Empire. And if we acknowledge that the subject itself is important, we cannot say that there are not considerations which, as has been pressed upon us by General Laurie and by Sir John Colomb, point to the expediency of early bringing to maturity our deliberations upon the matter. As has been pointed out, owing to the operation of external causes and some internal impulses, there is a feeling of unrest in Canada and even in Australia — a feeling which may not improperly be described as an unwillingness to continually acquiesce precisely in the present state of things.

' Sir John Colomb very justly pointed out a consideration of which, in my office, I am especially sensible—the large portion of our foreign negotiations, our foreign difficulties, and the danger of foreign complications which arise entirely from our Colonial connections; and that the effect is so that from time to time we have to exercise great vigilance lest we should incur dangers which do not arise from any interest of our own, but arise entirely from the interests of the important and interesting communities with which we are linked. But the very caution with which your recommendation is drawn shows that you do not expect any decisive expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government to-day. I think you are very wise to have drawn it with that caution.

' I quite assent to all that has been said of the extreme value of personal communication. I think that no grave decision in reference to the relations between the Colonies and this country ought to be taken, or could be taken, without personal communication with the statesmen who guide the Colonies in those matters. But I would venture to lay down also as a maxim that we should not call them from their momentous vocations, to put them to all the difficulty, and all the labour, and all the cost of coming to this end of the world, unless we are prepared to lay before them for discussion some definite scheme of our own. I do not say such a scheme that we must adopt it with a resolution not to recede from it—it is not to be an unalterable determination; but I think it would be a frivolity almost amounting to an insult, to ask those statesmen to come together here without any definite idea of what ought to be done, merely in the hope that some scheme would generate itself from the contact of so many distinguished minds. We should not venture to treat foreign countries in such a way. If you summon a conference, you always have some proposition to make to that conference. You may not be certain that you will carry it, you may be prepared to make great concessions, great modifications, but it would be an insult to summon a conference and to have no proposition to make to them when they were come; and I think the courtesy which in this matter is due to foreign countries is due to our own Colonies as well.

' May I venture to make one further remark which has been suggested to me by this debate? Lord Brassey, and I think several speakers, rather claimed it as a virtue on the part of the society that they had no cut-and-dried scheme to propose. I think that is an extravagant modesty on their part. I do not know precisely what the meaning of the adjectives may be, but I think that we are almost come to the time when schemes should be proposed, and that without them we shall not get very far. You have stated a problem to us to-night— I may almost call it an enigma. If I remember the words, we are to invite the Colonies to share in the responsibilities and privileges of the Empire in such a manner as not to disturb the Constitution of this country or that which is enjoyed by the Colonies. Well, I think that at all events the solution of this problem does not lie upon the face of it, and that it will require the labour of many able brains before a satisfactory solution is arrived at.

' I will merely indicate broadly the two difficulties. To make a United Empire such as you have in Germany, or such as in the largest sense of the word you have in the United States—to make that out of the scattered elements of the Queen's Empire you have to solve two questions. I would rather state it in German than in English—you have to found a Kriegsverein and a Zollverein—a union for war and a union with respect to a Customs policy. Your difficulty with respect to a Customs policy you know. Lord Brassey said that the question was not advanced. Every English politician knows that in the strong fiscal convictions which animate this country, and in the fact that those convictions are not equally shared by our Colonies, lies one very serious difficulty of that Zollverein.

' But, for the Kriegsverein, I believe that is more pressing still, because I see that the tendency of enterprise and science is every year more to annihilate space —and space will be annihilated for the purposes of war as well as peace, and the distance of the Colonies from those who may attack them every year becomes less and less of a protection to them. But a Kriegsverein means some common control of foreign policy: a common control of foreign policy means a balance and appraisement of the voting value of the various elements of which the Empire is composed, and when you come to top up that calculation you cannot leave our Asiatic dependencies out of sight. Those are difficulties which I but glance at, and I only glance at them for the purpose of convincing you that the matter is one not for vague and uncommitting sentiment, but that it is one for' hard thinking and close examination, and the utmost effort that the highest patriotism and the strongest intellect of our times can give to a problem in which the future of the British Empire is concerned.'

Lord Brassey having thanked the Prime Minister on behalf of the deputation for his courteous reception and 'most interesting,'he might say 'encouraging speech,' the deputation withdrew.

On the day succeeding the deputation to the Prime Minister, the sixth annual general meeting of the League was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel; Lord Brassey presided, and moved the adoption of the annual report of the Council.

SPEECH AT ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE LEAGUE, JUNE 18, 1891.

The annual report of our League is in your hands, and it would be an unnecessary formality that it should be read to you. You always have the opportunity of perusing it for yourself. It is a record of steady work, and I think that no year since the League was formed have we more cause for satisfaction with the progress of our work than in the year with which this report deals. I regret that Sir Lyon Playfair, who was to have presided to-day, has been prohibited from doing so by the circumstance that he has fallen a victim to the prevailing malady, from which I hope he may very shortly be restored to health. The concluding words of the report merit your attention. They give us the assurance of an improved financial position; yet while the position is improved it is not yet so satisfactory as to make us indifferent upon the question of subscriptions. I hope that the work of the League will be more and more widely appreciated, and I hope that those who appreciate the work will recognise that it cannot be conducted without a certain amount of financial support, and I trust that subscriptions may be more numerous and more liberal in future years than they have been in the past.

I cannot sit down without a word of reference to the proceedings of our deputation yesterday. I think we must all feel that a decided step was made in the speech with which we were favoured by Lord Salisbury in answer to the deputation. That speech was one of the highest importance, and most encouraging to those who have the cause of Imperial Federation at heart. It is a great step in advance to have it acknowledged by the lips of a powerful Prime Minister that our question was the greatest question with which a British statesman could deal. I do not think that Lord Salisbury was without justification when he said that the time had come when we should make a forward step, and be somewhat more precise in our recommendations than we have hitherto been. I quite feel the force of the observation which was made by Lord Salisbury, that it would scarcely be respectful for Her Majesty's Government to call a Conference of representatives of the self-governing communities of the Empire without having some scheme of their own to submit for the consideration of the Conference. We of the Imperial Federation League can scarcely claim to be the men of pre-eminent light and leading to whom Lord Salisbury appealed for assistance in the solution of a most important and at the same time a most difficult problem. But when we look at the list of those who have joined our Association, I think we are justified in the belief that we number in our ranks many men who can contribute extremely valuable aid in the solution of the great problem upon which Lord Salisbury invites us to go to work.

For my own part, I can conceive that it might be a wise step on the part of our Executive Committee to make a personal appeal to several of those who are members of this Council, and to invite them to take up the challenge which Lord Salisbury has thrown down, and individually to endeavour to frame some practical scheme for bringing together in closer union the selfgoverning communities abroad and the Government of the United Kingdom. Each should individually work at this problem ; and when a certain progress has been made by each individual in the preparation of a scheme, the time might then come for an exchange of views and for consultation; and I cannot doubt the result would be that in the course of a few months a scheme would be evolved by individual effort and by combined effort which might not be unworthy of the consideration of the Government and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Those who may be chivalrous and patriotic enough to engage in this work must be prepared for severe criticism. It is quite certain that any scheme that is prepared will be torn to pieces by the critics. But a beginning must be made; and I shall be glad to see the Imperial Federation League address itself to the task, and endeavour to make a beginning of this practical legislation which Lord Salisbury seems to be far more prepared for than on any former occasion. I therefore think that, while the report of which I move the adoption does contain a record of much useful work, there are good grounds for believing that the report of the coming year may contain a record of even more useful and more important work than the Imperial Federation League has ever yet achieved. In that confidence I have much pleasure in moving the adoption of the report.

Early in the following month of July the Council of the League passed a resolution for the appointment of a carefully selected Special Committee to submit to the Council ' definite proposals by which the object of Imperial Federation may be realised.' The Committee subsequently appointed by the Committee of Selection (with whom were associated Sir Lyon Playfair, Sir Charles Tupper and Sir John Colomb) consisted of the following eleven members: the Lord Brassey, K.C.B., the Right Hon. James Bryce, M.P., Sir John Colomb, K.C.M.G., Sir Daniel Cooper, Bart., G.C.M.G., H. O. ArnoldForster, Esq., M.P., the Lord Lamington, the Right Hon. Lord Playfair, K.C.B., James Rankin, Esq., M.P., Sir Rawson Rawson, K.C.M.G., C.B., the Lord Reay, G.C.S.T., G.C.I.E., Sir Charles Tupper, Bart, G.C.M.G., C.B., Arthur H. Loring, Secretary.

Lord Brassey was chairman of this very representative and influential Committee, which commenced its deliberations after the recess, and presented its Report in November of the following year (1892). The terms of the report and other matters connected with its presentation will be dealt with in a succeeding chapter.

CHAPTER VII
1892
Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire—Resolutions
relating to Commercial Union—Speech on moving Resolution
in Name of London Chamber—The Resolution Purposely
Non-contentious—Review of the Imperial Trade Question—Non-committal
Character of the Resolution—His Declaration
against Tariff-mongering—Discussion—Result of Voting—
' Commercial Union' condemned—Extract from Speech at
Canadian Dinner on ' Dominion Day'—And at City of
London Branch of League-Article in 'Lloyd's Weekly
Newspaper.'

THE summer of the year 1892 was marked in the annals of the British Empire by the assembly in London of a Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire—the second such that has been held the first having been organised by the London Chamber of Commerce during the Colonial Exhibition year, 1886. The Congress of 1892 had been more deliberately planned and organised, and the gathering was one of very great importance, and was in more than one respect a noteworthy event, marking a step in the wide and deep movement towards unification going on throughout the British Empire, and every year acquiring volume and momentum. It was especially significant that a gathering of representative commercial men, called together for the discussion of broad questions of practical business, should have spent, as they did, almost the whole of the short time at their disposal in the consideration of matters bearing upon the relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies. That the relations discussed by such a body should be primarily and principally those having to do with commerce was not only natural, and even inevitable, but also most desirable, inasmuch as no other body of men could so usefully or with such full knowledge of their subject discuss these questions; and the full deliberations of this Congress upon the fiscal relations, in particular, of the different countries of the Empire, have been of great value.

The delegates to the Congress, which was held in the large hall of the Merchant Taylors' Company, numbered about 250, and came from nearly every part of the Empire. The official list of acceptances showed the Congress to be supported by over a hundred and forty Chambers. Sir John Lubbock, M.P., chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, presided, and a number of distinguished men, and men eminent in the commercial world, in addition to the delegates, supported the chairman on the platform. Under the head of ' Commercial Relations of the Mother-country with her Colonies and Possessions,' several resolutions were set down in the official programme to be moved on behalf of various Chambers. Among these the following must be noticed. Three stood in the name of the London Chamber, viz.:—

(a) (To be moved by Lord Brassey) ' That in the opinion of the Congress it is expedient that arrangements should be devised to secure closer commercial union between the Mother-country and her Colonies and dependencies.'

(b) (Mr. Nevile Lubbock) 'That a commercial union on the basis of Free Trade, as within the British Empire, would tend to promote its permanence and prosperity.'

(c) (Mr. G. W. Medley) ' That in the opinion of this Congress any fiscal union between the Mother-country and her Colonies and dependencies, by means of Preferential Duties, being based on Protection, would be politically dangerous and economically disastrous; and that the arrangement which, more than any other, would conduce to an intimate commercial union, would be by our self-governing Colonies adopting, as closely as circumstances will permit, the non-protective policy of the Mother-country.'

The Montreal Chamber had placed the following resolution on the paper:—

' Whereas, the British Empire, covering one-eighth of the inhabitable globe, with a population of three hundred and fifty millions, can amply supply the home market with the productions of every clime at the lowest possible cost, and, whereas a national sentiment of mutual interest and brotherhood should promote more extended commercial relations between the Mothercountry and its many Colonies and possessions, Resolved:—

' That in order to extend the exchange and con sumption of the home staple products in every part of the British Empire, a slight differential duty should be adopted by the Imperial and Colonial Governments in favour of the home productions against the imported foreign articles.'

Resolutions on somewhat similar lines to this last were also tabled by the Birmingham Chamber, and that of Canterbury, New Zealand, and by the Winnipeg Board of Trade (Manitoba, Canada).

The proceedings on the first day of the Congress (28 June, 1892) having been opened by the President, Sir John Lubbock, Lord Knutsford, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, made a brief speech of welcome to the Congress. He expressed his opinion of the very great importance of the Congress, and the belief of Her Majesty's Government that such Congresses and Conferences tended materially to strengthen the links between the Mother-country and her dependencies, and to promote that unity and that integrity of the Empire which everyone desired. The delegates having also been welcomed to the City of London in the name of the Lord Mayor, Lord Brassey moved the resolution standing in his name.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OP THE EMPIRE, JUNE 28, 1892.

In the name of the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, I assure our visitors from the Colonies that we give them a hearty welcome. It would be using too cold a phrase to say that we regard them as our fellow-subjects; we look on them as a band of brothers, bound to us by every tie of kinsmanship, with whom we wish to live in the closest and most cordial relations—socially, politically, and commercially. Earnestly desiring as we do to maintain the unity of the Empire, I unhesitatingly assert, though speaking under the auspices of a Chamber of Commerce, that we are prompted far more by sentiment than by considerations of self-interest. It has been specially entrusted to me on the present occasion to move:—' That, in the opinion of this Congress, it is expedient that arrangements should be devised to secure closer commercial union between the Mother-country and her Colonies and dependencies.'

The resolution is designedly non-contentious, and it embraces the principal object in furtherance of which this Congress has been summoned. The task might readily have been entrusted to one more competent; it could not have been given to one more earnestly desirous to promote the prosperity of the Colonies, with which I have many close associations. I am the son of a leading pioneer in railway enterprise in India, the Mauritius, Australia, and Canada. I have made repeated visits to the Colonies, and I am doing my utmost, within the limited scope of individual effort, to promote the development and settlement of Western Australia and North-West Canada.

It is necessary to take into view the broad features of the commerce of the British Empire. In 1890 the total exports from the United Kingdom amounted to 328,000,000l.; in this total, manufactured articles are valued at no less than 194,000,000l. In 1890 the total imports into the United Kingdom aggregated 421,000,000l.; in this total, manufactured articles stood for 03,000,000l. Our imports of food amounted to 103,000,000l., and our imports of raw materials to 104,000,000l. Out of the total value of our export trade, as previously stated, the exports to the Colonies in 1890 amounted to 94,500,000l., and the imports from the Colonies were 96,000,000l. The trade with foreign countries has passed through many periods of languor and decline, but the trade with the Colonies is always brisk.

It is important to notice that, with us, the import trade consists mostly of food and raw materials, while the exports consist mainly of manufactures. With the Colonies the conditions are reversed; manufactures form the bulk of the imports, while food and raw materials are the main articles of export. Under different economic conditions, we must be prepared to find that different fiscal principles prevail. In the Colonies it is sought to protect young and partially-developed industries by checking competition from the outside; with the statesmen of the Mother-country it is a first care to put her manufacturers into a position to engage in competition with foreign producers on the most favourable terms in the neutral markets of the world. Our crowded populations could not live if they failed to hold their own as manufacturers and exporters. The reasons are obvious why differential duties in favour of the Colonies are not likely to find favour in this country. In so far as trade between the Mother-country and the Colonies can be fostered by modifications of tariff, our best hopes must lie rather in the direction of a gradual reduction of import duties in the Colonies than in the imposition of duties on imports into this country.

Any attempts to restrict the trade of the Colonies with foreign countries for the advantage of the Mothercountry would be just as prejudicial to Colonial interests as a policy of differential duties would be to the interest of the Mother-country. In the case of Canada, both the exports to the United States and the imports from the United States exhibit larger totals than we find in the trade with Great Britain. The increasing activity in the commercial relations between Canada and the United States is of great advantage to both. Canada finds in the United States a convenient source of supply for many manufactured articles and agricultural products, and the United States offer to Canada the best markets for her timber, grain and fish. Turning to Australasia, the proportion which the trade with the Mother-country bears to the trade with foreign countries is much larger than in the case of Canada; yet there are unmistakable indications that we cannot possibly occupy an exclusive position, whether as buyers or sellers, in the Australasian markets. The trade with India is perhaps the most flourishing branch of our external commerce; it is conducted absolutely without check or interference by tariffs. It would be difficult to persuade the Government to depart from that wise policy of nonintervention under which the trade of India has shown a marvellous development. It would be equally impossible to induce the Government of this country to put duties on raw cotton, jute, wool and hides, which form the bulk of our imports from India.

Taking a broad view, it is eminently satisfactory to see that the trade between the Mother-country and the Colonies has grown up by an exchange which is mutually advantageous. Our dependencies supply the products of the tropics to the people of these islands; we are able to pay in manufactures for the imports which we draw from our vast possessions. We have wisely followed a truly liberal policy in dealing with the commercial interests of the Colonies. We have never attempted to impose on British Colonies the restrictions which Spain has laid on Cuba, and which Holland has laid on her possessions in the Eastern Archipelago, restrictions which seriously checked the growth of the Colonies, and which, where the inhabitants, as in the case of Cuba, are of European descent, have sown the seeds of disaffection and made the yoke of the Mothercountry an almost intolerable load.

The alternative between Fair Trade and Free Trade cannot be settled by merely theoretical arguments. Unprejudiced observers will look to the practical results of opposing systems, and when they see that the United Kingdom prospers under Free Trade and the United States not less prospers under Protection, they may draw the inference that the arguments urged in favour of Free Trade are not quite so conclusive as the staunch supporters of its doctrines assume. But before coming to a conclusion, all the conditions under which the fiscal system is being tried must be appreciated. While we see in the United Kingdom and the United States two absolutely conflicting systems at work, to the evident satisfaction of the populations concerned, it is important to remark that the sources of prosperity in the two countries are totally different. The United Kingdom is largely dependent on an export trade of manufactured articles; the prosperity of the United States is dependent on an enormous internal trade which is absolutely free, and on vast exports of food and raw materials.

As their best customers, we have done much to secure a close commercial union with our Colonies and dependencies, and we render perhaps a yet more essential service by supplying on the cheapest terms the capital required to open up the material resources of the vast territories comprised in our Colonial Empire. On December 31, 1890, the aggregate debt of the Colonies was as follows:—India, 215,000,000l.; Australasia, 183,000,000l.; South Africa, 29,000,000l.; Canada, 50,000,000l.; West Indies, 3,250,000l. In addition to loans to Governments, vast sums have been raised for public works and private enterprises in the Colonies. On railways alone over 300,000,000l. have been expended, and by far the greater proportion of the money has been raised in London on terms almost as favourable as those which the Home Government can obtain. I sought the assistance of Mr. Giffen to complete these figures by making a calculation of the amount of British capital which had been invested in private enterprise in the Colonies, but I regret to find that even so great a statistician had no materials for forming an estimate with anything like precision. He simply confined himself to the assertion that the amount was enormous, which we must all admit. If no other service could be rendered by the Mother-country in aid of Colonial trade than that of furnishing capital cheaply and liberally for Colonial objects, I should claim that a commercial union was being maintained with the British Empire which tended in the very highest degree to promote the prosperity of Colonial interests.

It is possible that further help than has yet been given may be afforded to the trade of the Empire by liberal subsidies to the great lines of steamships. I may say that I have no pecuniary interest in those lines. It is melancholy to compare the position of the greater number of the steamship companies trading with the Colonies under the British flag with that of the highlysubsidised companies with which they compete under the French and (Herman flags. British enterprise has suffered severely from competition artificially stimulated by subsidies granted to rival lines by foreign governments.

Among the many services which can he rendered on the part of the Mother-country to the general trade of the Empire, not the least important is the collection and diffusion of commercial information. For the conduct of these inquiries, we have in the diplomatic and consular service great resources at our disposal; it would add to the value of the work which has now for many years been done on the lines to which I refer if the Colonial Office could only undertake to distribute the information collected under the Foreign Office throughout our Colonies and dependencies.

In conclusion, having carefully examined every suggestion for stimulating the trade of the Empire by tariffs or bounties, it seems the wiser course not to attempt to draw either the Mother-country or the Colonies into engagements which would fetter their discretion in the future and deprive them of their present unrestricted freedom to deal with tariffs as each may think best. Tempting offers are made in the name of the Colonies to give the Mother-country a position of advantage in the Colonial markets as against the foreigner; but such an undertaking would be of no practical advantage if the barrier raised against us, albeit lower than that reared up against the foreigner, would still be so high that we could not leap over it. A Colony firmly resolved on creating manufacturing industries under the protection of tariffs will take care always to maintain duties at such a level as will effectively check the importation of manufactured goods, even from the Mothercountry. For ourselves, we have no reason to complain that our trade is languishing or diminishing under our Free Trade policy. The Colonies, on their part, enjoying the advantages of illimitable tracts of fertile soil, have certainly flourished under Protective tariffs. It would seem well to leave all fiscal arrangements at least as free as we find them to-day, and the changes, if any, should be rather in the removal of the duties imposed in the Colonies than in the return on the part of this country to Protection, from which we were emancipated after those strenuous conflicts with which the great names of Peel, Bright and Cobden will for all time be honourably associated.

The motion in support of which Lord Brassey was speaking was, it will be observed, of an entirely noncommittal character, merely asserting in general and abstract terms that closer commercial relations would be desirable, without expressing any opinion as to the means by which such an object should be carried out. But Lord Brassey so far anticipated the more contentious resolutions to follow as to declare, as he does in the concluding passages of the above speech, wholly and uncompromisingly against tariff-mongering in any shape or form. This resolution was carried unanimously, and the Congress proceeded to the discussion of the other resolutions quoted above. At the conclusion of two days' debate a vote was taken upon the Montreal resolution, which (with slight alterations) was moved by Sir Charles Tupper as an amendment to that standing in the name of Mr. Medley (Mr. Nevile Lubbock's having been deferred). This amendment was lost by the votes of seventy-nine delegates to thirty-four. Sir Charles Tupper having claimed that this vote was not decisive, but that the Congress should also vote ' by Chambers,' a further vote, by that method, was taken on the following day, when the amendment was again negatived by the votes of fifty-three Chambers to thirtyfive. Other amendments having been dealt with, Mr. Medley's original resolution was finally carried by considerable majorities in both forms of voting. Mr. Nevile Lubbock's motion was subsequently carried, with the substitution of the phrase ' Freer Trade' for ' Free Trade.' This voting was very significant. Here is the only scheme of Imperial commercial union pure and simple (that is, excluding mixed schemes for raising revenue for defence, like Mr. Hofmeyr's and others of that class) that has ever been brought before the public and attracted to itself any considerable attention and following— the scheme for Preferential Tariffs within the Empire, involving the imposition in the United Kingdom of new duties against foreign countries—here is this scheme met with a very decided negative by a Congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire. Nor was it negatived by any means exclusively by the votes of the United Kingdom Chambers. On the contrary, though nineteen out of twenty-two Canadian Chambers voted for it, it only received seven other Colonial votes to twenty such recorded against it. The lesson of this, and it may be gathered from the general discussion as well as from the voting, seems most clearly to be that the essential and pressing requirements of Imperial Unity, of which Unity for Defence stands first, must not be allowed to wait until the apparently irreconcilable elements of commercial union can be harmonised. And that is, in effect, the conclusion reached by Lord Brassey in the speech made by him on this very important occasion.

Lord Brassey reverted to this aspect of the question when a few days later he was called upon to respond for ' The Services' at the banquet held in London to celebrate the twenty-tifth anniversary of the Confederation of the Canadian Dominion. In the course of his reply he said:—'We have been discussing elsewhere this week the mutual interests of the Empire from many points of view. We have been discussing our trade relations, with strong mutual sympathies, but without as yet being able to arrive at an entirely distinct conclusion. But whatever may be our views as to our trade interests, one thing we must all certainly believe: that, for the purpose of defence, there can be no question that by keeping together as one Empire we are stronger than if we are split up into a number of separate sections. How to organise our resources, those which we can muster in this grand old country, and how to utilise the forces that are being rapidly created by the various Colonies, for mutual defence, to the best advantage, is one of the most important problems upon which the constructive statesmanship of the Empire can be engaged.'

A few months later Mr. Foster, the Canadian Minister of Finance, delivered an address at a meeting specially convened by the City of London Branch of the League. Lord Brassey was present, and made a brief speech in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Foster for his address. He congratulated the Colonies on the wisdom displayed in recent years by their leading men in paying frequent visits to this country, saying he felt sure such visits tended in a most essential degree to promote feelings of mutual regard, and afforded to those who came a most 'advantageous opportunity of making the Mother-country better acquainted with the resources of the Colonies; at the same time that visitors like Mr. Foster could not fail to be impressed with the great and growing interest in the Colonies felt by people in the Mother-country.'

About this time, Lord Brassey contributed to 'Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper'an article designed as a general summary of the whole Colonial question for popular reading a most useful piece of work. This was in November; and it was in that month that the report of the Special Committee presided over by Lord Brassey was considered by the Council of the Imperial Federation League and published. It was to be expected under these circumstances that, in an article written at this particular time, there should be found an echo of that report. The article in ' Lloyd's' therefore gave to the general public, and perhaps to a public that would not have been reached either by the report itself or by the articles elicited by it in other sections of the Press, a summary of the question at its latest phase as it presented itself to the minds of the leaders of the Imperial Federation movement. The report itself will be dealt with presently. Meanwhile, this article forms no bad introduction to it.

ARTICLE IN ' LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER,' NOVEMBER 1892.

What do we mean, and what do we seek to accomplish, by Imperial Federation? A concise statement has been put forth by the Imperial Federation League. It is their primary aim to secure the permanent unity of the Empire by combining the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests and for the defence of common rights. It is a fundamental principle that no scheme of federation should interfere with the existing rights of local parliaments as regards local affairs.

In our Imperial system, as at present constituted, we recognise two great anomalies, which we seek to remove. On the one hand, our self-governing Colonies —great already, and rapidly growing in power—have no recognised voice in the direction of Imperial affairs. On the other hand, the people of the United Kingdom a re burdened with the entire cost of naval, military, and diplomatic services all over the world, while the advantages of the protection afforded are shared to the full by our Colonial fellow-citizens.

The cause of Imperial Federation is not advocated in the Mother-country solely or chiefly with the object of inducing our fellow-citizens in other parts of the Empire to share our burdens. Unaided by the Colonies, the Mother-country is well able to bear the cost of Imperial defence. It is in contemplation of the future, and in view of the expansion of the Empire, and the increasingly important interests which are being created in distant parts of the globe, necessitating by-and-by further provisions for defence, that we seek to arrive at some solution of that problem of representation which must be dealt with before the wider distribution of charges can be considered.

If we neglect to give timely attention to the relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies, we run a possible—we need not and we do not say a probable— risk of the dismemberment of the Empire. There is no appearance of danger; but events might occur which would raise the question. The Imperial Federation League was founded to avert the possibility of a dire catastrophe.

During the eight years which have elapsed since its foundation, under the presidency of Mr. Forster, the League has steadily pushed forward the work for which it was constituted. On two occasions deputations have been received by the Prime Minister. The Colonial Conference of 1886 was the sequel to the first interview granted by Lord Salisbury. The most important direct result of that Conference was the agreement to create at the expense of the Colonies a special squadron for the defence of Australasia.

The Conference was yet more valuable for the results which it foreshadowed in the future. Every member of the Conference must have returned to the Colony from which he had been delegated, impressed in a stronger sense than before with the conviction that the unity of the Empire ought to be and could be preserved.

Under the auspices of the League great meetings have been held from time to time. I may specially mention the meeting at the Mansion House, memorable for an eloquent speech delivered by Lord Rosebery, and the later meeting held at Leeds under the presidency of Lord Houghton; and the sphere of active effort has not been limited to the United Kingdom.

At this stage we may pause to consider the substantial advantages of Imperial unity, apart altogether from the strong impulses of sentiment. We may turn first to the pecuniary advantages. The Colonies and India, in the aggregate, take one-third of the goods we manufacture for exportation. Our trade with the Colonies in recent years shows a less rate of increase. The annual values have been seriously affected by the general fall in prices. The characteristic feature of greater elasticity, as compared with the trade with foreign countries, is, however, still noticeable. The Colonists are, for the most part, Protectionists. It is, and will long remain, their policy to raise their revenue chiefly by duties on imports. Notwithstanding the barriers raised by their tariffs, the Colonies must long continue to look mainly to England to supply—at cheap pricesrails, locomotives, carriages, glass, earthenware, furniture, chemicals, implements, machinery, paper, books, hardware, and articles of every description demanding much skilled labour in their production.

Taking a broader view than that of traders and shopkeepers, we have in the Colonies, as Mr. Froude has truly said, a hundredfold multiplication of the area of our own limited island. Into their vast unpeopled territories the unemployed of our congested cities may overflow. There is space for hundreds of millions in the territories of which we and our fathers have taken possession.

Such being the advantage of the Colonial connection to the Mother-country, the reciprocal advantages to the Colonies are not less considerable. It is a material advantage to be able to borrow vast sums of money in London on easy terms. The debt of the Colonies to the Mother-country approaches the total of 450,000,000l. Every half per cent, reduction in the rate of interest means a saving of more than 2,000,000l. a year to the Colonies. It cannot be questioned that the rate paid for borrowings would be considerably higher if the Imperial connection were dissolved. While the Mother-country aids the Colonies in their material development by loans on liberal terms, she offers them the best market for the sale of the raw produce which is their source of wealth. We give them the further precious advantage of the protection of the Imperial ileet along the great ocean highways which unite them to America and to Europe.

There remain those supreme benefits which the author of ' Greater Britain ' has described with his own gifted pen, and in appropriate quotations from other masters of English prose. The sign and symbol of British unity is the Sovereign. It is an inestimable advantage to the Colonies to retain that personal symbol of their participation in an historic past of great and glorious deeds, and of their inheritance and adoption of an admirable form of Parliamentary government—a noble code of laws and sound principles of justice. The Queen represents, not only in the Mother-country, but in all her daughter States, something more than a system of government and a code of laws. She represents and exemplifies—to use the words of Lord Rosebery—all the English habit of domestic life, and the home happiness on which in reality British society rests.

It is not necessary to descant further on the benefits of union under one great Empire to the Mother-country and the Colonies alike. Assuming that unity is to be desired, what are the practical steps by which the bonds of union may be preserved and, if possible, more closely drawn together? We may combine more perfectly for defence. We may become more interdependent in our commercial relations.

A committee of the Imperial Federation League has recently been engaged in these subjects. After long deliberation, and wide consultation with distinguished men at home and in the Colonies, the committee found itself able to recommend some practical measures for the purpose of promoting combined action for defence. Their views are presented in their recent report. It is there pointed out that it is in the maintenance of the sea communications of the Empire that the community of interests in relation to defence is most absolute. The primary requirements of combined defence are a navy and naval forces, under the control of a central body representative of all the parts of the Empire. The committee offered some suggestions for the constitution of such a council. They recommended that direct representation should be given to the three great groups of self-governing Colonies in North America, Australasia, and South Africa. The dependencies of the Crown should be represented by the Secretaries of State for the Colonies and India, and the Cabinet at home by the Prime Minister, and by those of his colleagues who deal specially with defence and the external affairs of the Empire. The council having been constituted, it would be their primary duty to make provision for defence, and to secure unity of action and opinion on questions of foreign policy affecting Imperial interests.

It was proposed by the committee of the League to refer the consideration of contributions to the cost of Imperial defence to a Conference. The basis of any practical scheme must be found in relative population and resources.

A Customs Union, if it could be established on a basis affording reciprocal advantages, would be a bond not less strong than the combination of resources for defence. Some Colonial statesmen have held that a Customs Union is a sine qud non of federal union, and that without a Customs Union there can be no federal union, in the true sense of the term. Desirable as it may be, all proposals for the establishment of a Zollverein within the British Empire are beset with insurmountable difficulties. In matters of defence our interests are identical. In matters of trade there is a conflict of interests between the Mother-country and the Colonies. We depend for our prosperity, and even for our existence, on our exports of manufactures. Our power to compete with industrial rivals in neutral markets depends essentially on cheapness of production. Our imports from our Colonies consist almost exclusively of food and raw materials. If we impose import duties on corn, wool, and timber we must increase the price of our goods, and an increase of price would diminish consumption and lessen employment for our manufacturing population.

It is necessary to conclude ; and enough has perhaps been said to show that if the Mother-country and the Colonies have some conflicting interests, they have many and great reciprocal interests. It is our duty to bring these interests into prominence. Above all, let us cherish those mutual affections which grow spontaneously and unsolicited from a common ancestry, a common history, language, and literature. Blood is thicker than water. So long as England and the Colonies retain for one another the sentiments which we of the old Mother-land feel so deeply, and which we know are warmly reciprocated, it will need no binding treaties, no formal engagements, to bring together for mutual defence, whenever it may be needed, all the strength of the Empire.

CHAPTER VIII
1892-3
Publication in November 1892 of Report of Special Committee of
League presided over by Lord Brassey—Summary—Council
Meeting to consider Report—Its Adoption—Sir Charles
Tupper and the Committee: Letter of Lord Brassey to
Canada disclaiming Sir Charles Tupper's Imputations—
Report laid before Government by Deputation to Mr. Gladstone—
Lord Brassey's Speech—Mr. Gladstone's Reply to the
Deputation—Dissolution of the League.

THE report of the Special Committee of the Imperial Federation League (referred to in the preceding chapter), over which Lord Brassey presided, was distributed to the members of the Council, and at the same time made public through the Press, in November, 1892; and on the 16th of that month it was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Council specially convened formally to receive it from the hands of the Committee. The full text of the Report being printed in an appendix to this volume, it will be sufficient here to indicate its general character.

Summary of the Report of the Special Committee adopted by the Council of the Imperial Federation League, November, 1892.

THE ESSENTIALS OF A UNITED BRITISH EMPIRE may be thus briefly defined:—

(a) That the voice of the Empire in peace, when dealing with foreign Powers, shall be, as far as possible, the united voice of all its autonomous parts.

(b) That the defence of the Empire in war shall be the common defence of all its interests and of all its parts, by the united forces and resources of all its members.

In order that the Empire may speak with the greatest authority to foreign nations, there ought to be a body in which all its autonomous parts are represented.

In order that the voice of the Empire may be supported in peace, and the common defence of the Empire assured in war, its resources must be combined. This entails, as regards its self-governing portions, both a representative body and common property in the means of defence.

How shall a Council of the Empire be constituted?

Without limiting or defining the functions the exercise of which a Council might attract to itself in process of time, for practical and immediate purposes the following propositions are submitted:—The Council should consist of members appointed by the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies. The three great groups of self-governing Colonies—North American, Australasian, and South African should be directly represented in that Council. India and the Crown Colonies would be represented through Her Majesty's Secretaries of State at present charged with the administration of their affairs, and in such other manner as might become desirable. The Council might includeon the part of the United Kingdom, the Indian Empire, and the Crown Colonies—the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State (for Foreign Affairs, War, Colonies, and India), the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and—on the part of the selfgoverning Colonies—of representatives of the three groups.

Such a Council, being furnished with adequate information relating to matters of foreign policy, should deal with Imperial Defence; and in matters of Defence should supervise the appropriation of any moneys provided for the defence of the Empire by the common contribution of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

By what means can the resources of the Empire be most effectively combined ?

The sphere within which combined defence is necessary is confined to those common interests the defence of which cannot be provided by local means. It is in the maintenance of the sea communications of the Empire that the community of interests is most absolute. The primary requirements of combined defence, therefore, are a sea-going fleet and naval bases.

It may be laid down as a leading principle that as all parts of the Empire enjoy the benefits of Imperial Defence, they should contribute to its cost. In the case of India and the Crown Colonies the United Kingdom would continue to be responsible for all matters relating to their respective contributions.

While, however, in the present and in the near future no large readjustment of burdens is called for, the time must inevitably come, through the rapid development of the Colonies themselves, when further provision must be made for their defence by naval means. It would be only fair that the self-governing States should make contribution towards the cost of those additional defensive preparations.

There is no reason to doubt that if the necessities of the case were made clear, the Colonies would be prepared to take their share in the cost of the general defence of the Empire, provided that they were given a proper share in the control and expenditure of the common fund.

In proposing that the self-governing Colonies should bear the enhanced cost of their own defences, and thereby share the cost of the defences of the Empire in common with the people of the United Kingdom, it is to be pointed out that by so doing those countries would be undertaking an incomparably smaller financial expenditure than would be required for their own defences if these did not form part of the general scheme of defence adopted for the Empire.

The method of raising contributions would probably, by general consent, be left at the outset to the choice of the individual self-governing States. But future developments may disclose a means of raising the necessary contributions upon some uniform principle throughout the Empire, by the allocation to this purpose of special sources of revenue or otherwise.

The several amounts should be fixed in the first instance for a term of years by a Conference, subject to periodical revisions.

There is nothing of the sensational or heroic about those propositions. They are to a great extent tentative and are so moderate as to seem almost commonplace, while they involve no constitutional wrench, but grow naturally out of the existing order of things, and it is upon these grounds that they should commend themselves to the minds of responsible statesmen. Although there is no attempt to enter into minute details which, being capable of adjustment only after exhaustive discussion upon all sides, are left to a Conference to consider, these propositions of the report are nevertheless not open to the easy criticism of dealing only with vague generalities. On the contrary, so far as they go, they are marked by clearness and definiteness of conception, and display throughout close and reasoned thought and a careful weighing of words.

There is a point to he noted in connection with some of the other matter in the report not included in the leading propositions referred to above. The report states that in the ' opinions' of which the Committee obtained the advantage, ' absolute agreement' was displayed as regards the object of Federation, and that this could still be correctly expressed in the words of the original constitution of the League adopted in 1884:—' That the object of Federation is to secure the permanent unity of the Empire. . . . By combination on an equitable basis of the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and by adequately providing for the organised defence of common rights.' The League had from time to time been supposed to represent sundry policies and ideas of various kinds, but this report, confirming as it does the proposition upon which the League was originally founded, and making that the corner-stone of its proposals, shows that then, as in 1884, Imperial Federation, rightly understood, meant primarily and principally the permanent organisation of the defences of the whole Empire. At the same time, the Committee show that they recognise the far wider extent of the functions which in the nature of things would be attracted to itself in process of time by such a Council as the report contemplates, though they wisely refrain from any attempt to limit or define the scope of such developments.

The report goes on to refer to other measures (not included in the above summary) as ' conducive to Federation hut not essential to it.'

These are divided into two classes—those which would become practicable immediately after the adoption of the essential parts of Federation, among these being the admission of Colonial securities to the list of authorised investments for British trust funds; the Imperial guarantee of local loans raised for purposes subservient to Imperial ends; the actual opening of the Administrative services of the Empire outside the United Kingdom by local examinations, &c. These are all obviously measures dependent upon the prior assurance of the permanence of the Imperial relationship as regards the Colonies by the adoption of the measures declared essential to Federation and necessary to secure such permanence. The second class of non-essential measures not regarded as immediately practicable even after the fulfilment of the essential conditions, but as possibly growing out of the closer relationship so established, comprises measures connected with a more rapid development of Inter-Imperial trade. These the report recognises as subjects not to be handled at the present time.

The Committee was well advised in drawing these distinctions. The one necessary desideratum is a union —not a mere alliance, but a union with a political nexus and common rights of property—for defending and maintaining the common interests and rights of the Empire against the world. This, and this alone, is rightly regarded as the one measure that affords the kind of union necessary for safety against our foes, and at the same time insures the permanent maintenance of that union among ourselves.

In conclusion, it may be said that though a more sensational report would doubtless have attracted greater passing attention, the sober and business-like nature of this report was calculated to secure for it the serious consideration of statesmen and publicists throughout the Empire. Every word in the substantive propositions may be said to have been weighed and to represent a deliberately formed opinion. This is not a document to be hastily read over and pronounced upon. It demands close investigation and careful study, and this it is believed its intrinsic qualities as well as the weight of some of the names attached to it will have insured for it among those whose duty it is to form an opinion upon the subject with which it deals.

At the meeting of the Council held on November 16, 1892, to receive the report, the Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P., was in the chair, and the following members of the Council were present: Lord Brassey, K.C.B., Lord Reay, G.C.S.I., Hon. T. A. Brassey, Sir Henry Barkly, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., Sir Rawson W. Rawson, K.C.M.G., C.B., General Sir J. Bevan Edwards, K.C.M.G., C.B, Sir John Colomb, K.C.M.G., Sir Frederick Young, K.C.M.G., Sir William J. Farrer, Sir George D. Harris, Sir Henry Doulton, the Archdeacon of London, H. O. Arnold-Forster, M.P., Gerald W. E. Loder, M P., Henry Kimber, M.P., Professor E. C. Clark (Cambridge), Richard R. Dobell (Quebec), Alexander McNeill, M.P. (Toronto), General J. W. Laurie (Nova Scotia), Commander F. C. Law, R.N. (Toronto) P. H. Nind (British Guiana), General Lowry, C.B., Colonel Ronald B. Lane, Colonel P. R. Innes, Colonel John B. Watts, Ind.S.C., James I. Fellows (AgentGeneral for New Brunswick), Peter Redpath (Montreal), G. W. Rusden (Victoria), O. V. Morgan, F. Faithfull Begg, Mackenzie Bell, S. B. Boulton, C. Freeman Murray, W. Herbert Haw, H. L. W. Lawson, W. Basil Worsfold, E. W. Ilowson, Talbot Baines, Robert Beadon, W. M. Aeworth, W. Becket Hill, H. F. Wilson, and A. H. Loring, Secretary.

This being the first Council meeting presided over by Mr. Stanhope since his resumption of the office of president, Lord Brassey, upon the chair being taken, addressed to him a few words of welcome in the name of the Council. Mr. Stanhope having replied, and other formal business having been concluded, the Secretary reported that numerous letters had been received from members of the Council expressing their regret at being unable to be present; the letters read included the following: —

Sir Charles Tupper wrote

' I am obliged to return to Paris by the club-train to-day, in order to take part in an important negotiation at the Foreign Office there, which takes place at four o'clock to-morrow, in connection with important trade arrangements between France and Canada. I sincerely hope the report of the Committee will be unanimously adopted by the Council of the League, as I believe it will at all events furnish a useful basis for giving effect to the important objects which the friends of Imperial Federation have so much at heart.'

Mr. Lyttelton Gell, Balliol College, Oxford, wrote—

' I have read the report with care, and, generally speaking, with the strongest approval and sympathy. I think its moderate and thoroughly practical embodiment of the views floating in many minds will make it a permanent landmark in the history of the question.'

Professor Montagu Burrows, All Souls' College, Oxford, wrote—

'I have to preside on Wednesday the 16th at an important meeting here, and cannot possibly come; but I should like to say that I entirely approve of the Committee's report, and hope that no time will be lost in promoting the scheme.'

Mr. G. R. Cockburn, M.P. (Toronto), wrote—

' I have carefully read the enclosed, and so far concur in it as an instalment toward the solution of the question of Imperial Federation which must ultimately rest, and can alone securely rest, on the admission of the selfgoverning Colonies to the full and unqualified rights enjoyed by the Mother-country. All distinction between the Mother-land and Colonies must be forgotten in the Imperial Federation Parliament, and each must strive on an equal footing. Perhaps that is too great a step to take at once, but the people must be educated up to it. I do not favour preliminary inquiry by Royal Commission, at least at present. Let the Conference precede it. The report is admirably drawn; wide enough to cover most things.'

The President then rose and said:—' Gentlemen, in inviting discussion upon the report which I hold in my hand, I am not going to anticipate it by any remark of my own upon its contents; but there are one or two general observations which I am sure you will allow me to make at this stage. The first is to call your attention to two or three characteristics of the report. One of these is that this is the unanimous report of a Special Committee appointed by us. That is a most gratifying circumstance. The Committee, no doubt, was exceedingly carefully selected, and it did its work with extreme care and with very great labour, and it is a most gratifying result, and tome also a somewhat surprising result, that they have arrived at unanimity, at a practical and entire unanimity, upon the report which they make to the Council as a whole.' Mr. Stanhope proceeded to point out that it was impossible to regard the proposals as otherwise than tentative. It was not to be expected that this report would cover all the ground which they in the Imperial Federation League hoped that they or their successors might cover. The Committee had approached the subject with caution and with great moderation. The success of the League's work was only possible if it carried with it the general feeling of the people of this country, and, at the same time, conciliated to a considerable extent the public opinion of the Colonies. This had evidently been the aim of the Committee.

The adoption of the report having been formally moved by Sir Frederick Young, and seconded by Sir Henry Barkly, a discussion followed. The report received warm commendation, the criticisms made upon it being directed only to isolated passages and expressions, and chiefly to such portions of it as seemed to suggest any delay or hesitation in pressing the subject forward. In particular, the proposal in paragraph 29, that ' such Conference ought not to be formally convoked until Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that the moment is opportune, and that a favourable reception of any proposals they may make may reasonably be looked for,' was strongly animadverted upon—especially as regards the concluding sentence—by Mr. Freeman Murray, Mr. Becket Hill, and others among English members of the Council, and by Mr. Alexander McNeill, a Vice-President of the League in Canada. The lastmentioned gentleman also expressed some regret that the subject of the resolution relating to trade and tariffs passed by the Canadian House of Commons and transmitted to Her Majesty's Government had not received a more prominent place.

The motion, upon being put to the meeting, was carried without a dissentient voice, and the President congratulated the League upon the report having been thus unanimously adopted.

The President then said:—' I propose that we should pass a cordial vote of thanks to the Committee who have drawn up this report ; I think we ought to do that with acclamation, and I shall at once put it to the meeting.'

Sir William Farrer:—' I rise to second that. I ask you to pass a formal vote of thanks to the Committee for the exceedingly able manner in which they have prepared this report.'

The vote of thanks was carried with acclamation.

Upon the motion of Sir John Colomb, seconded by Sir Frederick Young, the following resolution was carried unanimously:—' That copies of the report as adopted be forwarded to Her Majesty's Ministers both at home and in the Colonies.'

The issue of this report of Lord Brassey's Committee and its adoption by the Council of the League represented probably the most important advance made in the history of the Imperial Federation movement since the establishment of the League in 1884. The report emanated from an admittedly strong Committee; as an influential provincial journal said at the time, it would be difficult to find eleven men better qualified for the work they had in hand. To assist them, they had all the accumulated information and experience that the organisation of the League rendered available for their use, as well as the body of opinion (referred to in the report) elicited ad hoc from some thirty gentlemen specially qualified to advise. The sittings of the Committee were spread over a year, and the discussions were full and earnest. The report, therefore, was no chance production, but the outcome of the mature thought of a number of minds, and represented the preponderating opinion resulting from their differences and their agreement. This report so arrived at was agreed upon unanimously and signed by every member of the Committee; it was moreover unanimously adopted by the Council in a meeting largely and infiuentially attended. Upon minor points differences of opinion no doubt existed, not only in the Council, but even in the Special Committee itself; but as regards essentials the report must be taken to have had the unanimous approval of every member of the Committee which issued it, and of every member attending the meeting of the Council which adopted it.

An exception ought perhaps to be made in the case of Sir Charles Tupper—not, of course, that Sir Charles did not approve the report to which he appended his signature; but because he would scarcely appear to have given his adhesion to it in precisely the same spirit or in the same sense as his colleagues, and because he certainly showed himself afterwards unwilling to carry its recommendations to their consistent practical conclusion. The issue of the report was followed by a somewhat unpleasant episode which must be mentioned here, because it became Lord Brassey's part as Chairman of the Committee issuing the report to vindicate the position of himself and his colleagues from the charges levelled against them by Sir Charles Tupper. A letter addressed by Sir Charles to the Secretary of the League in Canada was read at the annual meeting of that body, and subsequently published in the ' Montreal Gazette ' and other papers in the Dominion in February, 1893. Attention was called to this letter by Lord Reay in the Executive Committee, on account of the following passages which it contained:—

' Knowing as I do that the most active members of the Imperial Federation League were mainly intent on levying a large contribution on the revenues of the Colonies for the support of the Army and Navy of Great Britain, I am delighted to have been able almost singlehanded to obtain such a report from such a Committee. Unfortunately they captured Mr. Parkin, and, having used him here, are now using him in Canada to create the false impression that we do nothing to maintain the defence of the Empire, instead of showing, as he truthfully could, that we have entitled ourselves to the gratitude of every man who has the interest of the Empire at heart.' According to the report of the proceedings of the Executive Committee at which this letter was read, given by the official organ of the League,¹ Sir Charles Tupper stated that the letter addressed to the Secretary of the League in Canada was not intended for publication, but that he adhered to every word contained in it. The matter was eventually referred by the Executive to the Council, and after considerable discussion in that body Sir Charles Tupper finally withdrew the imputation on his colleagues of the Special Committee.

It has been necessary to refer, thus briefly, to these circumstances in order to a proper understanding of the following letter, written by Lord Brassey as chairman of the Committee whose motives were aspersed. The letter appeared in the Toronto ' Empire' of April 14, and in many other papers throughout the Dominion.

LETTER TO CANADIAN PRESS

APRIL 1893

To the Editor of the ' Empire.'

Sir,—My attention has been called to a statement by Sir Charles Tupper to the effect that the most active members of the Imperial Federation League in England are mainly intent on levying a large contribution on the revenues of the Colonies for the support of the army and navy of Great Britain.

As chairman of the committee to whose report Sir Charles Tupper makes allusion, it is my duty to assure our fellow-subjects in the Colonies that the Federation League was established by its eminent founder, Mr. Forster, for a larger and nobler object than that suggested by Sir Charles Tupper. It was established to bring the Mother-country and the Colonies closer together and to unite them by the bonds of mutual affection and good-will, while also seeking to form political ties which should associate the Colonies more directly with Great Britain in the control and maintenance of a common Imperial policy, and to furnish a permanent guarantee against the risks of separation.

We are proud of our Colonies. We desire from our hearts that they may grow with the elasticity of youth. We seek no sordid advantage for ourselves from the Colonial connection. Our desire is, on the contrary, to give them every help which it is in our power to afford for the development of their resources and the advancement of their social and political condition.

Pressed by Lord Salisbury, when Prime Minister, to propose some practical scheme and not to rest content with the cultivation of those sentiments of good-will which are the essential conditions of a better settlement of constitutional relations, we have proposed in our report certain plans for the pooling of resources for the purposes of mutual defence. We do not believe that any members of our body desire to see Colonial funds expended for the benefit of the Mother-country. What we seek to secure is that the resources of all parts of the Empire shall be so combined for common, not English, purposes as to provide a more efficient defence for the outlying parts of the Empire, and especially for the trade of Colonial no less than of British ports. No immediate changes have been advocated. Recognising fully all that the self-governing Colonies have already done in providing for local defence, the committee, in their report, expressly state that these local efforts ought to be regarded as constituting direct contributions to Imperial defence.

Our proceedings having been confidential, I have not dealt with allegations relating to the deliberations of the committee over which I had the honour to preside. I have said quite enough to indicate the spirit of generous friendship and affection for the Colonies by which we were one and all animated.

Yours, &c.,

BRASSEY.

24 Park Lane, London, March 30.

Apart from the personal grievance of Sir Charles Tupper's colleagues on the Committee, it was very necessary that such a statement as that made in his letter, coming from so responsible and influential a personage as the High Commissioner for Canada in London, should be at once and authoritatively answered. Even if it had been true that the most active members of the League here were ' mainly intent on levying a large contribution on the revenues of the Colonies,' for any purpose whatever, which it was not; still, the statement that the object of such contribution was for the support of 'the Army and Navy of Great Britain' puts the matter in a very dangerous light. Not only has the true aim of ' the most active members of the League,' referred to by Sir Charles Tupper, been a far higher and nobler one, as Lord Brassey points out, than any question of money; but when the question of pecuniary support enters into the policy of Imperial Federation, it is not support for the army and navy 'of Great Britain' that is demanded, but joint support of an Imperial Force by Great Britain and the Colonies alike. To speak of the contributions required being for the support of the army and the navy of Great Britain is entirely to misconceive the whole position. A federal army or navy supported by the contributions of all the countries of the Empire ceases ipso facto to be the army or the navy ' of Great Britain,' and that is the very essence of the policy of Imperial Federation. But the general public, especially people in the Colonies, because they are accustomed to regard the power of Great Britain as ' Imperial'—as a power to which they have a right to look for protection without payment or responsibility on their own part—would obviously be most readily imposed upon by this misuse of terms; and would naturally assume that they were being asked to do what Lord Brassey repudiates the thought of asking them—to make a contribution of funds to be expended for the benefit of the Mother-country. The mischief that would be done to the cause of Imperial Federation if such erroneous views became current among people in the Colonies is incalculable. It is satisfactory to know that Lord Brassey's letter was well received by the Dominion Press, and no doubt did much to dispel the impression created by Sir Charles Tupper's statements.

In the course of the same month a deputation of the League waited on the Prime Minister (the Rt. Honble. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.), with the object of formally laying before him, as head of the Government, the report of the Special Committee, adopted by the Council in the previous November, embodying the definite proposals called for by Lord Salisbury when in office. The deputation was introduced by the President of the League, the Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P.

The Prime Minister was accompanied by Mr. Bryce, M.P., and Mr. Sydney Buxton, M.P. Among the deputation were the following gentlemen:—The Earl of Dunraven, the Earl of Radnor, the Earl of Winchilsea, Lord Brassey, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Lamington, Lord George Hamilton, M.P., Colonel Bridgeman, M.P., the Hon. W. F. D. Smith, M.P., the Hon. Harold FinchHatton, Mr. W. L. Jackson, M.P., Sir Charles Pearson, Q.C., M.P., Sir Reginald Hanson, M.P., Sir James Kitson, M.P., Sir Charles Tupper, Sir R. Temple, M.P., General Sir J. Bevan Edwards, Sir John Colomb, Sir Frederick Young, Sir Alfred Hickman, M.P., Sir John Simon, Sir George D. Harris, Sir Henry Doulton, Mr. Howard Vincent, M.P., Mr. H. Evans Broad, M.P., Mr. Alfred Baldwin, M.P., Mr. George Howell, M.P., Mr. H. L. W. Lawson, M.P., Mr. G. W. E. Loder, M.P., Mr. Heneage, M.P., Mr. Kimber, M.P., Mr. William Dunn, M.P., Mr. John Barran, M.P., Mr. James Rankin, M.P., Mr. Arnold-Forster, M.P., Mr. R. Munro Ferguson, M.P., Mr. Charles Bill, M.P., Captain Cecil Norton, M.P., Mr. S. Montagu, M.P. Mr. Alban G. H. Gibbs, M.P., Mr. J. Parker Smith, M.P., Colonel Wyndhain Murray, M.P., Mr. Thomas Wrightson, M.P., Professor G. H. Darwin, General Leggatt, General J. W. Laurie, General Lowry, Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Mr. Alexander M'Arthur, Mr. Peter Redpath, Mr. P. T. Barry, M.P., Colonel T. Myles Sandys, M.P., Sir T. Powell Buxton, Professor Montagu Burrows (Oxon.), Mr. W. F. Lawrence, M.P., Sir Charles Adam, Sir Charles Nicholson, Professor A. S. Napier (Oxon.), the Bishop of Durham, Mr. J. G. A. Baird, M.P., Sir Henry Barkly, Mr. J. H. C. Hozier, M.P., Sir Robert Gillespie, Sir William Maekinnon, Mr. J. Austen Chamberlain, M.P., General Sir John Watson, V.C., Major-General Sir Richard Harrison, Sir Daniel Cooper, the Venerable the Archdeacon of London, Canon G. P. Browne, Professor T. McKenny Hughes (Cambs.), Professor Raleigh (All Souls', Oxon.), Mr. James I. Fellows (Agent-General for New Brunswick), Mr. Richard R. Dobell (Quebec), Mr. H. M. Bompas, Q.C., Mr. T. Henry Baylis, Q.C., Mr. C. J. Follett, C.B., Mr. Kenric B. Murray (Sec. London Chamber of Commerce), Colonel Maillard, Colonel P. R. Innes, Colonel John Watts, Ind. S.C., Major H. E. Rawson, R.E., Alderman J. G. Rhodes, L.C.C., Mr. A. Arter, L.C.C., Mr. Henry Harben, L.C.C., Mr. T. Douglas Murray, Mr. P. H. Nind (British Guiana), Dr. W. Culver James, Mr. S. Vaughan Morgan, Mr. F. Faithfull Begg, Mr S. B. Boulton, Mr. C. H. Ommanney, Mr. C. Freeman Murray, Mr. W. Herbert Daw, Mr. W. Becket Hill, Mr. Robert Beadon, Mr. Geo. W. Gordon, Mr. J. Stanley Little, Mr. H. F. Wilson, Mr. W. M. Acworth, Mr. James A. Game, Mr. W. Basil Worsfold, Mr. C. Campbell Finlay, Mr. W. A. Bell, and Mr. A. H. Loring (Secretary of the League). Amongst those expressing regret at inability to attend were the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Reay, Lord Castletown of Upper Ossory, Mr, J. B. Balfour, M.P., the Hon. T. A. Brassey, Sir William Anson, Sir Richard Webster, Q.C., M.P., Professor Tyndall, and Professor Seeley.

Mr. Stanhope spoke at some length in introducing the deputation, and the other members of the deputation selected to address the Prime Minister were Lord Brassey, Sir John Colomb, and Mr. George Howell, M.P.

Lord Brassey had recently been elected Vice-President of the League in the room of Lord Rosebery (who did not desire to retain any official position in the League while holding political office), and he made the following speech on this occasion.

ADDRESS TO THE PRIME MINISTER, APRIL 13, 1893.

Sir,—As Chairman of the Committee whose Report we desire to submit to the consideration of the Government of the day, it is perhaps fitting that I should say a few words. The Report was due to a suggestion which fell from Lord Salisbury on the last occasion when he received a Deputation from our League. To-day, sir, we have the honour of being received by yourself, the leader of the different party in politics, but from you we are assured of receiving an equally sympathetic reception. Sir, our Report deals mainly with the question of Imperial Defence, but I think I may appropriately say that the task of formulating schemes of that nature was not the primary or the essential object of our Imperial Federation League. In the view of Mr. Forster, the lamented statesman who was our founder, in the view of Lord Salisbury, and in the view of others who have succeeded Mr. Forster as President of the League, I hold that our association has been chiefly regarded as an agency for fostering and cherishing the kindest feelings of honest pride, sympathy, and affection on the part of the people of the Mother-country towards their fellow-subjects in the Colonies. Assured as we are that these feelings exist, we are not impatient for changes in the federal relations of the Empire. We know that these changes must come in the future as the Colonies grow nearer to the Mother-country in population and in wealth; but we leave those changes to be proposed and to be considered by the statesmen of the day according to the circumstances of the hour, and we leave them with confidence to their consideration as appropriate opportunities arise.

Now, sir, referring to the Report which we are here to-day to submit to the Government, there are two ways by which our Imperial relations may be made closer. We may constitute a Zollverein, or we may constitute a Kriegsverein. In Canada, where we have many warm friends, the establishment of preferential trade has been constantly regarded as the strongest link by which any system of Imperial Federation may be welded together. There are wide differences of opinion upon that question. The existence of those differences was brought prominently into view at the conference of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire in the City of London last year. We of the Committee, recognising the undetermined state of public opinion on this trade question, made no recommendations with regard to it; but we think that occasional conferences would afford opportunity for discussion by responsible persons upon this important subject.

Now, sir, I turn to that part of the Report which deals with questions of Imperial defence; and I may say with Mr. Stanhope, and I am sure that I am representing the general feeling of those standing in this room, that union for mutual defence is a question which is becoming ripe for consideration. Quite recently a squadron has been established for the defence of Australasian waters. To the best of our ability, we have suggested in our Report further steps with a view of promoting concerted action for Imperial defence. We offer our suggestions, with deference, to the consideration of the Parliaments and the statesmen at home and in the Colonies. Sir, there is only one further observation which I desire to make. The members of our Committee did not come together having for their first aim the obtaining of further contributions from the Colonies. We recognised what the Colonies had done for their local defence, and we are prepared to accept what they have done as having been, at any rate in the past, a not insufficient equivalent for direct co-operation. No, sir; I may truly say that the members of our Committee were animated by a nobler and a loftier aim than has been sometimes suggested. We desire to do something which would bring home to every British subject, whether living in the Mother-land or living in the daughter States, the truth that separation involves grave disadvantages- and that strength for defence and influence for maintaining the peace of the world would be best secured by remaining together as one people.

It is worthy of remark, as showing the importance attached to undoing the bad effect of Sir Charles Tupper's statements as to the objects of the leaders of the movement in this country, that Lord Brassey availed himself of this important public occasion once more to repudiate the motives ascribed to them. ' The members of our Committee did not come together having for their first aim the obtaining of further contributions from the Colonies. ... No, sir; I may truly say that the members of our Committee were animated by a nobler and loftier aim than has been sometimes suggested.'

Mr. Gladstone's reply to the deputation was generally regarded by the Press as somewhat disappointing. But, as was observed at the time in the 'Journal ' of the League, when looked at more critically and with a full knowledge of the whole situation, it was less disappointing to the friends of the movement than was generally assumed. Mr. Gladstone said the time was not opportune for a Conference, and pointed out that the propositions contained in the report of Lord Brassey's Committee did not amount to a complete and perfect scheme of Federation, even for defence. But both these points were fully recognised by members of the League beforehand. The League had good reason to consider it a matter for congratulation that it had secured from the chief of the Liberal Party the same general approval of its aims as it had already obtained from the chief of the Conservative Party. Mr. Gladstone expressly adopted and associated himself with Lord Salisbury's former deliverance, and, while recognising the dangers of the present Imperial relationship, approved the League's principle of getting over these by means of Conferences. He also assented to the proposition that union for defence was alone an object of the greatest importance. Thirdly, he made an emphatic statement in the name of his party of the impossibility of adopting the plan (favoured by some sections of the League but not by its Council or the Special Committee) of cementing the Empire by means of preferential tariffs. And lastly, Mr. Gladstone agreed that the matter was one for the initiative of the Government of the United Kingdom, not of the Colonial Governments.

The presentation of this report was the last public act of the Imperial Federation League, which was dissolved at the end of the same year, 1893. But it was not from any want of sympathy on the part of the Prime Minister or of the public generally that the League ceased its operations. Its enemies were of its own household. As it was put by one of the editors of the present volume, in an account published shortly after the dissolution of the League, the state of things revealed by the discussions which had taken place in connection with the Report made it evident to those familiar with the inner working of the League's organisation ¹ that a crisis had been reached, threatening the very existence of the Society. . . . The lines of cleavage, it will be observed, are twofold. There was the introduction into the League's policy of schemes of commercial union, and there was the virtual elimination from its policy of the great principle upon which it was founded. It was because they recognised that the differences thus openly disclosed were fundamental and irreconcileable that the leaders of the League were forced to the conclusion that its power for good was paralysed, and so recommended its dissolution.'1

Lord Brassey was among the other League leaders who felt themselves constrained to this course of action. The decision of the Council to bring the operations of the League to a close was taken after consideration of a report drawn up by a Committee that had been appointed, in consequence of the events that have been referred to as taking place shortly before and after the deputation to the Prime Minister, ' to inquire into and report upon the course of action to be adopted by the League in the near future.' Besides Mr. Stanhope, M.P., the President, and Lord Brassey, the Vice-President of the League, the members of the Committee which issued this report were Lord Reay (Treasurer), Sir John Colomb, Mr. R. Munro Fei-guson, M.P., Mr. H. O. Arnold-Forster, M.P., Mr. S. Vaughan Morgan, and Mr. J. G. Rhodes, all active and leading members, mostly original members, of the League.

The recommendations of this Committee approved themselves also (as was announced by Mr. Stanhope) to Lord Rosebery (who, though holding no office in the League, remained a member of its Council, and kept himself informed of all its proceedings), as well as to almost all those who had done most work in its central organisation, to those who had contributed by far the largest proportion of its funds, and to those who had for years been most intimately acquainted with the working of things within the League. The decision to dissolve the League was arrived at with great regret, and only from an overwhelming conviction that so might the success of the cause itself be best achieved. It was hoped and believed that the movement the League had fostered would not only continue unabated, but would receive fresh impulse from the greater freedom of action allowed to its most energetic supporters by the removal of those restrictions which membership of a large and by no means homogeneous body entailed upon their activity. That expectation, it is gratifying to think, is being realised more and more with every month that has passed since the dissolution of the League on December 31, 1893.

1 Imperial Federation for May, 1893, vol. viii. p. 111.

¹ ' Why the Imperial Federation League was dissolved.' By Robert Beadon. National Review: February, 1894.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX I

ON WORK AND WAGES IN AUSTRALIA

PAPER READ BEFORE THE ROYAL COLONIAL INSTITUTE, FEBRUARY 14, 1888.

HAVING dealt with Indian subjects at Bradford, with the defence of the coaling-stations at a meeting convened by the London Chamber of Commerce, and with Colonial Federation at Cambridge, I propose, in concluding the public work connected with my recent journey, to refer mainly to the prospects afforded in the Colonies to emigrants from the Mother-country. The subject is of intense interest at a time when the saddening appeals of the unemployed are ringing in our ears.

The observations and conclusions of a recent traveller will, perhaps, convey a more vivid impression than the generalised facts which are brought to the knowledge of the public by Colonial statisticians and by the valuable Labour Bureau which has recently been organised by the Board of Trade. I will give the results of local inquiries as to the rates of pay on the railways, in the coal mines and gold fields, and at the shipping offices of Australia.

At the first port at which I touched in Australia I saw the navvy in a condition of prosperity which has never been reached in the old country. Wages on the Western Australian railways are at an almost uniform rate of 10s. a day for all classes of workmen. Here lads were earning this high pay as platelayers. The general physique was remarkable. The men command in abundance all the necessaries of life. They live in the open air, in a climate which is one of the finest and healthiest in the world.

Turning to another field of labour, at Newcastle, the great port for the shipment of coals from New South Wales, the wages of the underground men average from 10s. to 12s. for a day of eight hours. This field of employment has been rapidly developed. In 1876, 3,180 men were employed in the Colonies. There are now 5,380. Considerably over 2,000,000 tons of coal are now shipped annually.

The goldfields have afforded another well-paid but arduous employment. I visited the mine of almost fabulous richness at Mount Morgan, near Rockhampton. The men employed in quarrying at Mount Morgan are mostly new arrivals in the Colony. Their wages may be taken at from 7s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. per day. They work on an average eight hours. They work hard, and the climate is hot for a large part of the year. The cost of living is 15s. a week. Men who save generally invest their money in a gold-mining adventure elsewhere, worked on the co-operative plan. The Croydon and other new and promising goldfields in Northern Queensland are being opened up by bodies of working men with small capital. The Colonial seamen share with their fellow-workmen on shore conspicuous advantages in point of pay over the scale accepted in this country. The wages of able seamen in the Australian ports may be taken at 6l. a month. In domestic service, wages are beyond all comparison in excess of those obtainable in Europe, and servants are treated with the utmost kindness and consideration.

Thus far I have dealt with artisans and workers in receipt of wages. We may pass on to the case of those who have begun their career in Australia as independent settlers. At Marburg, near Brisbane, we visited an interesting settlement, formed within the last twenty years by German emigrants, who, on their first arrival in the country, were possessed of no resources of capital. By the most laborious efforts, the settlers at Marburg have cut down the dense scrub with which this part of the country was originally covered. For years their only food consisted of Indian meal ; their only shelter was such as could be formed with planks and a few sheets of corrugated iron. The reward of the frugality of these people, of their patience under many privations, and their industry, is seen in their comfortable and picturesque homesteads, consisting of little clusters of huts, dotted over the whole face of the country. On the whole, it may be said that Queensland is far better adapted to be a pastoral than an agricultural country. In the case of the German colonists in the Marburg district, their cattle are the most thriving and successful part of their business.

Our visit to Marburg suggests an interesting comparison of the qualities and capabilities of the British and the German emigrant. The latter is capable of steady toil, and is able to face privation which the former is little disposed to bear. The great qualities of the Briton are best displayed in situations where dash and boldness in enterprise are the essential conditions of success. The Englishman is more ready to hazard all that he possesses upon a single cast of the die. He rushes to the gold mine. The patient, laborious, and frugal German is content to make clearings in a dense forest of scrub. Queensland offers a field for emigrants of both classes. She is certainly much indebted to her German Colonists, who are fast assuming the nationality of their adopted country. All the young people talk English; all the older people retain their mother tongue. English is taught in the schools; German is used in the churches.

Let us turn from the rural districts to the towns. At Sydney I visited Messrs. Mort's engineering works. In busy times employment is given to 1,100 workmen at from 8s. to 14s. a day, for a day of eight hours. In all industrial establishments in Sydney the wages are on an equally high scale.

While those in employment are in receipt of wages which so far exceed the highest rates obtainable at home, it was sad to notice in the crowd thronging the streets no inconsiderable number who bore the marks of penury. Some four thousand of the unemployed had been taken into the pay of the Government, work having been found for them in the public park now in course of formation. Dissatisfaction had been expressed because it had been insisted that the wages thus paid should be below the rates in private industrial establishments. The agitators seemed quite unable to foresee that, even on the reduced scale, the burden of maintaining many workers in non-remunerative employment could not long be borne by the Colonial treasury.

In New South Wales, as in other countries, politicians have been tempted to give encouragement to a false system. It has been the means of gaining the support of the working classes; but it has led to the accumulation of a debt which amounted in 1885 to 30,000,000l. Of this, no less than 26,000,000l. have been absorbed in the railways. The opening up of railway communications, in anticipation of future traffic, is a wise policy, but the immediate result is to throw a heavy burden on the Colonial exchequer. From a surplus of 1,063,000l. in 1882, the Colony found itself confronted with a deficit in the following year amounting to 1,324,000l. A new Government, once more led by Sir Henry Parkes, has come into power, with a settled policy of discouraging further loans.

The state of affairs prevailing at Sydney at the period of my visit was exceptional. It is certain that the Colonies offer great advantages to working men, both in the hours and the reward of labour. The favoured lot of the urban populations of the Australian Colonies is established by many evidences. In walking through the smaller streets and the outskirts of Adelaide it was pleasing to see the long rows of tidy cottages, built of wood, one-storeyed, and each surrounded by its little patch of garden. In the vicinity of the towns the peasant proprietary had evidently attained an almost ideal standard of living. In the outskirts of Adelaide, at short intervals apart, are seen the simple but comfortable dwellings of small farmers or dairymen, shaded by graceful willow-trees, watered by running brooks, and surrounded by well-stocked gardens. These little homesteads have an air of easy independence which it is truly delightful to see.

Melbourne is surrounded by a group of suburbs with a united population considerably larger than that of the city proper. These suburbs consist, as in Adelaide, of extended rows of one storeyed dwellings. In front the ample circulation of air is secured by streets of great width; in the rear of the cottages the space is generally sufficient for a small garden. The great majority of the working class are owners of the houses which they occupy.

In Brisbane the masses live under the same happy conditions. From One-tree Hill, a thickly wooded range four miles outside the city, a glorious view is obtained. The wide spaces of garden and the broad roads are in striking contrast with the overcrowding we see at home, and the extent of which was painfully revealed by the inquiries of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes.

In addition to their high wages, the artisans of Australia command, in no inconsiderable degree, the advantages which we are able to give in the Old World, in the opportunities both of primary and of higher education, and in the culture of art and science. Excellent primary schools are maintained by the State. The higher education has been provided for by the establishment of universities at Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney. Large numbers of students throng the class-rooms of professors, among whom not a few have won a world-wide reputation.

The interest taken in the advancement of learning is attested by such gifts as those to the Adelaide University of 20,000l. from Sir Walter Watson Hughes, of 20,000l. and again of 10,000l. from Sir Thomas Elder, and of 6,000l. from Mr. J. H. Angas. We must admire the munificence of individual Colonists, and their liberality towards public objects, in a Colony not by any means the first for wealth. At Melbourne and at Sydney the beauty of the University buildings attests the munificence of the State and of individual benefactors. Speaking of Sydney, the late Mr. Anthony Trollope awarded praise justly merited when lie wrote, ' The College Hall is the finest in the Colonies. If I were to say that no college, either at Oxford or Cambridge, possesses so fine a hall, I might perhaps be contradicted. I certainly remember none of which the proportions are so good.

The Colonies are devoting their resources liberally to the acquisition of works of art, and to the formation of public libraries. At Melbourne, in a single building of vast dimensions, accommodation is provided for the public library, picture gallery, and industrial museum. The library contains a line collection of books, and is thronged with readers. Throughout the Colony of Victoria the example of Melbourne is followed, with as large a measure of liberality as the local resources, supplemented by grants from the public purse, permit. No less than 229 libraries and institutes are established in the towns and villages. The study of design and of applied science is encouraged by liberal grants in aid of the numerous schools in the Colony. Sydney possesses spacious galleries, containing examples of the most eminent painters of the modern English school, selected with excellent judgment. The amount provided by private bequests and public contributions for the purchase of works of art has already exceeded 30,000l.

With all these resources of civilisation at their command, the reason for the reluctance exhibited by the inhabitants of the great towns to push their way into the interior is not far to seek. It requires no common effort of fortitude and resolve to leave the populous and well-ordered and well-supplied city, with its refined pleasures and many advantages, and to penetrate into the solitary spaces of the Australian bush, where the pioneers of the prosperous settlements of the future are of necessity thrown entirely on their own unaided resources. The contrast between the conditions prevailing in the country and in the towns may be illustrated by a brief description of a Colonial city destined perhaps, in the course of a generation, to boast 5,000 inhabitants, but at present possessing scarcely 50. Wolseley, on the borders of South Australia and Victoria, is now a scattered hamlet, with all the institutions of the future in miniature and in the rough. A church, a school, an institute, a post-office, already exist, but the present buildings are wooden sheds of scanty proportions. The roads and streets are now traced only on ambitious plans, and marked out on the untrimmed surface of the soil by the surveyor's pegs. The dwelling-houses are of the corrugated iron so extensively used in Australian building, combined with other materials of a still more temporary character. Canvas, in many cases, supplies the only shelter until the selector can afford to build in wood and iron. At Wolseley the rigours of winter are felt almost as severely as in England during a short period of the year, and we have seen how flimsy are the dwellings in the first stage of the settlement. In the tropical parts of Australia a still more fragile method of construction is accepted. The corrugated iron is not wholly cast aside; but a rough hut of straw and sticks, in a clearing in the jungle, is in many cases the home of a family attracted from the cotton mills of Lancashire to the sugar mills of Queensland by the prospect of wages ranging from 25s. a week upwards. I talked to the wives of some emigrants of this class, whom I found on the sugar plantations near the Herbert River. Hard as was their life, and many as were the privations which they had to bear, they seemed not dissatisfied with their lot. Truly the pioneers of Colonial development have need of hardihood and energy. They must scorn delights and live laborious days.

Et genus humanum multo fuit illud in arvis
Durius, ut deouit, tellus quod dura creasset.

Nec facile ex æstu, nec frigore quod caperetur,
Nec novitate cibi, nec labi corporis ulla.¹

From all that has preceded, it will be evident that a working man, with no certain prospect of employment at home, will probably be the gainer by emigration. If the demand for labour at the present high wages is fully supplied in cities like Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney, in the vast regions of the interior the space as yet unoccupied is practically illimitable. In the older colonies much of the land suitable for peasant proprietors has already been taken up; but the land now held in large blocks by the representatives of the early settlers must certainly receive in the course of time a large population. Public opinion would condemn the selfish exercise of the rights of ownership of land as strongly as it is condemned here.

As a railway man, I had many opportunities of learning the views on the land question entertained by those concerned in the working of the railways. Where tracts of 100,000 or 200,000 acres are in the hands of a single proprietor, the growth of population, wealth, and production is slower than where the land is subdivided into smaller holdings. The large proprietor concentrates his energies on sheep. The peasant proprietor gives more labour and attention to arable cultivation. Subdivision encourages, monopoly checks, the growth of population. If the increase of numbers, under good conditions as to the standard of living, be one of the aims of government, it follows that undue concentration of ownership and occupation is contrary to public policy. The objection disappears where arrangements are made for letting the land on liberal terms. In this case the large proprietor, receiving interest in the form of rent, is a provider of capital at a lower rate than a labourer, with slender security to offer, would be compelled to pay.

In the course of time the ownership of land in Australia will approach the conditions which obtain in England. With us the proprietorship of estates of wide extent does not exclude—nay, rather it gives facilities for—cultivation of the land by agriculturists without resources of capital.

Passing from these references to the older Colonies, and from the general observations suggested by an examination of their present stage of development, I turn to Western Australia. Here we have a territory eighteenfold larger than England, with a population equal to that of Dover. If large tracts are unproductive other districts are eminently suitable for s ttlement. Steps should be taken to encourage colonisation. The price of ten shillings an acre, as fixed by the Government of Western Australia, seems a heavy demand on poor settlers without capital. While the United States and Canada make free grants of 160 acres, Canada providing in addition loans up to 120l. secured on the land, and with the advantage offered by America in respect to the cost of passages from England, it is evident that the flow of emigration from the Mother-country to Western Australia must be slow. Western Australia has hitherto been governed as a Crown colony. It is proposed to introduce responsible government. In giving their sanction to this change, the authorities of the Colonial Office may probably feel justified in reserving unoccupied land for settlement by Colonists assisted by the State.

I am not one of those who believe that emigration can be undertaken under Government management on a large scale. But in first opening up a new country the aid of the State may prove a great boon. In former years we have the successful instances of the settlement in Algoa Bay, and the establishment of the German Legion at the Cape. The Canadian Government, as we have seen, is making great efforts to attract settlers to Manitoba. At so great a distance from the United Kingdom it is difficult to make a beginning in Western Australia. Here, then, if the proposal can in any case be entertained, experimental settlements on a moderate scale might be carried out by the Government. This is one of the proposals which Lord Meath, and the members of the Colonisation Society which he has founded, have commended to the public.

In considering the Australias as a field for British emigration, regard must be had to climate. In tropical Australia the white man cannot undertake field labour. He may direct and administer. He cannot go out into the plantations to delve and to prune in the heat of the day. In the sugar plantations on the Herbert River the British workman is confined to the mills, the canes being cut by coloured people. North of the Herbert River, near Mourilyan, we found a large plantation successfully worked by labour imported from Java. On the Herbert River the wages for Englishmen are from 25s. upwards weekly; the wages of the Javanese are 30s. a month.

It is impossible to resist the conclusion that the opening up of tropical lands must be carried out with the labour of tropical races. The benefit to the working people of the temperate zones, if less direct, will be not less substantial. New markets for the sale of their manufactures will be developed; the supplies of cheap food for their consumption will be increased.

I need not insist on the value of the Colonies as a market for the productions of labour employed in our factories at home. The comparison of the movements of commerce in recent years affords a remarkable confirmation of the established axiom that ' trade follows the flag.' The statistics of the Colonial trade are well known. Some other figures, which illustrate the material advantages of our Australian connection in opening up a field for the profitable employment of British capital, are less familiar.

The British investments in Australasia have been estimated as follows:—

From these investments a sum of more than 14,000,000l. is annually received in the form of interest.

Thus far the Colonial connection has been considered from the British standpoint, and in reference only to emigration and other material advantages. The broader view could not be put more forcibly than in the great speech delivered in Edinburgh by the late lamented Mr. W. E. Forster:—' Our Colonies, when strong enough to be independent, will yet be stronger, more rich, more intelligent, if still in union with ourselves. Their inhabitants will have greater opportunities, a wider scope, a possibility of a higher career, if continuing our fellow-countrymen. In order to fulfil all the duties of free and civilised and self-governing men, they need not cease to he British citizens. They may have all the advantages of a nationality without disowning their allegiance; and as they increase in strength and power, so shall we.'

The following speech by the Earl of Dunraven concluded the discussion upon this paper.

' Before asking you to accord a vote of thanks to Lord Brassey for his paper, you will perhaps allow me to say a few words on the subject. I am sure you will not require me to say anything by way of commending that paper to you. Indeed, we are indebted to Lord Brassey for a great deal more than is contained in the present paper, for this is not by any means the first time that his countrymen have been laid under obligation to him for useful information on the subject of our Empire. About ten years ago, I think, Lord Brassey read a paper before this Institute on the subject of A Colonial Naval Volunteer Force," and, without paying him any undue compliment, I think I may say that that paper has blossomed into fruit in the shape of the present Australasian squadron. We have heard many things of the greatest interest in the paper that has just been read to us. We have heard descriptions of the circumstances and conditions of labour in the Australian Colonies. Some of them were almost idyllic in their fascinationsuch, for instance, as the description given us of the peasant proprietary, the small farmers, and the dairymen in the neighbourhood of Adelaide. I noticed also in the paper that, although undoubtedly the conditions of labour are superior in Australia to what they are with us, still they are not quite free from the problems that perplex us here, and that what must be a large percentage of the labouring population of Sydney were, practically speaking, supported by their fellow-labourers. Still, I think that on the whole there can be no question as to the fortunate circumstances in which the wage-earning classes find themselves in that continent, and it must rejoice everyone to know that the condition of comparative ease, and the opportunities for mental improvement, do not militate in the smallest degree against the security and the welfare and the productiveness of capital.

' As to the great question of emigration, I do not wish to say very much. It is an exceedingly difficult and complicated question. My own impression on the subject is that, speaking generally, it is unwise for a State to interfere in matters of that kind—to interfere, I mean, in the direction of endeavouring to bring about a very large scheme of emigration—a great transportation of the people of this country to the Colonies or to any other portion of the earth. I believe that, as a rule, those matters tend to adjust themselves. Over here we have a plethora of labour. We have muscular arms practically paralysed for want of work. We have here idle hands and men eating their hearts up in the vain endeavour to find employment. In many of our Colonies we have idle lands, and labour only wanting hands to perform it. Well, my impression is that these are things that naturally tend to adjust themselves. If the Colonies require labour, they will give inducements to bring labour from where it is over-abundant. I rather deprecate State interference in these matters. My belief is that the working people of this country are perfectly ready to emigrate if they feel that they are likely to benefit themselves by doing so, and if they understand they cannot make a decent living at home, owing to no fault of their own; but I think at the same time too much State interference in the matter is apt to engender in their minds a kind of idea that they may be cajoled into emigrating, not so much for their own good as for the good of some other class of the community. On the other hand, I must say I think it most important that everything that can be done in the way of diminishing friction, in the way of making communication easy, in the way of making postal communications cheaper, and in the way of bringing the Colonies as near as they possibly can be brought to our shores, and making emigration as little difficult and painful as possible—I can imagine, I say, no subject to which statesmen can address themselves that is more important to this country and the Colonies than this.

' There was another large question which Lord Brassey touched upon towards the close of his most interesting paper. That was the question of Federation. He said —what I think is perfectly true—that it is a very difficult matter to formulate any plan of Federation. My impression is that it would be a very foolish thing to formulate any distinct plan of Federation. Plans for giving the Colonies a voice in large Imperial questions of defence and the safe-guarding of our ways across the ocean—the representation of the Colonies in some council sitting in London—these are questions which I am very certain will evolve themselves without any great deal of trouble on our part, provided only the necessity and the desire for such a state of things are felt in the Colonies and in the Mother-country. I myself would attach very little importance to the most perfect scheme that the ingenuity of man could devise for the drawing closer the component parts of the Empire, but I attach the utmost importance to the sentiment that pervades this country and the Colonies, and which teaches us and teaches them the essential advantage, not only to us and to every portion of the Empire, and to the Empire as a whole, but, as I believe, to the whole civilised world, that the British Empire should grow and expand as one great whole. The question of defence has been already undertaken to a certain, though perhaps a limited, extent in the formation of the Australasian squadron. The question of Australasian Federation—which is not perfect—may be a step towards Imperial Federation. The only subject that I can see that can possibly interfere with the general and very strong tendency towards cohesion on the part of the various portions of the Empire is the possibility of divergences arising between us on commercial matters.'

1 Lucretius, v. 925, et sqq.

APPENDIX II

SPEECH ON STATE COLONISATION

FREE TRADE HALL, MANCHESTER, FEBRUARY 28, 1888.

LORD BRASSEY said that, standing in the noble Free Trade Hall, and called to address that great meeting, he naturally asked himself why it was that lie had been asked to speak. The only explanation was that he had been a traveller through the whole wide circuit of the British Empire. He had seen at their work the lumberers of Canada, the hardy fishermen of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the railway navvies of Western Australia, the gold digger of Ballarat, the shepherd and herdsman of New South Wales, the cultivators of sugar in Queensland, and the scattered settlers in the Cape of Good Hope. He would not trouble the audience with detailed statistics. The picture of plenty and prosperity and hope for the labouring man which he had seen was more or less familiar, at least by description, to all present. The prosperity contrasted strangely with the struggle for existence of which too much was seen at home.

They were not called together to discuss political economy or to propound theories. The facts of the social and economic condition of this country had been placed before us by many statisticians, of whom Mr. Giffen at the Board of Trade was an eminent example. They knew that there was a great accumulation of capital taking place in this country. They knew that that accumulation was being formed, not in the hands of the few, but through the diffusion of wealth in the hands of a great middle class. All this was satisfactory enough; but what was unsatisfactory was this, that below the classes, numerous as they were, which had largely benefited by the immense industrial development of the present age, there was a large number struggling for existence, badly paid when in employment, and constantly without employment: a mass of persons who were only prevented from surrendering to the tender mercies of the Poor Law by that spirit which we could not sufficiently admire. Now when we saw the suffering around us which we so sincerely deplored, and glanced back to those plains and rich pastures of America and Western Australia which were still unpeopled, and which promised to yield such abundance to the labour of man, surely that plan of colonisation which he and others had come to Manchester to advocate afforded at least one obvious means by which some of this suffering might be relieved.

Now what was their proposal? To be accurate he would read a paragraph from a circular which had recently been put forth by the Association ¹ which they represented:—' The general idea of the Association is that the Government should procure a sum of money for colonisation purposes, the money not being given to the Colonists, but advanced to them on their undertaking to repay the cost of their passage and settlement by instalments or otherwise after arrival, the money being sent back, to quote Lord Derby's expression, to be used over and over again for a like purpose. We propose that the Imperial Government should create apermanent Colonisation Board, the representatives in London of the cooperating Colonies to sit ex officio on the Board, the Colonisation Board to be responsible to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that co-operating Colonies should place in the hands of the Colonisation Board tracts of land for settlement under the supervision of experienced Colonists.'

That paragraph seemed so clear that it would be almost waste of time to give any explanation of it. The proposal, however, was that the Government should make an advance of money, which was a different thing from a proposal that the Government should make a present of money. The purpose of this advance was to pay the cost of the passage of the Colonists and the cost of their first settlement upon the land. The security offered for that advance consisted,of the land which the co-operating Colonies would have granted as a free gift to the Colonists. The repayment would be by instalments, and as those instalments were paid, the money would be available to be used over and over again for the same fruitful and beneficent purposes. While not entering into details, he would point out that it was an essential feature of their plan that they did not propose to send out single emigrants to compete with the wageearners in the great towns of the Colonies. They were aware that in some of those great Colonial cities the difficulty of the unemployed had already upon occasion presented itself. Their proposal was to send out families to settle upon the land and to cultivate it.

Anybody who had been in the Colonies would be aware that the task of the settler when he first entered upon the occupation of his land was hard and heavy, but they believed that where men were brave, vigorous, and intelligent, they could not fail to overcome those difficulties, and they cherished the hope that those Colonists who might go forth under their scheme would become, not recipients, but payers of wages.

There were several successful examples of the practical .development of schemes such as they proposed. A quarter of a century ago his father and some other men of enterprise undertook to make a railway, some 250 miles in length, from Kosario, on the Parana, to the city of Cordova, at the foot of the Andes. The consideration which was paid to those who undertook that work consisted mainly of a grant of land. The railway was completed, and the individuals who had made it found themselves without many sovereigns in hand, but with a large tract of inhabitable land. They thought, after some interval, that they must undertake the task of commencing the colonisation of that district, and people were invited from Scotland, England, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, and even France, to settle in that country. To every man some CO acres of land were given as a free gift; for every family a house was built, a well was dug, food was provided for a year or two, and the necessary supplies of tools were furnished. He visited that Colony some ten years ago, and he found that the difficulties incidental to a first settlement had been experienced. The majority of the men, however, had been eminently successful, and were thankful that the opportunity had been given to them. He had had reports from that Colony from time to time, and he was able to state that all the difficulties which ten years ago remained to be surmounted had now been overcome, and that that settlement had been in every way successful. It had been advantageous to those who availed themselves of the offer which was made to them, and advantageous to those who were interested, as contractors for the railway, in the rapid development of population in that country.

In presenting the plan which they submitted for consideration they did not offer it as a panacea for all the evils and difficulties of our social and economic condition. They did not offer it as the only remedy for all the troubles and difficulties we had to face. They were very well aware that in order to make such a scheme of colonisation successful great judgment must be shown at every stage. They were aware that in comparison with emigration, which could be carried out without the assistance of the State, colonisation which was carried out with the assistance of the State was attended with some risks, and was not in so full a degree satisfactory. But they confidently recommended their plan as one among many remedies for the social distress we had before us, and as a plan which they thought ought to be taken up, considered, and assisted by the Government. The aid of the State would prove of especial value in carrying out the first settlement in a new country.

He would take such a country as Western Australia —a region eighteen times the area of our United Kingdom, with a population which scarcely numbered that of Dover. In a country so desolate and so destitute of local resources of capital as was the Colony of Western Australia, they were of the opinion that if only a heginning could he made by the assistance of the .State, a large prosperity might be secured to the settlers, and that the development of the country would be greatly accelerated in this its early and initial stage. They further believed that, if the .State would assist in this first settlement, those who might be sent out with the assistance of the State as pioneers would, in a few years, draw thousands and tens of thousands in their train without the assistance of the State. By an operation such as he had suggested for Western Australia, a new nation would rapidly be brought into existence, a nation of people who would be good customers to the Mother-country, and a strength and support to the Empire.

PAPER ON STATE COLONISATION

LIVERPOOL, NOVEMBER 15, 1888.

I will open the paper which I propose to read with a few general statistics of our Colonial Empire. Excluding India, the area of the Colonies is sixty times that of the United Kingdom. They have a population which already reaches 18,500,000, of whom nearly one-half are of our own race. Upon the connection with the Colonies our claim to a front rank among the nations of the earth very mainly depends. Our trade with the Colonies is a main element in the material prosperity which we enjoy at home. Our Colonies are becoming year by year more important as customers for British manufactures.

Taking one or two leading branches of trade, as given in the latest year for which we have complete returns, we find that of cotton manufactures the Colonies and India took 26,602,000l. out of a total export of 57,367,235l. Of iron and steel manufactures they took 7,728,411l. out of 19,255,359l. To sum up, about onethird of the total exports of British manufactures go to British possessions. Our Colonies furnish more than one-quarter of the world's supply of gold. I have said enough to show that the subject of the Colonies is one which, in all its various aspects and phases, may with profit be brought continually under the notice of the British public.

Recently, before a meeting of the merchants of Glasgow, I had the opportunity of representing my views on the subject of what is called Imperial Federation. For to-night I have endeavoured to bring together the latest information which has been presented to Parliament in relation to the Colonies as a field for emigration, or for emigration in the better form of colonisation.

Taking a broad view, all the inter-tropical Colonies must be excluded as unsuitable, by reasons of climate, for a British population dependent on manual labour. Of the Colonies lying within the temperate zone, the vast area of South Africa is suitable ordy for the farm labourer who is able to provide capital, however slender the amount. In South Africa, considerations of climate, and an abundant supply of native labour at very low rates point rather to supervision than to mere fieldlabour as the proper sphere for British immigrants. Limiting, therefore, our field of view for the present to Australia and Canada, we may proceed to consider under what conditions the transfer of population, which all must recognise as so desirable, can most advantageously take place.

Great efforts are being made at the present time to induce the Government to undertake some scheme of colonisation. I myself belong to a society established with this object. As I shall presently explain, with certain limitations, T give my adherence to the proposals which have been pressed upon the society. By those who advocate a great national effort to colonise, it is assumed, as a postulate requiring no proof, that colonisation by State aid is a duty of the State. The argument is supported by statistics of the increase of our population at home. After deductions for emigration, our numbers are swelling at the rate of 1,000 a day. When we turn from the congestion at home to the Colonies, we see vast areas of land which remain as yet unpeopled; and the contrast would seem at first sight to afford an irresistible argument in favour of the plans which are proposed.

The Earl of Meath, president of the State-aided Colonisation Society, has taken a leading part in advocating direct action by the State. A somewhat similar plan has been pressed on the attention of the Government by Mr. Kimber, a member of the House of Commons. In both schemes it is proposed that a fund be raised by the State for colonisation purposes. Under Lord Meath's plan the charge is laid entirely on the Home Government. In Mr. Kimber's plan the Government of the Colony to which the settlers proceed is to take a joint responsibility. In both cases the land which the Colonial Government gives to the settler is the security for the advance which he receives.

The advances are of necessity considerable. It may be taken that the smallest amount of capital required to settle a group of five persons upon 200 acres of land would be 150l. To this amount we should have to add for a passage to one of the Australias from 70l. to 90l. To Canada the amount would be proportionately less. Roughly, it may be assumed that the cost of State colonisation would be 50l. for every settler who left this country.

It is evident that such a charge could not possibly be borne by the State, unless adequate security could be offered. On this point the opinions expressed by our Colonial Governments are far from encouraging. Land can be obtained from the Canadian Government in plots of 160 acres at a nominal fee for registration. At the Cape the Government price is 10s. an acre ; in Queensland it is 2s. 6d. an acre. The Colonial Governments express doubts whether the improvements which would be effected would, in the case of unsuccessful settlers, add materially to the value of their allotments. As, therefore, there would be no security for their advances, there is no ground to hope for the co-operation of the governments in any general scheme of colonisation.

Without that co-operation it must be accepted that the plans which have been put forward can only be entertained within restricted limits, and as a remedy for the congestion of population in exceptional circumstances. A scheme of colonisation for the crofters of the Western Highlands is an undertaking not beyond the resources of the State. To colonise on a scale of sufficient magnitude to give substantial relief from the pressure of population on the means of subsistence, to remove the surplus inhabitants from Ireland to a less crowded land, would burden the State with a responsibility which it would not be able to bear.

I believe that the assistance of the State in colonisation may be of much service in opening up a hitherto unsettled country. The beginnings are always the difficulty. The State may render aid to the pioneers of civilisation in the unpeopled wastes of Western Australia or the north-west territories of Canada. Beyond that, State colonisation cannot prudently or practically be attempted.

If I turn from public to private efforts, colonisation is, I believe, one of the very best channels to which that large and practical philanthropy, which is so noble a characteristic of our age, can be directed. We have before us the animating examples of Lady Gordon Cathcart and Lady Ossington. In a somewhat different line we have the splendid work which is being done by Baroness Burdett-Coutts. It is my hope that I may be enabled to associate yet another name with efforts of the same kind. It is needless to add that the utmost which individuals can hope to accomplish is little in comparison with that which may be done by associated effort, and I am glad to know that large schemes are on foot for gathering together capital for the work of colonisation.

Having seen how great are the difficulties which beset the efforts of the State, it is a relief to the anxieties which we feel to turn to that great movement of emigration from the old country to the new which is happily being accomplished by the spontaneous energy and enterprise of the people. The emigration from Great Britain depends from year to year on the condition of the countries to which the main streams are directed. The number of emigrants of British origin only have ranged in the last ten years from 95,195 in 1887 to 320,000 in 1882. The total number of emigrants from the ports of the United Kingdom, including emigrants from the continent of Europe passing through this country, was in 1886 320,801, and in 1887 396,494. The numbers fluctuate, but the flow of the great stream is never arrested. If the places left vacant were not filled up so largely by immigration from abroad (in 1886 the number of foreign immigrants into this country was no less than 108,879) much would be done to relieve the pressure in this country.

I will not here suggest any remedy by action of the State. The point on which I desire rather to insist is that that great movement of emigration, of which I have given the statistics, has been accomplished with slender help from Government, and mainly by remittances from successful settlers in the Colonies or in the United States. Prompted by tender and kindly sentiments of family affection, they have liberally provided remittances for relatives and friends at home, for whom, on their arrival in the new country, they have useful employment in view. Emigration, assisted in this natural way, must always be more satisfactory than emigration under the auspices of the Government.

The State has to contend with a twofold difficulty. First, care—more minute than the agents of a State department can ever exercise—is required in the selection of emigrants. The second difficulty is the provision of employment, and the creation of some adequate stimulus to exertion for the thriftless and the indolent. These difficulties disappear when the emigrant is selected by a friend who is assured of his personal fitness, and who can place the new arrival in suitable employment.

For the guidance of those who are contemplating emigration at their own expense, and who have no friends ready to receive them, the Government has recently established an information office, which is doing excellent service. In their last report, the committee by whom this office is managed insist as they have insisted in previous reports—and as the Ministers of all the Colonies under responsible government insist whenever consulted by the Home Government—that farm hands are most wanted, and that the towns in the Colonies, as at home, tend to be over-stocked. The necessity that emigration should be from the class of farm-labourers, and the fact that there is but little room for the immigration of mechanics, may not at first sight be obvious, in view of the high rate of wages which prevail, and which range in the Australias from 10s. a day for the railway navvy to 14s. a day for mechanics in the towns.

As the committee of the Emigrants' Information Office find it necessary again and again to point out in their reports, a high rate of wages in the Colonies does not necessarily imply a demand for labour. The struggle for existence is not the same in the Colonies as it is at home. Living is, as a rule, an easier matter. Working men are a stronger element of the community. The net result in many of the Australian towns, at any rate, is that, while wages are high and hours are short, as compared with the conditions of this country, steady, continued, and remunerative work is not always to be had, and high wages on three or four days may be counterbalanced by no wages at all during the rest of the week.

It may be a subject of some regret that the stream of emigration from our shores should set so strongly towards the United States. Patriotic sentiment would make us desire that the emigrants from the United Kingdom should remain British citizens. Perhaps we should hardly regard the United States of America as a foreign country. We are attached to the United States by the closest ties, and a wise statesmanship, in some future day, may bind the old country and the new together in some form of pan-Britannic federation for the purposes of mutual defence.

In the meanwhile, the influences are irresistible which draw the main stream of emigration to the ports of the United States. The cost of passage is a point largely in their favour, and the help of friends, on which, as it has been shown, emigrants chiefly depend, is mainly provided from the States. Distance and expense of voyage are the obvious drawbacks of the Australian Colonies to the intending emigrant. If these can be overcome, I give the testimony of an eye-witness to the felicitous conditions of life enjoyed by the great majority of the people of Australia.

Before I close I must turn for a few moments to some other topics of interest in connection with the Colonies. Having recently returned from a voyage specially undertaken with the view to ascertain the condition of defence of those ports and coaling-stations on which the efficiency of the navy as a defence to our commerce so essentially depends, you may naturally like to hear my general conclusions. At all the points which are recognised by our naval and military authorities as the main coaling-stations of the British navy, I found the work of fortification, undertaken either by the British or Colonial Governments, well advanced, if not completed. In two places only, King George's Sound and Thursday Island, nothing was being done; but these have subsequently been added by the Government to the long list of positions for which they have undertaken to provide defence. Guns were wanting everywhere; but we have the assurance of Mr. Stanhope, and of his colleague, Lord George Hamilton, that now at last we are making real progress in the matter of armaments. At last we have adopted the only remedy. We have given up the vain attempt to draw everything from Woolwich Arsenal, and we have thrown ourselves on a resource which has never yet failed us—on the ingenuity and enterprise which are to be found in the manufacturing industries of our country.

In one important particular I found a deficiency, for the supply of which I have not heard as yet that any steps have been taken. I refer to the weakness of the garrisons at all the coaling-stations in the more distant parts of the seas. Partly because of the unfavourable climate, and partly because of the heavy drain which it would involve on our comparatively small army, I should deprecate the attempt to depend wholly on British troops. We should have them everywhere in sufficient numbers to lead and to leaven the native forces with the great military qualities of our race. But we should do well to supplement our British troops with foreign levies. As the author of the able work, recently published, on the state of the British army has suggested, we have in the Empire vastly more people of one race or another than belong to any other of the great Powers. A very large proportion are of specially warlike races; and if we can succeed in India with the Sikhs and the Ghoorkas, and in the West Indies with our negro regiments, there is no reason in the nature of things why we should not also succeed in making use of Kaffirs and Zulus. The Roman or Austrian plan of shifting from one part of the Empire to another the armies composed of subject races has hardly been tried by us at all. A military organisation on the lines indicated would be economical and, I believe, efficient.

What I have said with reference to the manning of the defences by land is applicable also to the manning of the fleet in distant waters. In a letter recently received from my friend Captain Heath, an officer of the Royal Navy, who is the chief naval and nautical adviser of the Government of Queensland, I am urged to press upon the authorities at home the desirability of providing for the seamen of our naval reserve, who are in employments connected with the sea in the Colonies, facilities to go through their annual drill in ships or batteries established by the Colonial Governments. At a suitable opportunity I will endeavour to bring this suggestion forward. It is certainly necessary that we should have bodies of trained seamen in the Colonies ready to man the cruisers which we should fit out for the defence of commerce in the event of war. In the Australias and in Canada there is a seafaring population which offers an inexhaustible field for the recruitment of a naval reserve.

And now I turn to the grave question—What are the prospects of holding together the mighty and noble Empire which we and our fathers have built up? It is obvious that the unity of the Empire depends upon the free and large adoption forour distant Colonies, inhabited by people of the British race, of the policy of selfgovernment. We have given to the Colonies the unrestricted control of their fiscal system. They can tax British goods as they please. In internal administration and legislation their discretion is practically unfettered. It is only in their external relations that the influence of the Mother-country is felt, and then only as a shield and a support. It is difficult to conceive any combination of circumstances under which ties so elastic as these can be put to the risk of rupture.

Here and there, however, a voice is raised in the Colonies in favour of separation. The desirability of being free from a share in the perils resulting from the foreign engagements of the Mother-country is the main argument on which the advocates of separation rely. The argument would have more force if less regard were paid by the Foreign Office to the conditions necessarily imposed on our policy by the colonial connection. More and more it is being seen that British statesmen are reluctant to commit themselves to engagements in which the interests of the Colonies are not concerned.

We are rapidly coming to this, and our foreign policy is a purely defensive policy—a policy of defence for the shores of the Mother-country and her Colonies, and for the great highways of the seas, along which the interchange of commerce between the several members of the British Empire is conducted. On the occasion of a recent visit to Australia, at a period when the Jubilee of Her Majesty was being celebrated, I saw with pride, and even with emotion, the patriotic feeling which on all sides was displayed.

I make no doubt that the Colonies will become more and more exacting in their demands on the Mothercountry in the appointments to colonial governorships as well as in all other matters. They will ask for a more clearly defined position in the direction of external affairs. They will ask that the officers of the Imperial Navy shall be recruited more largely than at present by the nomination of cadets from the Colonies. A wise statesmanship will not lose sight of the duty imposed by these natural and reasonable demands. A judicious compliance will tend to prevent all possibility of the breaking into pieces of the British Empire. Such a dissolution of the Empire would be a political, and I may add, a moral catastrophe, which all the world would deplore.

A COLONISATION SCHEME AT WORK

LETTER PUBLISHED IN THE 'TIMES,' JANUARY 23, 1891.

Sir,—At a time when attention is being specially directed to the consideration of proposals such as that put forward by General Booth, the experiences gained by others in carrying out schemes devised for similar objects will probably be interesting to the public.

To transport the surplus population of an old country to the fertile but unoccupied lands of the Colonies, if successfully done, is an obvious and effective mode of relieving distress. Lady Ossington, Lady Gordon Cathcart, Mr. Arnold White, and the Government, in sending out large numbers of crofters to Canada, have been pioneers in this benevolent work. An association has been formed by Lord Meath for the purpose of promoting more ambitious plans at the cost of the State.

Addressing you as President of the Canadian Cooperative Colonisation Company, I offer a short narrative of our proceedings from the foundation of the company in 1889 to the present time. Under the scheme originally proposed we were to acquire possession of a suitable tract of land in Canada. A commencement was to be made by working a farm of not less than 2,000 acres under the direct control of the company. Labour was to be provided by sending out selected men, with their families, from this country. After working a year or more on the company's farm, during which experience would be gained and savings accumulated, it was hoped that the colonists would take more independent positions on homesteads to be acquired on easy terms, and thus become thriving cultivators of the soil on their own account.

The acquisition of land was a first step, and under the advice of Professor Tanner, 45,000 acres have been purchased at an average cost, including buildings, of 1l. 8s. per acre. The estate is in the province of Assiniboia, in the vicinity of the Qu'Appelle Station, on the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Having acquired a tract of land suitable for colonisation, an executive committee was appointed, consisting of practical men, and the following advertisement was published in several newspapers circulating in agricultural districts:—

' To Ploughmen, Shepherds, and others.—The Canadian Co-operative Colonisation Company (Limited).— The following workmen are required:—Twelve ploughmen for horse and bullock teams, twelve strong and able ploughboys, one shepherd accustomed to hill sheep farms, two under shepherds, one blacksmith, one carpenter up to wheelwright's work. The costs of journey from home to the company's lands in the Canadian North-west will be provided by the company. The engagement for the men will be for the period of fifteen months from the time of arrival. The wages of the men will be 24s. weekly for six summer months and 18s. weekly for six winter months, with lodgings and rations free. A Government homestead of 160 acres of land will be secured for each man, and the costs for securing the registration of the land will be provided by the company. The repayment of costs of journey and the registration fees will be secured by a lien (or mortgage) upon the 160 acres of land.'

Over a hundred applicants tor employment were received, but it was deemed prudent to make a first experiment on a limited scale, and to adhere to the number as originally proposed. The letters of recommendation, for the most part, as might have been expected, from ministers of religion, which were sent in by the applicants, were submitted to the executive committee, and a selection was made of those who seemed most suitable.

The party sailed from Liverpool for Quebec in the Allan steamer 'Sardinian' on April 17 last. On their journey through Canada the emigrants were met at various railway stations by agents, who vainly sought, by plausible arguments and tempting offers, to persuade the men to break the engagements into which they had entered. The subsequent history is less satisfactory. As the season of the harvest approached, wages on neighbouring farms rose, though for a short time only, considerably above the standard fixed in the colonists' engagement, and desertions were numerous. The annexed tabular statement gives details of individual cases in a compendious form.

Clearly, colonisation as conducted by our company in 1890 has not been successful. It is necessary to take a new departure, and the plan which commends itself as the most promising may be briefly described. Believing it to be impossible to make a judicious selection when emigrants are being sent out in large numbers, our company has resolved to limit its sphere of action to the performance of the usual duties of a landlord. We are prepared to construct buildings, to make roads and tramways, to drain, to improve the water supply, to plant, and further to lend to approved settlers, on easy terms, a proportion of the working capital required, the principal to be repayable, as a rule, in instalments spread over ten years. We are prepared to treat on similar terms for the sale of land.

Encouraged by these liberal offers, a company has already been formed to take in hand immediately 2,000 acres, to be worked under the plough. The farming association will require a larger number of hands than would have been employed if the present company had attempted to carry out the work directly; and, although no emigrants will be sent out from England at the cost of the association, it is certain that a considerable proportion of those engaged will have recently emigrated from this country at their own expense. Another

LIST OF WORKMEN SELECTED FOR EMPLOYMENT BY THE CANADIAN CO-OPERATIVE COLONISATION COMPANY

Total number of emigrants sent out, 25 men, 7 women, 16 boys, 19 girls=67. Of the 20 men under engagement to the C. C. C. Co. 12 have been dismissed or have struck work and left. association of a similar character is being formed. There is thus good ground for hope that at no distant day, by the combined application of capital and practical skill, a flourishing settlement will have been created at Qu'Appelle, in the centre of an extensive district, now unproductive, but shortly to be covered with golden grain, and affording healthful and well-paid employment to some hundreds of thriving bread winners. The promoters of the scheme will not go unrewarded. The capital embarked will be recouped with a not illiberal profit, through the steady advance which may confidently be looked for in the price of land. I trust that I am not over sanguine in anticipating that in the coming season the experiences gained by our company, which shall in due time be made public property, will be sufficiently encouraging to induce a large application of capital, under other agencies of administration, to the benevolent enterprise of opening up the resources of Western Canada to cultivators of slender means.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

BRASSEY.

Normanhurst Court, Battle, January 16.

ADDRESS TO MANITOBA BOARD OF TRADE ON COLONISATION

WINNIPEG, CANADA, SEPTEMBER 25, 1894.

In opening the observations which I desire to address to this meeting, it is a gratifying duty to express my thanks to the Lieutenant-Governor and the numerous persons of influence who are present, for their kind attendance on this occasion. I shall assume that it is generally understood in Winnipeg that I am the principal shareholder in a company owning land at Indian Head, and in two subsidiary companies which have made a commencement of the arable cultivation which we hope to see shortly inaugurated with our assistance by small farmers on their own account. In coming here for the first time on a visit of inspection, I desire in a few words to explain my position.

I can most positively say that I am not here to take money out of the country, but to put money into it. My object is to help in the great work of opening up the Canadian North-West. In converting unused and useless lands into farms and pastures, new fields of employment are necessarily offered to labour, and the aim has been not only to give work to men born and bred in the Canadian Dominion, but also to bring workers from the old country to a land which offers so many advantages to industrious and energetic emigrants. Weary, indeed, is the spectacle of the unemployed, or the half employed, in the crowded cities of the Old World. It seems an obvious remedy for the congestion of population in an old country to transport some of those people, for whom it is so hard to find work, to fertile and unsettled countries, where capital and labour can quickly transform an idle waste into productive and profitable farms.

But the work of philanthropic emigration is not easy. I have made an experiment at Indian Head. I sent out 425 people—men, women, and children; all are doing well, but all have left my farm. That disappointing result was as much the fault of the management as of the people. At least it is a satisfaction to know that all those whom I sent out here are doing well.

For the future I shall endeavour to work In the cause of emigration through some of the long-established emigration agencies in England, who have a thorough knowledge of Canada and its requirements. I hope to co-operate with Dr. Barnardo, and to give aid to female emigration. The statistics show that such emigration is much needed. In 1893 the total number of passengers from the United Kingdom to Canada was, males 16,224, females 8,408. Taking the English passengers only, the single men were 10,487, the single women 2,815. The total excess of male over female emigration from England in the last thirteen years was not less than 57,000. The emigration from Ireland was approximately in equal proportions of the two sexes. I should be glad to contribute my mite to redress the balance which is so desirable in the English emigration, The monthly reports issued by the Emigration Department of our Board of Trade often contain warnings that the labour market is overstocked in every other department. They invariably register an active demand for women for domestic servants, especially cooks.

I have said that the operations in which I am concerned were not undertaken as a speculation. It is, however, obvious that unless it can be shown that colonisation can be carried through with such a measure of success as will yield a reasonable profit, the effect must be disadvantageous to this country. What an individual might do is but a drop in the ocean. Settlement on a large scale can only be carried on by united effort. If I fail, I shall deter others.

At Indian Head we have made a beginning of farming operations, but I wish to put it most emphatically that this is intended only as a preliminary stage. Non-residents cannot hope to be successful farmers. My instructions to my representative here are that he should be looking out for people who are ready to take up land, and cultivate for themselves. As inducements, we offer land broken up and under cultivation, houses ready for occupation, and the loan of capital on easy terms for the stocking and improvement of farms. It is further contemplated to supply at Indian Head the things which are most needed to make life better and brighter. A church is being built and a minister is already at work. Gradually we hope to provide a parsonage and mechanics' institute, well furnished with newspapers, periodicals, and books, a cottage hospital under a trained nurse, a depot for female emigrants, and a school for teaching the universally needed, but too much neglected art of cookery. Inducements will be held out to persons who may be willing to set up industrial workshops which will afford the means of providing employment in the winter.

Such, then, is the scheme which lies in contemplation for Indian Head. I have already explained the general motives which led to the first conception of the scheme. There was one to which I have not alluded, and that is the deep interest in and affection for the Colonies which I share in common with every man in the old country who has a due appreciation of the true source of her greatness. As an integral part of the vast confederacy which owes allegiance to the Queen, Old England stands second to none among the nations of the world. If England were severed from her Colonies, one of the mighty would indeed be fallen.

The continued unity of the Empire is a mutual advantage. It gives to the Colonies that real yet undefinable thing called prestige; it gives them the more tangible advantage of having behind them in their international relations diplomatic services established in every country of the globe. It gives the protection of the Imperial fleet and army. It gives them the advantage of high financial credit, and enables them to raise their loans on Lombard Street, on terms almost as advantageous as those which the Imperial Treasury can command. To the Mother-country, the allegiance of her Colonies exalts her among the nations. It is grateful to her feelings; it is a just source of pride; it is an advantage to her trade, and tends to promote those close financial relations and engagements in which openings are found for the profitable use of savings for which it is often difficult to obtain employment at home.

I am not one of those who support the cause of Imperial Federation, with the ulterior motive of diminishing the burdens we are now bearing for the maintenance of the navy, by sharing these burdens with our colonial fellow-subjects. I am quite content to leave the consideration of that subject to the future. The ultimate solution must be traced upon lines which are already clearly defined. If there be any contribution, there must be adequate representation, especially with regard to foreign affairs. There will probably be constituted for the British Empire a committee, or council of advice, resembling the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the United States. In the meanwhile we are well able to bear the charge which is now laid upon us. In any case, whether the Colonies do or do not contribute, an Imperial fleet for purely British services must be maintained at its present strength. For their local defence all the self-governing Colonies are providing, and that not inadequately, having regard to the circumstances in which they are placed. No danger threatens them in the present, nor, as far as we can see, in the future.

Assuming that the Mother-country and the Colonies are equally desirous of keeping together, and of cementing still more closely the bond of Imperial unity, and assuming that we are not ready for constitutional or organic changes, is there anything at present to be done to promote the object which we have at heart? To this question an answer was given at the recent Conference at Ottawa. At that second great meeting of representatives gathered from every quarter of the world-wide British dominions, attention was especially directed to the improvement of telegraphic and postal communication. All the delegates who attended were agreed as to the desirability of opening up a new line of communication under the British flag, between the Mother-country and Australia, through Canada. The Parliament of Canada has lately discovered that the project, if carried out, will bring grist to their mill, and especially to that valuable undertaking which has conveyed us to Winnipeg—I mean the Canadian Pacific Railway. Canada has voted a subsidy of 175,000l. sterling. Encouraged by the example of Canada, the Mother-country and Australia should be liberal in their contributions.

However liberal the subsidies, there must always be some risk of loss in inaugurating a new service at the highest attainable speed across the ocean. The expense must be great, especially in the beginning; experience has to be gained, and it is only gradually that a paying traffic can be created. In these days of severe competition the earnings of shipping are at the best moderate. Much shipping business is done at a loss. It is therefore most important that there should be combined with the earnings of the ships some other source of gain. This consideration seems to point unmistakably to the conclusion that it will be very much for the public advantage of Canada that the proposed mail service, certainly as to the Atlantic part, should be undertaken by the same great corporation which has provided such an efficient service between Vancouver, Japan, and China. I look to the Canadian Pacific Railway, which alone can combine with the earnings of the steamers the haulage of traffic across this vast continent. Mr. Huddart, who has displayed such earnest zeal in the project, would doubtless co-operate in the working of the Pacific service route.

There is another great work of practical utility in which not only Imperial but international co-operation may be possible. It is obvious that for the produce of Manitoba it is of the first importance to have cheap transportation for wheat and cattle from these interior regions to the European market. Sea-going vessels should be able to reach Duluth and Port Arthur. To accomplish this object, the deepening of the canals between Montreal and the Great Lakes should be promptly and vigorously taken in hand. As the United States are equally interested with yourselves, and the Mother-country is also in a measure concerned, the financial appropriations should present no difficulties.

There was another bond with which the Conference at Ottawa desired to bind the British Empire more closely together. A resolution was carried to the effect that Imperial unity can in no way be more effectually promoted than by the cultivation and extension of a mutual and profitable interchange of products. It was resolved that with a view to promote these great purposes trade within the Empire should be placed on a more favourable footing than that on which trade is carried on with foreign countries. Desirable as it is to do all things which can promote unity, it seems idle to advocate at the present time a return on the part of the Mother-country to protection. The imports into the United Kingdom may be classified according to the latest statistics as follows:—Food, 42 per cent.; raw material, 38·5 per cent.; manufactures, 12·4 per cent. Our exports consist of:—Food, 4·l per cent.; raw material, 8·3 per cent.; and manufactures, 76·3 per cent. Our foreign trade in manufactures is vital to us; it depends mainly on the power to produce cheaply, and the power to produce cheaply depends essentially on cheap supplies of food and raw material. We obtain these commodities cheaply because they enter our ports untaxed, from all sources of supply. If we impose duties on foreign supplies we raise the price of the supplies drawn from the Colonies in equal proportions. While increasing our cost of production we should encounter further difficulty in holding our own in foreign markets through the increased taxation which foreign countries would be certain to impose on British goods. Would it be possible for the Colonies to give any adequate compensation in their markets for the loss of trade with foreign markets? To our foreign customers we sent in 1892 198,000,000l. sterling worth of our products; we sent 28,500,000l, of our products to English possessions. The value of the imports into the Colonies from foreign countries was 24,000,000l., and the greater part of these imports consisted of the production of the tropics. It is evident, therefore, that at present there is little room for the expansion of the colonial import trade from England. The advantages it is in the power of the Colonies to give us are comparatively small, while if we give them a preferential position we should be certain to be subjected to enormous loss elsewhere.

It has sometimes been urged that the interests of Canada would be advanced by incorporation with the United States. I have the greatest admiration, and indeed affection, for the republic, but I hold that Canada would sustain a serious loss if she gave up her independence. The people of Canada, under the present condition of affairs, have the free choice of their government, and a field is open to their public men for patriotic and useful labour, of which they would be deprived if the country became part and parcel of the United States. From a commercial point of view, if something might be gained for Canadian agriculturists in having open to them a freer access to American markets, on the other hand, Canadian industries would be overwhelmed in their infancy by the irresistible competition of the older and more highly organised industries of the United States.

To the agricultural producer it may be pointed out that all the commodities that Canada produces are raised in overflowing abundance in the United States, and that for Canada, as for the United States, when an external market is sought it must be found in the old country, to which in late years Canadian supplies of all kinds have been sent in quantities that grow by leaps and bounds. The exports of Canada to Great Britain advanced from $49,000,000 in 1891 to $65,000,000 in 1892.

In making these remarks I am not questioning the present policy of the Colonies; I limit myself on this occasion to the advocacy of perfect liberty on both sides to follow such plans of fiscal policy as seem best adapted to the circumstances in each case. The Colonies think it their duty to give to the industries which they are creating an advantage in the home market. We of the old country have to look for an outlet to foreign markets which we can only hope to reach by the low prices and the excellent quality of our goods. Hereafter we may find the circumstances more favourable to commercial union; hereafter it may be that freer trade will be regarded more favourably in the Colonies. In the meantime it is most satisfactory, as I have said, to see the great strides that Canada is making in her trade with the Mothercountry.

In conclusion, let me refer to other things in which we can work together and render mutual service. Remaining together under the English flag, we Englishspeaking people can have a great power over the destinies of mankind; we can do much to preserve the peace of the world, and much for the sacred cause of freedom. To-day we are reaping the benefit of the gallant struggles of our forefathers, and we offer for the imitation and admiration of the world the most perfect and statesmanlike example of constitutional liberty. Let us continue in the same path, giving every opportunity to merit, and maintaining no privileges which are not the reward of merit.

It may be that you, the sons of whom Great Britain is so proud, may show more growth in the future, but for the old land from which I come I can confidently say that her vigour is not yet exhausted. She can still do much for her children; she can give a mellow tone to the new edifices which you are rearing up; she can be the permanent centre for the Empire for culture and the arts, and for the adaptation of jurisprudence to the altering conditions with which we have to deal. Last, but not least, she can send to you, to fill the office of GovernorGeneral, the very choicest of her sons. When I last visited Canada, I accompanied Lord Dufferin in his first viceregal progress. Since his day you have had such men as Lord Lome, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Derby, and to-day I am preceding only by a few hours Lord and Lady Aberdeen, two friends whom I love, and than whom the old country contains none who more truly exemplify all that is best and noblest, whether you look to public or to private worth.

The following extract from the speech of the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, the Hon. John Schultz, upon this occasion, is of interest as affording comment upon Lord Brassey's address from the Canadian point of

He said it would ill become him in the presence of so many gentlemen in whose hands was the trade of Manitoba and a large part of the North-west, to criticise the able address which had just been given and the statistics which had just been read. It was quite evident from the close attention and the hearty applause which greeted the distinguished statesman and friend of Canada, who had succinctly and ably placed his views before them, that their value was appreciated and would be carefully considered. It was fortunate for Canada that there were in the mother land those like their distinguished guest, who had made so careful a study of Colonial interests, and testified his interests in our country at so great a cost to himself, to carry out these works of philanthropy and mercy of which he had so modestly spoken. As he could not speak on trade matters, he was deterred as well from venturing too far on the thin ice of Imperial Federation. Still they had heard the matter placed so modestly and ably before them that it would be unfair to refrain from expressing an opinion from a Canadian point of view upon this question. He thought that Canadians should first try and build up their Canadian-British nationality, and that when we had doubled our population and trebled our wealth we would find that Federation or some form of close bond would come of itself with the aid of such statesmen as Lord Brassey and others who understood the colonial question so well. He did not care to see Canada always a Colony, he would see her soon become what Sir John Macdonald so aptly called her, ' an auxiliary kingdom of Great Britain.'

Association for the Promotion of State-aided Colonisation.

APPENDIX III

LIST OF THE COUNCIL OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE

1888

President—THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF ROSEBERY.

Vice-President—THE RIGHT HON. EDWAED STANHOPE, M.P.

(The Italics indicate the Executive Committee.)

W. M. Acworth.

George Addie (Edinburgh).

William George Ainslie, M.P.

W. Shepherd Allen.

W. J. Allsup.

Sir James Anderson.

T. Archer, C.M.G. (late AgentGeneral for Queensland).

Edward A. Arnold.

The Right Hon. Lord Ashbourne.

W. G. Aston, British Legation, Tokio, Japan.

L. R. Baily (Liverpool).

A. Baldwin (Kidderminster).

Sir Henry Barkly, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.

J. C. Barnard.

The Rev. S. A. Barnett.

T. H. Barns (Birmingham).

Hamar Bass, M.P.

T. H. Baylis, Q.C. (Liverpool).

R. Beadon (Tasmania).

E. W. Beckett, M.P.

H. C. Beeton (Agent-General, British Columbia).

H. R. Beeton.

P. Faithfull Begg.

Gilbert Beith.

H. T. Mackenzie Bell.

Lord Henry Bentinck, M.P.

Lord Charles Beresford, R.N., C.B., M.P.

W. Bickford-Smith, M.P.

Charles Bill.

Sir Arthur Blyth, K.C.M.G., C.B. (Agent-General for South Australia).

Col. Henry Blundell, M.P.

H. M. Bompas, Q.C.

S. Barker Booth.

W. C. Borlase.

Sir Algernon Borthwick, Bart., M.P.

S. B. Boulton.

The Right Hon. Sir G. F. Bowen, G.C.M.G.

Commander Graham Bower, R.N., C.M.G.

The Right Hon. Lord Brabourne.

Lord Brassey, K.C.B.

Hon. J. C. Bray (late Premier of South Australia).

T. Lynn Bristowe, M.P.

H. J. T. Broadwood.

Rev. G. F. Browne (Cambridge).

W. J. Broivne (late South Australia).

Oscar Browning (Cambridge).

Professor James Bryce, M.P. (Oxford).

Professor Montague Burrows (Oxford).

Sir T. Fowell Buxton, Bart.

Sydney C. Buxton, M.P.

The Master of Caius College Cambridge.

Hugh Carleton (New Zealand).

The Right Hon. The Earl of Carnarvon.

G. Downes Carter, M.L.A. (President of the Victoria Branch).

W. C. Cartwright.

Lord Castletown of Upper Ossory.

Lord Eustace G. Cecil.

A. F. Charrington.

H. B. Christian (Cape).

Lord Alfred Spencer Churchill.

Hyde Clarke.

Professor E. C. Clarke (Cambridge).

A. Clayden (New Zealand).

Sir Charles Clifford (late New Zealand).

Arthur Colien, Q.C.

A. L.Cohen.

Captain J. C. R. Colomb, C.M.G., M.P.

Admiral Sir John Commerell, G.C.B., M.P.

Sir John Coode, K.C.M.G.

W. B. Collyns.

Sir Daniel Cooper, Bart., K.C.M.G. (late N.S.W.).

A. Cameron Corbett, M.P.

John Corbett, M.P.

Capt. Cotton, M.P. (Liverpool).

W. J. Courthope.

Joseph Cowen.

James Cropper.

Major-Gen. Sir W. Crossman, K.C.M.G., M.P.

Right Hon. G. Cubitt, M.P.

R. S. Cunningham.

Sir Donald Currie, K.C.M.G., M.P.

Captain the Hon. A. G. Curzon Howe, R.N.

R. Neale Dalton.

The Rev. Canon Dalton. C.M.G.

Professor G. H. Darwin, F.R.S. (Cambridge).

N. Darnell Davis (British Guiana).

R. Gent Davis, M.P.

Charles Percy Davis (Victoria).

F. Debenham.

Baron Dimsdale, M.P.

R. R. Dobell (Quebec).

Sir John Dorington, Bart., M.P.

A. Akers Douglas, M.P.

T. Douglas.

Sir Henry Doulton.

The Earl of Dunraven. K.P.

Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, K.C.M.G. (late Premier of Victoria).

Edward Easton, C.E.

The Right Hon. Lord Emly.

Admiral James E. Erskine.

Richard Eve (Aldershot).

C. Washington Eves (West Indies).

W. Ewart, M.P.

Sir William Farrer.

James J. Fellows (Agent-General for New Brunswick).

Right Hon. Sir J. Pergusson, Bart., M.P.

R. Munro Ferguson, M.P.

The Earl of Fife.

The Hon. Harold Finch-Hatton (Queensland).

C. Campbell Finlay.

Sir Willm. Fitzherbert, K.C.M.G. (Speaker of New Zealand Legislative Council).

The Riglit Hon. Viscount Folkestone, M.P.

Sir William Foster, Bart.

H. O. Arnold-Forster.

A. B. Forwood, M.P.

Sir William Fox, K.C.M.G. (late Premier of New Zealand).

Alderman Sir R. N. Fowler, Bart., M.P.

C. F. Gahan, R.N. (Mauritius).

T. D. Galpin.

Sir Alexander Galt, G.C.M.G. (late High Commissioner for Canada).

J. A. Game.

J. T. Agg Gardner, M.P.

P. Lyttelton Gell (Oxford).

Sydney Gedge, M.P.

J. G. Gibson, Q.C., M.P. (Liverpool).

Robert Gillespie.

William Gisborne (late Minister in New Zealand).

The Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Sir John Gorst, Q.C., M.P.

Sir Julian Goldsmid, Bart., M.P.

G. Prior Goldney.

George W. Gordon.

Col. E. T. Gourley, M.P.

Lt.-Gen. Sir Gerald Graham, G.C.M.G., V.C.

G. Graliam (late New Zealand).

W. S. Sebright Green.

W. H. Grenfell.

The Hon. F. T. Gregory (late Minister in Queensland).

W. Greswell.

Albert H. G. Grey.

Daniel Gurteen, J.P. (Haverhill).

F. A. Gwynne (New South Wales).

R. G. Haliburton.

Lord C. J. Hamilton, M.P. (Liverpool.)

Right Hon. Lord G. Hamilton, M.P

The Right Hon. Viscount Hampden, G.C.B.

F. A. Hankey, M.P.

F. Hardcastle, M.P. (Liverpool).

G. D. Hams.

Admiral the Right Hon. Sir J. C. D. Hay, Bart.

A. Raymond Heath, M.P.

J. Henniker Heaton, M.P. (New South Wales).

The Right Hon. E. Heneage, M.P.

Mitchell Henry.

Richmond Henty.

Lord Herries.

The Right Hon. Lord Herschell.

A. Hickman.

The Right Hon. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Bart., M.P.

Sidney Hill.

A. J. Staveley Hill, Q.C., M.P.

R. T. Hermon-Hodge, M.P.

R. Hodgkinson (Newark).

Sir Arthur Hodgson, K.C.M.G. (late Queensland).

F. O. Hodson (New South Wales).

Quintin Hogg (West Indies).

Hon. H. Holbrook (late Minister British Columbia).

The Rt. Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.

E. W. Howson (Harrow).

J. Castell Hopkins (Ingersoll Branch).

J. H. C. Hozier, M.P.

Professor T. McK. Hughes (Cambridge).

Professor G. M. Humphry (Cambridge).

Colonel P. B. Innes.

James Jackson.

W. L. Jackson, M.P.

W. Culver James, M.D.

Captain Charles Johnstone, R.N.

W. Johnston, M.P.

The Hon. S. A. Joseph (M.L.C., N.S.W.).

H. Kimber, M.P.

Colonel King-Harman, M.P.

F. P. Labilliere (late Victoria).

Donald Larnach.

H. L. W. Lawson. M.P.

Sir John Trevor Lawrence, Bart., M.P.

Elliott Lees, M.P.

Sir Baldwyn Leighton, Bart.

Stanley Leighton, M.P.

Sir Roper Lethbridge, C.I.E., M.P.

N. E. Lewis (Tasmania).

The Right Hon. Viscount Lewisham, M.P.

Rev. J. J. Lias (Cambridge).

J. Stanley Little.

Sampson S. Lloyd.

G. B. Longstaff.

A. H. Loring.

General Lowry, C.B.

Hon. W. Lowther, M.P.

Sir John Lubbock, Bart., M.P.

J. M. Ludlow, C.B.

Professor J. R. Lumby (Cambridge).

R. A. Macfie (Edinburgh).

Colin Mackenzie.

William May.

Alexander McArthur, M.P. (late New South Wales).

Colonel McCalmont, C.B.

D'Alton McCarthy, M.P. (President of the Imperial Federation League in Canada).

R. Douglas McLean (New Zealand).

The Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald, G.C.B. (Premier of Canada).

F. Mackarness (late Cape).

William Mackinnon.

Sir George Macleay, K.C.M.G. (New South Wales).

Colonel R. T. Maillard.

The Duke of Manchester, K.P. (Chairman, Royal Colonial Institute).

Rev. C. Martyn.

H. N. Story-Maskelyne, M.P.

Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bart., M.P.

The Earl of Meath.

The Hon J. X. Merriman, M.L.A. (late Minister at the Cape).

Sir F. A. Milner, Bart.

Gisborne Molineux.

The Right Hon. Viscount Monck, G.C.M.G.

Col. A. Moncrieff, C.B.

S. Montagu, M.P.

The Right Hon. G. Osborne Morgan, M.P.

O. V. Morgan, M.P.

S. V. Morgan.

Walter V. Morgan.

Major W. V. Morgan.

J. V. Morgan (Victoria).

Walter Morrison, M.P.

T. B. Moxon (Manchester).

K. B. Murray (Sec., London Chamber of Commerce).

Professor A. S. Napier (Oxford).

Lieut.-Col. Francis Newdigate.

Sir C. Nicholson, Bart, (late Speaker, New South Wales).

W. N. Nicholson.

P. H. Nind (British Guiana).

Wilson Noble, M.P.

The Marquis of Normanby, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.

Captain Cecil W. Norton.

C. M. Norwood.

Colonel Sir Charles Nugent, K.C.B.

James L. Ohlson (West Indies).

Laurence Oliphant.

Sir G. E. Paget, K.C.B. (Cambridge).

Col. E. H. Paske.

J. C. Payne (Lagos).

J. Horne Payne, Q.C.

Major-Gen. Sir Lewis Pelly, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., M.P.

The Right Rev. Bishop Perry (late of Melbourne).

Harold A. Perry.

W. Copland Perry.

The Right Hon. Sir Lyon Playfair, K.C.B., M.P.

The Duke of Portland.

Professor Postgate (Cambridge).

P. Ralli.

James Rankin, M.P. (Hereford).

Edward Rawlings.

Sir Raw son W. Rawson, K.C.M.G., C.B.

The Right Hon. Lord Reay (Governor of Bombay).

Peter Redpath (Canada).

Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson, K.C.B.

Reginald N. Rogers (Falmouth).

The Right Hon. Sir John Rose, Bart., G.C.M.G. (late Minister in Canada).

T. B. Royden, M.P. (Liverpool).

G. W. Rusden (Victoria).

Albert O. Rutson.

Sir Saul Samuel, K.C.M.G., C.B. (Agent-General for New South Wales).

W. A. Sandford.

Lieut.-Colonel Myles Sandys, M.P.

The Hon. J. W. Sauer (late Minister at the Cape).

Sir Thomas Scanlen, K.C.M.G. (late Premier at the Cape).

Professor J. R. Seeley (Cambridge).

The Hon. James Service (late Premier of Victoria).

H. Seton-Karr, M.P. (Liverpool).

Walter Severn.

Sir C. Farquhar Shand (late Chief Justice, Mauritius).

The Master of Sidney College, Cambridge.

Col. H. A. Silver (Chislehurst).

S. W. Silver.

Maior-General E. Coysgarne Sim, R.E.

Sir John Simon, M.P.

Lieut. G. Mansfield Smith R.N.

Philip Vernon Smith.

Sir Francis V. Smith (late Chief Justice of Tasmania).

Samuel Smith, M.P.

The Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P.

R. Murray Smith, C.M.G. (late Agent-General for Victoria).

R. Burdett Smith, M.L.A. (Sydney, N.S.W.).

Arthur Somerset.

W. Garland Soper, J.P. (Cape).

The Hon. R. Southey, C.M.G. (Cape).

Sir E. W. Stafford, K.C.M.G.

William Stewart (Glasgow).

Professor G. G. Stokes, M.P. (Cambridge).

W. Summers, M.P.

The Rev. S. A. Swaine.

J. R. Tanner (Cambridge).

Lord Tennyson.

The Hon. Hallam Tennyson.

Alfred Thomas, M.P.

J. J. Thomas (Lagos).

W. Tipping.

Silvanus Trevail (Truro).

Admiral Sir George Tryon, K.C.B.

C. L. Tupper (Simla).

Alex. Turnbull (West Indies).

W. S. Turner (British Guiana).

Professor Tyndall.

C. J. Valentine.

P. Vanderbyl.

The Right Hon. Sir Harry Verney, Bart.

C. E. Howard Vincent, G.B., M.P.

Robert Walker, C.E,

T. D. Wanliss (Victoria).

R. H. Lee Warner (Hereford).

Major-General Sir Charles Warren, G.C.M.G.

T. W. Warren (Sydney, N.S.W.).

Dr. Herbert Watney.

The Hon. J. B. Watt (M.L.C., New South Wales).

Colonel John Watts (Bombay Staff Corps).

Sir Richard Webster, Q.C., M.P.

Sir F. A. Weld, G.C.M.G. (Governor of Singapore).

The Rev. J. E. C. Welldon (Headmaster of Harrow).

The Earl of Wemyss and March.

Professor Westcott (Cambridge).

William Westgarth (late Victoria).

The Very Rev. Dean of Westminster.

Arnold White.

E. Whiteley, M.P. (Liverpool).

Major-General Sir Owen Williams.

Z. A. Williams (Lagos).

H. F. Wilson.

Sir Samuel Wilson, M.P. (late Member of the Legislative Council, Victoria).

The Earl of Winchilsea.

The Very Rev. The Dean of Windsor.

Major G. de Winton.

Baron H. de Worms, M.P. (Liverpool).

W. Basil Worsfold (New Zealand).

H. Smith Wright, M.P.

James A. Youl, C.M.G. (Tasmania).

Sir Frederick Young, K.C.M.G. (Vice-President Eoyal Colonial Institute).

APPENDIX IV

TEXT OF THE BE POET OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE IMPEB1AL FEDERATION LEAGUE

LORD BRASSEY, Chairman.

THE circumstances under which the present Report is furnished are as follows:—

1. On June 17, 1891, a deputation from the Imperial Federation League waited upon the Prime Minister for the purpose of urging upon him the convocation of a second conference of the self-governing countries of the Empire. In the course of his reply the Prime Minister, after having stated that the subject dealt with by the deputation was ' nothing more nor less than the future of the British Empire,' continued as follows:—

' As has been pointed out, owing to the operation of external causes and. some external impulses, there is a feeling of unrest in Canada, and even in Australia—a feeling which may not improperly be described as an unwillingness to continue to acquiesce precisely in the present state of things. Sir John Colomb very justly pointed out a consideration of which, in my office, I am especially sensible—the large portion of our foreign negotiations, our foreign difficulties, and the danger of foreign complications which arise entirely from our colonial connections; and the effect is that from time to time we have to exercise great vigilance lest we should incur dangers which do not arise from any interest of our own, hut arise entirely from the interests of the important and interesting communities with which we are linked. . .

Referring to the proposal which had been brought forward by the deputation, Lord Salisbury said:—

' I quite think that no grave decision in reterence to the relations between the Colonies and this country ought to be taken, or could be taken, without personal communication with the statesmen who guide the Colonies in those matters. But I would venture to lay down also as a maxim, that we should not call them from their momentous avocations to put them to all the difficulty, and all the labour, and all the cost, of coming to this end of the world unless we are prepared to lay before them for discussion some definite scheme of our own. I do not say such a scheme that we must adopt it with a resolution not to recede from it—it is not to be an unalterable determination; but I think it would be a frivolity, almost amounting to an insult, to ask those statesmen to come together here without any definite idea of what ought to be done, merely in the hope that some scheme would generate itself from contact of so many distinguished minds. ... If you summon a conference, you always have some proposition to make to that conference. You may not be certain that you will carry it you may be prepared to make great concessions, great modifications—but it would be an insult to summon a conference and to have no proposition to make to them when they came. ... I think that we have almost come to the time when some schemes should be proposed, and that without them we shall not get very far.'

2. Such being the suggestion of the Prime Minister, the Council of the League, while not admitting that the solution of a political problem which involves so great an issue as the future of the Empire could with advantage be delegated by responsible Ministers of the Crown to an independent and irresponsible body, nevertheless considered it to be a clear duty to endeavour to furnish such definite proposals for federation as, in their opinion, would be possible of adoption, and would satisfy the requirements of the Constitution.

3. At a meeting of the Council of the League held on July 6, 1891, the following resolution was moved by Sir Charles Tupper, seconded by Sir Frederick Young, and passed unanimously: —

' That a carefully selected Committee be appointed to submit to the Council, for the consideration of the organisations of the League throughout the Empire, definite proposals by which the object of Imperial Federation may be realised.'

The Committee nominated for this purpose by a Special Committee of Selection was constituted as follows:—

LORD BRASSEY, K.C.B. (Chairman).

JAMES BRYCE, ESQ., M.P.¹

SIR JOHN COLOMB, K.C.M.G., M.P.

SIR DANIEL COOPER, BART., G.C.M.G.

H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, ESQ.

LORD LAMINGTON.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR LYON PLAYFAIR, K.C.E., M.P.²

JAMES RANKIN, ESQ., M.P.

SIR RAWSON RAWSON, K.C.M.G., C.B.

LORD REAY. G.C.S.I.. G.C.I.E.

SIR CHARLES TUPPER, BART., G.C.M.G., C.B.

4. Your Committee, having been thus appointed, decided to commence the inquiry by circulating to persons specially qualified to give their opinions a series of carefully considered questions raising the principal points involved in any form of federation.

5. These questions were sent to some thirty gentlemen. Many of the replies received are elaborate and valuable documents, and, taken together, the papers embody the result of much time and thought, and form an important collection of opinion upon the main points connected with the federation of the Empire. The unanimity of suggestion with regard to many of the points at issue is as remarkable as it is satisfactory.

6. There is an absolute agreement with regard to the object in view, which may be correctly expressed in the words of the original constitution of the League, adopted in 1884:—'The object of the League is to secure by federation the permanent unity of the Empire; that no scheme of federation should interfere with the existing rights of Local Parliaments as regards local affairs; and that any scheme of Imperial Federation should combine on an equitable basis the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common interests, and adequately provide for an organised defence of common rights.'

7. Your Committee, after duly considering these replies, have drawn up the following proposals, which appear to them to embody the main principles that must prevail in any readjustment of the relations between Britain and her Colonies.

8. In presenting these proposals your Committee wish it to be understood that they have proceeded on the assumption that a general desire exists for maintaining the unity of the Empire and making its organisation more perfect, especially for the purpose of defence.

9. The essentials of a united Empire may be thus briefly defined:—

(a) That the voice of the Empire in peace, when dealing with Foreign Powers, shall be, as far as possible, the united voice of all its autonomous parts.

(b) That the defence of the Empire in war shall be the common defence of all its interests and of all its parts, by the united forces and resources of all its members.

10. In order that the Empire may speak with the greatest authority to foreign nations, there ought to be a body in which all its autonomous parts are represented.

11. In order that the voice of the Empire may be supported in peace, and the common defence of the Empire assured in war, its resources must be combined. This entails, as regards its self-governing portions, both a representative body and common property in the means of defence.

12. The sphere within which combined defence is necessary is confined to those common interests, the defence of which cannot be provided by local means. It is in the maintenance of the sea communications of the Empire that the community of interests is most absolute. The primary requirements of combined defence, therefore, are a sea-going fleet and naval bases.

13. It being admitted that in order to combine the resources of the Empire for the purpose of defending and maintaining its common interests, some central body in which all its parts are represented is essential, the question of the nature and functions of such a body at once arises. It remains then to consider

(a) How shall a Council of the Empire be constituted?

(b) By what means can the resources of the Empire be most effectively combined ?

14. In order to secure more complete co-operation in maintaining and defending the common interests of the Empire, means should be adopted for more intimate communication and consultation between the great outlying British possessions and the Imperial Cabinet, and to that end it is proposed that when the Provinces of Australasia and South Africa are each united under one Government, as Canada now is, and those three. Dominions are represented in London by a member of each Government respectively, such representatives should be available for consultation with the Cabinet when matters of foreign policy affecting the Colonies are under consideration. The Imperial Government would thus be placed in closer touch with the Governments of these several Dominions, and measures would be better concerted for more effective mutual co-operation and support in the defence of the Empire.

15. Without limiting or defining the functions the exercise of which a Council might attract to itself in process of time, for practical and immediate purposes the following propositions are submitted:—

16. The Council should consist of members appointed by the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies.

17. The three great groups of self-governing Colonies —North American, Australasian, and South African— should be directly represented in that Council. India and the Crown Colonies would be represented through Her Majesty's Secretaries of State at present charged with the administration of their affairs, and in such other manner as might become desirable.

18. The Council might include, on the part of the United Kingdom, the Indian Empire, and the Crown Colonies, the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, War, Colonies, and India; the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and on the part of the self-governing Colonies, of representatives of the three groups.

19. Such a Council should deal with Imperial defence, somewhat on the lines contemplated in Article 20 of the Report of Lord Hartington's Commission on Defence, which may be appropriately quoted.

ARTICLE 20.

There might be some advantage in the formation of a Naval and Military Council, which should probably be presided over by the Prime Minister, and consist of the Parliamentary heads of the two services and their principal professional advisers. In this Council also possibly might be included one or two officers of great reputation or experience who might not happen to hold any official appointment in the Admiralty or War Office at the time. This Council might meet in all cases before the Estimates of the year are decided upon by the Cabinet, so that the establishments proposed for each service should be discussed from the point of view of the other, and the relative importance of any proposed expenditure might he fully considered. It might also be summoned from time to time to consider and authoritatively decide upon unsettled questions between the two departments, or any matters of joint naval and military policy which, in the opinion of the heads of the two services, required discussion and decision. It would be essential to the usefulness of such a Council, and to the interests of such a Council, and to the interests of the country, that the proceedings and decisions should be duly recorded, instances having occurred in which Cabinet decisions have been differently understood by the two departments, and have become practically a dead letter.

20. The Council might receive such information relating to matters of foreign policy as would enable it to deal adequately with questions of defence.

21. In matters of defence the Council should supervise the appropriation of any moneys provided for the defence of the Empire by the common contribution of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

22. The method of raising contributions would probably, by general consent, be left at the outset to the choice of the individual self-governing States. But future developments may disclose a means of raising the necessary contributions upon some uniform principle throughout the Empire, by the allocation to this purpose of special sources of revenue or otherwise.

23. The several amounts should be fixed in the first instance for a term of years by a conference, subject to periodical revisions.

24. The question of contribution tor the maintenance of forces for the general protection of the Empire is a branch of the subject in which the greatest difficulties are involved. It may be considered at the present time with the less hesitation, because there is no immediate need for a change in existing arrangements.

The chief inducements for keeping the Empire together spring from the identity of the populations of the Mother-country and the self-governing Colonies in all the essentials of a common nationality, and from the existence of a common danger which united defence alone can avert.

While, however, in the present and in the near future, no large readjustment of burdens is called for, the time must inevitably come, through the rapid development of the Colonies themselves, when further provision must be made for their defence by naval means.

It would be only fair that the self-governing States should make contribution towards the cost of those additional defensive preparations.

Hence arises the necessity for a consideration of the subject of contributions in connection with any revision of the present relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies.

25. It may be laid down as a leading principle that as all parts of the Empire enjoy the benefits of Imperial defence, they should contribute to its cost. In the case of India and the Crown Colonies the United Kingdom would continue to be responsible for all matters relating to their respective contributions.

26. There is no reason to doubt that if the necessities of the case were made clear, the Colonies would be prepared to take their share in the cost of the general defence of the Empire, provided that they were given a proper share in the control and expenditure of the common fund.

27. In proposing that the self-governing Colonies should bear the enhanced cost of their own defences, and thereby share the cost of the defences of the Empire in common with the people of the United Kingdom, your Committee desire to point out that by so doing those countries would be undertaking an incompai*ably smaller financial expenditure than would be required for their own defences if these did not form part of the general scheme of defence adopted for the Empire.

28. In all the self-governing Colonies expenditure is already incurred for providing for local defence. The maintenance of naval and military forces, at a certain strength, in a proper condition of efficiency, and generally available for mutual protection and support, might be regarded as the equivalent of a direct contribution to the Imperial Exchequer.

29. In order to ascertain the views of the different Colonies enjoying responsible government as to securing the unity of the Empire and meeting the responsibilities of Imperial defence, and for the purpose of determining the basis upon, and the method by which, contributions should be raised, the Governments concerned should be invited to send representatives to a conference summoned ad hoc. Such conference ought not, however, to be formally convoked until Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that the moment is opportune, and that a favourable reception of any proposals they may make may reasonably be looked for.

30. The invitation to such a conference should be accompanied by a complete statement showing the general necessities of the Empire in the matter of defence; the means by which defence has hitherto been provided, and the proposed means and estimated cost of providing it by joint action in the future.

31. It is possible that a preliminary inquiry by Royal Commission may be necessary to supply the groundwork for a comprehensive statement of the complete and authoritative character required.

32. In addition to the conditions specified at the outset as essential to the maintenance of the permanent unity and integrity of the Empire, there are other measures which, though non-essential, may be recommended as conducive to the same end.

33. Some of these would become immediately practicable on the fulfilment of the essential conditions; others might become practicable later, in consequence of the permanent character given by the fulfilment of those conditions to the Imperial relationship.

34. Among the measures that would thus become more immediately practicable are

(a) The admission of Colonial Government securities to the category of investments in which, under British law, trust funds may be placed.

(b) The Imperial guarantee of local loans raised for purposes subservient to Imperial ends, such as immigration, dry docks, strategic cables, railways, &c.

(c) The actual opening of the Administrative Services of the Empire, outside the United Kingdom, by holding local examinations for the Indian, Diplomatic, and Consular Services, as now done for the Army and Navy, and the more frequent appointment to Governorships and other high posts of fit persons in whatever part of the Empire they may be domiciled.

(d) The selection from time to time of eminent Colonial Jurists to sit upon the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

(e) Uniformity in certain branches of Statute law, especially commercial law—as, for instance, the law of Bankruptcy and Merchant Shipping— increased facilities for the execution of legal processes, and so forth.

(f) Uniform Imperial postage and special arrangements for telegraphic service.

35. The reforms contemplated under heads (a), (e), and (f) can only be attained by local legislation at the invitation of the Council, since these matters are at present subjects of local legislation, with which no scheme of Britannic Confederation should interfere.

36. Among the measures which, if not at tirst practicable, might become more so with the growth of a feeling of permanent national unity, the most important would be those connected with the fuller development of inter-Imperial trade and the removal of existing hindrances thereto due to tariff arrangement.

37. The course of events may remove the obstacles at present retarding the interchange of commodities between the countries which constitute the Empire. The sense of the permanence of the political union would naturally induce the people of the various countries in the Empire to make, for the sake of strengthening the union, fiscal arrangements which, under existing circumstances, they are not prepared to adopt.

38. In concluding this report, the Committee wish to add that they have not attempted to give effect to all the recommendations with regard to matters of detail contained in the replies which have reached them. Many of these recommendations are of great value and of a practical nature; the Committee believe, however, that the initial step of calling a conference for the specific purpose of organising and strengthening the resources of the Empire for defence is one upon the necessity of which there is a general consensus of opinion, and that it would be to the advantage of the cause advocated by the League to reserve the consideration of points of detail for such a conference.

39. The Committee having thus complied with the suggestion of the Prime Minister to furnish proposals for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and having delinitely recommended the summoning of a conference for the purpose above referred to, desire to place on record their sense of the very grave importance of the questions involved, and their belief that it will be a matter for great regret if the Imperial Government should fail to take, at the earliest fitting opportunity, the initial step of summoning representatives of the United Kingdom, and of the self-governing Colonies respectively, to meet and to discuss the best means of formulating some arrangements for the future government of the Empire which shall make satisfactory provision for the joint protection of its common interests.

40. It is recognised as possible that such a conference as has been suggested by your Committee may fail to adopt these proposals, or any others, for the better organisation of the Empire; but until such conference has been summoned, and has either succeeded or failed, British Cabinets and the British Parliament will be fairly open to the reproach of having made no adequate effort to deal with a question which, in the words of the (late) Prime Minister, 'involves neither more nor less than the future of the British Empire.'

(Signed) Brassey (Chairman).

J. BRYCE.

JOHN C. R. COLOMB.

DANIEL COOPER.

H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER.

LAMINGTON.

LON PPLAYFAIRAYFAIR.

JAMES RANKIN.

RAWSON W. RAWSON.

REAY.

CHARLES TUPPER.

ARTHUR H. LORING (Secretary).

July, 1892.

¹ Now Right Hon. James Bryce, M.R.

² Now Lord Playfair, K C.B.

APPENDIX V

THE PROPOSED MAIL ROTJTE TO AUSTRALIA, VIA CANADA

LETTER PUBLISHED IN THE ' TIMES,' SEPTEMBER 8, 1894.

To the Editor of the ' Times.'

SIR,—My friend Mr. Huddart has asked me to assist him at the present important juncture in putting before the British public the advantages of an accelerated mail service between England and Canada and Canada and Australia.

The project merits public support on many grounds, and chiefly as tending to promote the unity of the British Empire. That is an object desired alike at home and in the Colonies. The difficulty has been to suggest practical steps. On two occasions I had the privilege of introducing to the Prime Minister deputations from the Imperial Federation League. We had no ground to complain of the reception accorded to us. Our first interview was followed by a conference held in London, at which the Colonies were ably represented. The reinforcement of the Australian Squadron at the expense of the Colonies was the chief outcome of deliberations which were mainly directed to the defence of the Empire.

Our second interview with Lord Salisbury elicited the important suggestion that the time had come when schemes of federation should be proposed. The challenge of the Prime Minister was answered by the League in a report, the reception of which by the Press and by public opinion was a source of satisfaction to all concerned. But we have not found that action has been taken upon our suggestions. We may claim that they were feasible and desirable. We must acknowledge that there was no immediate necessity for their adoption. It has never been the way of British statesmanship to occupy itself with questions in anticipation of ulterior exigencies. If, however, it is wise to wait for fitting occasions before attempting to alter existing constitutional relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies, all will recognise that whenever opportunities offer we should not neglect them.

The practical steps which may now be taken were made clear by the recent proceedings at Ottawa. That second great colonial conference gave its attention especially to the improvement of telegraphic and postal communications. All the delegates who attended were agreed as to the desirability of opening up a new line of communication under the British flag between the Mother-country and Australia through Canada. The recommendations of the conference have been emphasised by something more than empty declarations. It is proposed to connect the eastern terminus of the Canadian railway system with England, and the western terminus with Australia, by a service of four large 20-knot steamers on the Atlantic and five swift steamers on the Pacific. The cost of these vessels is estimated at 3,000,000/. The subsidies asked from the Governments concerned amount to 300,000/. a year. Towards this amount Canada has voted 175,000/. The Imperial Government is asked to contribute 75,000/. and Australia 50,000/. If Canada has a special interest in establishing a new trade and postal route across her vast dominion, we have interests of hardly inferior magnitude in the development of communications with our Colonies. It is a circumstance that should have its due weight that, while Canada finds a large proportion of the money, all the expenditure on the construction of the ships will be incurred in the United Kingdom. Turning to the Australian Governments, if we display a wise liberality they may be trusted to follow.

In granting assistance to Mr. Huddart's scheme every care should be taken to insure that the public money is applied to the best advantage. Conditions may be inserted requiring the conveyance at low rates of troops to Hong-Kong, and relief crews to the Australian, Pacific, and China stations. It may be insisted that the specifications and plans for the new ships shall insure their fitness for service as scouts or auxiliary cruisers. In view of the desirability for increasing the means of training the engine-room complements of our ships of war, it might be arranged that the Admiralty should have the option of sending officers and men from the steam reserves for temporary duty in the new ships. We are losing a valuable training service by the decision recently taken to do away with the Indian troopships.

The subsidy now asked for may be in part made up by some reduction in the amounts now paid for mail services by other routes. It is in the initiatory stages that the helping hand of the Government is most needed. Once established, a service which meets a real public want may be efficiently conducted with diminishing assistance from the Treasury.

It has been urged by the representative of the Allan Line that the Gulf of St. Lawrence presents special difficulties to the navigator. The Allan Line has been free from disaster for many years. If its present proprietors had been men with the same enterprise and the same inducements to face the risks of business which animated the founders of their undertaking, they would have put vessels on their line which would have been capable of earning the subsidy which has been granted to a rival.

In considering the present demand we may appropriately ask ourselves how such a proposal would be received elsewhere. With comparatively insignificant commercial interests at stake, lavish subsidies are paid by Italy for a service to India, by France and Germany for services to China, Australia, and America, and by Russia for a fleet of volunteer cruisers.

The British Government has been able, through the keen competition in our mercantile marine, to make large reductions. Economy should not be pushed to far. High-speed services across the ocean can only be performed by subsidised steamers.

In conclusion, I return to the argument with which it was sought to open the case. To preserve our Imperial unity is a primary object of our public policy. We desire to make the value of the connection with the Mother-country felt in all the Colonies. When, therefore, our co-operation is asked in furtherance of a common object by such a conference as that lately assembled at Ottawa it is not wisdom to refuse assistance.

The decision to be taken must largely depend on the report of Lord Jersey. It is earnestly to be desired that no hesitation will be shown if he recommends that the new Canadian services to Australasia should be subsidised.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

BRASSEY.

Dalnaeardoch, N.B.

INDEX

ABERDEEN, Lord and Lady, 280, 281

Adelaide, defences of, 38, 76; the position of labour in the city and its vicinity, 239, 243, 247; its University, 240

Aden, as a trade emporium, 31; as a naval base, 42; suggested improvements at, 72, 73, 79; Indian troops at, 181

Africa, Sir Henry Parkes on British Colonies in, and their future, 9G; England's position in, and the effect on foreign policy, 107

' Albatross,' German cruiser at Sydney. 81

' Alexandra,' Mediterranean flagship. 41

Algoa Bay, settlement at, 245

America, North, British Colonies in, the defences of, 12; trade with Mother-country, 33

Angas, Mr. J. H., his gift to Adelaide, 240

Arbuthnot, Colonel, and the lack of dock accommodation in British Colonies, 43

Army, British, suggested additions to the, for foreign garrison duty, 264

Arnold-Forster, Mr. H. O., his connection with the Imperial Federation League, 233,291, 301

Ascension, defences of, 79

Asia, England's dependencies in, and the effect on foreign policy, 107, 185

Assiniboia, emigrant Colony in, 267

' Atlantic Monthly ' on Imperial Federation, 4n

Atlantic coaling stations, 42

Auckland, defence of, 43

Australia, independence contemplated by Colonists, 5; Imperial Federation movement in, 14, 15, 27, 01-68, 90-92; trade with Great Britain, 83, 195, 196, 246; progress of the various Colonies, 34, 35; naval and military defences and resources, 12, 38, 39, 43, 60, 76, 82, 94, 95, 101, 113, 119, 124, 133, 141, 158, 164, 169, 204; defence of coalingstations and lines of communi cation with, 41, 42, 76, 181; the creation of a naval reserve in, 44, 45, 265, 266; loyalty of colonists to British connection, 63, 91, 92, 100, 160, 266; proposal regarding naval and military training in, 77, 80, 115; graving docks at Australian ports, 81; advantages to Australian Colonies of union with Great Britain, 92, 94, 102, 103, 119, 121, 122; future of, as a nation, 96; its contingent in the Soudan campaign, 97, 113, 119,145; intercolonial federation movement in, 105, 140, 141, 181, 250; England's position in, and the effect on foreign policy, 107, 108; Lord Brassey's ' Work and Wages in Australia,' 110, 235, 247; reception in Australia of representatives to Imperial Conference, 112; Sir Bevan Edwards's visit to, 144, 145, 149, 180; Lord Brassey's circumnavigation of, 117; future of Australia as a naval power, 119; indebtedness to Great Britain, 156, 197, 246; as a field for British emigrants, 157, 244, 245, 257, 262, 263; security of, dependent on an efficient navy, 158,166,167; dissatisfaction of the Colonies with existing arrangements, 161, 182; population of, in 1881, 158; Mr. Thomas and Lord Brassey's efforts to develop, 194; wages of the railway navvy, 235, 236; coal and gold miners, 236; seamen, 236; settlers, 237; German v. British colonists, 237,238; lifo in the urban districts, 238-240; education, 240; the Universities, 240, 241; libraries, science and art, 241, 242; a hamlet in the bush described, 242; sugar plantations, 242, 243, 245; the land question in, 243, 244; labour in the tropics of Australia, 245; Lord Dunraven on labour in, 247, 248; on emigration to, 248; wages in, and emigration to, 261-263; proposed mail route between Canada and, 276, 302-305. (See also South Australia, Western Australia, &c.)

Australian Association (London), germ of the Royal Colonial Institute, 3

BAIN, Sir J., his interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Ballarat, gold-diggers of, 251

Barkly, Sir Henry, and the Imnerial Federation League, 219

Barnaby, Mr., on an organised maritime confederacy for Greater Britain, 39, 41

Barnardo, Dr., his efforts in colonisation, 273

Beaconsfield, Lord, on the defence of the Colonies, 39

Beadon, Robert, on the dissolution of the Imperial Federation League, 232

Beckett, Mr. E. W., his connection with the Imperial Federation League, 175

Behring Sea Fisheries dispute, 139

Bermuda, defence of coaling-station at, 42, 181; lack of dock accommodation, 43

Bi-metallism and Imperial federation, 174

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, 192

Blake, Mr. Edward, and Federation, 3

Bombay, a naval base, 42; suggested improvements for the defences of its harbour, 73, 79; its dockyard, 73, 80; naval and rifle volunteer corps for, 73, 74; compared with Trincomalee and Kurrachee. 73, 74

Booth, General, his colonisation scheme, 266

Bourne, Mr., on food imports and colonisation, 36

Bradford, Lord Brassey's address before the Chamber of Commerce, 28, 30—46

Brassey, Mr. Thomas, his enterprise in railway construction, 194; founder of colony of emigrants at Kosario, 254

Brassey, Lord, his interest in Greater Britain and its federation, 2, 4; joins the Imperial Federation League, 9; becomes hon. treasurer, 10, 50; work on the executive committee, 10; introduces deputation from the League to Lord Salisbury,11, 51, 56; on Australia and the maritime defences of the Empire, 12; speech on federation in Melbourne, 14, 61-68; speeches, lectures, and papers delivered and issued by Lord Brassey in London and various other places, 15, 28-49, 71-84, 88-105, 110-127, 132-138, 140-148, 151-153, 156-170; introduces a second deputation to Lord Salisbury, and efforts following thereon, 17, 148, 176-181, 185-188; his work as chairman of the special committee of Imperial Federation League for preparing scheme, and speeches and writings during 1892,17-20,131, 132, 188, 189, 193-199, 201-209, 223, 224; attends deputation to Mr. Gladstone, 21, 228230; agrees to dissolution of the League, 24, 232,233; his papers and addresses on work and wages in Australia, 235-247; on State colonisation, 251-260; letter on colonisation, 266-271; address on colonisation, 271-281

Brazil, its coaling-stations, 42

Brighton, Lord Brassey's speech at Imperial Federation meeting, 169, 170

Brisbane, defences of, 76, 77: workmen's dwellings in, 240

Brisbane ' Telegraph ' on Colonial defence, 39

' Britannia' Naval Training College, 115

British colonists, characteristics of, 237, 238

British Empire, the, its extent and resources a fascinating study, 1; charm of the subject enhanced by travel, 1; interest of Lord Brassey in the Empire's welfare, 2; separatist movement in Australia, 5; action of the ManChester school, 5, 6; Mr. Forster and the unity of the Empire, 6, 7, 62, 63; sketch of the movement for its federation, 8-27; importance to, of a maritime confederacy, 39-41; Lord Brassey on the unity of the Empire, 66-68, 100, 112-114; condition and requirements of the fortified places of the Empire, 71-84; SirJohn Seeley's interest in the Empire, 86, 87; Mr. Duncan Gillies and other Australian statesmen on unity and federation of the Empire, 90-97; area of the Empire, 118; trade of the Empire, 132; various schemes of federation: Imperial council, Colonial council, customs union, 142, 143; the defence of the Empire, 144, 145, 201, 202, 231; three subjects ripe for discussion concerning, 146, 147; proposals regarding an Imperial council for defensive purposes, 147-151,207, 275; the Imperial Parliament as a court of appeal in questions affecting the Empire, 151; the debt of the Empire, 156; the defensive forces of the Empire, 157159; strong and wide-spread sentiment of unity, 159-162; trade relations of the Empire, 162-164, 173,174, 205, 208, 229; a policy of frequent Imperial conferences recommended, 164, 165; objections to, 165, 166; importance of protecting the Empire's trade routes, 166, 167; efforts to promote a second conference of the Empire's representatives, 175183; the German and United States modelsof aUnitedEmpire discussed, 184, 185; congress of the chambers of commerce of the Empire, 190-199; the essentials of a united British Empire defined, 210-213; Lord Brassey on the unity of, 265, 266

Bryce, Mr. James, interest in imperial Federation, 8, 175, 2C1, 801

Burdett-Coutts, Baroness, interest in colonisation, 260

Burmah, its ports, 75

Burrows, Professor Montagu, on the scheme of the Imperial Federation League, 217

CAMBRIDGE: H.R.H., the Duke of, attends Imperial Federation banquet (1886), 51

Cambridge University, Liorcl Brassey's address on Imperial Federation at, 70, 87-99

Canada: a century's progress, 35; Imperial Federation movement in, 15, 27; agitation for customs union of the Empire, 21, 163, 200, 201, 219, 229; fisheries and maritime fleet of the country, 38, 39,101, 102,117, 159; reasons for continued alliance with Great Britain, 66, 67, 92, 101, 102, 120, 121, 280; Crimean contingent, 97, 145; intercolonial federation in, 105, 201; the fisheries dispute and relations with the United States, 107,139; Lord Brassey on colonisation in, 110, 259, 267; proposed naval college for, 115; part taken by Canada in Nile expedition, 118; as a recruiting field for naval reserves, 119, 265, 266; provisions for local defence, 124, 169; loyalty of, to British connection, 135-137, 159; the elections in 1891, 141; indebtedness of, to Great Britain, 156, 197; dissatisfaction with existing arrangement, 161, 182; the Halifax ' Evening Mail' on Imperial Federation v. union with the United States, 168; and the defence of our coaling-stations, 181 interest of Mr. Thomas Brassey and Lord Brassey in the development of, 194; its trade with Great Britain and the United States, 195, 277-279; land in, compared with Australia, 244, 245, 258; lumber work in, 251; as a field for British emigrants, 257, 258; proposed mail route between Australia and, 276, 302-305; union with the United States discussed, 278, 279; character of Governorsgeneral, 280, 281; the Hon. John Schultz on the future of Canada, 281, 282

Canadian Co-operative Colonisation Company, 110, 267

Canadian Pacific Railway, enterprise of the company, 276, 277

Canterbury (New Zealand) Chamber of Commerce and the fiscal policy of the British Empire, 192

Cape, the, coaling-stations at, 42, 45, 117; defences of the Colony, 78, 80, 85, 86; gravingdock at, 81; loyalty of Dutch subjects at, 84,122; its contributions to Imperial defence, 155; advantages to, of British connection, 159, 160; settlers and colonists at, 245, 251; price of land to colonists, 259. (See also South Africa.)

Carnarvon,Lord, his interest in Imperial Federation (1889), 16,179; on colonial administration, 35; on the defences of the Empire, 49, 56, 149; on loyalty of Cape Dutch, 122, 123, 160

Carter, Mr. G. Dowries, at banquet in Melbourne (1887), 61

Carthage, a maritime and colonising State, 31

Cathcart, Lady, her efforts on behalf of colonisation, 259, 267

' Cerberus,' Sydney turret-ship, 38

Ceylon, the harbours of, 42, 74, 117

Chambers of Commerce, and the fiscal policy of Great Britain, 20, 48; and Imperial Federation, 108, 109; Congress, in 1892, of the Chambers of the Empire, 190; attendance, 191; resolutions moved, 191, 192; Lord Brassey's speech, 193-199; general review of the proceedings, 200, 201, 229

Chester, Lord Brassey's address at (1889), 116-127

China, trade route to, 41, 42, 78; French war against, and the Foreign Enlistment Act, 81; communications with Vancouver, 277

Coal contraband of war, 42

Coaling-stations, British, defence of, 41-43, 45, 145,151, 166; address by Lord Brassey on, in 1888, 71; defence of, by fortifications a measure of economy, 72; the Mediterranean and Red Sea stations, 72, 73, 79; Indian ports, 73-75, 79; Australasian defences, 76-79; the Mauritius, South African and other stations, 78, 80; private enterprise and dock extension at naval stations, 80, 81; use of private docks by foreign fleets, 81; government graving-docks at colonial ports, 81; the navy and the mercantile marine, 82, 83; fortilication and manning of, 263, 264

Coaling-stations, Foreign, 42

Cockburn, Mr. G. R., and the Imperial Federation League, 218

Colomb, Captain (now Sir John), on the protection of coalingstations, 37, 49; on the naval and maritime resources of the Colonies, 40; on what our naval policy should be, 44; his interest in and connection with Imperial Federation, 4, 56, 175, 182, 220, 228, 233, 289, 291, 301

Colombo, fortifications at, 74, 80

Colonial and Indian Exhibition (1886), 11, 50, 100, 160

Colonial Conference at Ottawa, 129, 276, 277, 303

Colonial (Imperial) Conference, 1887, its work, 11, 58, 59; and Imperial defence, 11, 12, 60, 94, 95; speeches of Lord Salisbury and Sir Samuel Griffiths at, 12, 13; and the fortifications of King George's Sound and Thursday Island, 84; Lord Brassey on the results of, 97, 100, 112, 115, 160,161, 164, 179, 180, 204, 302; proposals for a second, 20, 128, 144, 146, 149

Colonial Empire, our, Mr. Forster on, 7; Lord Brassey's address to Bradford Chamber of Commerce (1880): forecast of the address, 28-80; personal recollections of trade emporiums, 31; value to Great Britain of Colonial and foreign possessions, 31; statistics of British trade with the Colonies, 32, 33; character of exports to, 33; growth and trade of the Colonies, 34, 35; value to Great Britain of Colonial food supplies, 36; the necessity for and duty of colonisation, 36; defence and resources of Colonial possessions, 37. 38; maritime confederacy for defensive purposes, 39-41; defenceless coal and foreign naval stations, 41, 47; lack of foreign and Colonial dock accommodation, 43, 44; Colonial militia and volunteer forces recommended, 44; the creation of a Colonial naval reserve, 44, 45; annual value of British trade, 45; energy of our Colonial fellowsubjects and importance of unity, 46; summary of Lord Brassey's views, 47-49; address at Chester in 1889: qualifications for the task, 116, 117; growth of Colonial Empire, 118; value of Colonial connection from an Imperial standpoint, 118, 119; value in connection with Great Britain from Colonial standpoint, 119-123; the Federation League and the Colonies, 123-127 Colonies, the, and separation, 5; and the defence of the Empire, 12, 18, 19, 39-41, 62, 63, 86, 101, 102,144-146,150-156; and commercial union with Great Britain, 20, 25, 26; enterprise of the Colonies in constructing gravingdocks, 81; advantages to the, of alliance with Great Britain, 102-105, 274, 275; defences of the, 141; indebtedness of, to Great Britain, 206; and stateaided colonists 258; and Imperial Federation, 265, 266. (See also Colonial Empire.)

Colonisation, successful instances of State, 245; Lord Dunraven on, 248; Lord Brassey at Manchester in 1888, 251; reasons for State aid, 251, 252; details of the scheme for promoting colonisation, 252, 253; successful instance of colonisation at Cordova, 254; Western Australia as a field for emigrants, 255, 256; Lord Brassey at Liverpool in 1888, 256; trade with the Colonies, 256; suitable fields for British emigrants, 257; arguments in favour of a Government scheme, 257; societies for the promotion of, 258; amount of advance necessary to each settler, 258; difficulties of the State aiding colonists, 258, 259, 261; private effort, 259-261; emigration statistics, 260; a Government information-office, 261, 262; farm labourers most required, 261, 262; the United States v. Australia as a field for emigration, 262, 263; Lord Brassey on a colonisation scheme at work, 266; some pioneers of the movement, 267; initial proceedings, 267; land acquired, 267; men required, 268; wages promised, 268; selection of applicants, 268; experiences of the party and of the company, 268-270; a new departure and its results, 269, 271; address to Manitoba Board of Trade, 271; Lord Brassey's position regarding colonisation, 272; philanthropic colonisation at Indian Head, 272-274

Columbia, British, its railway communication with Canada, 35

Columbus, his discoveries, 32

Conference, Colonial. (See Colonial Conference.)

Cooper, Sir Daniel, connection with the Imperial Federation League, 182, 291, 301

Cordova, railway and Colony at, 254

Crimean War, Canada and the, 97, 145

Crofters, the, and State colonisation, 259

Croydon (Queensland), gold-mining at, 236

Cuba, Spanish administration of, 196

DALTON, Canon, at Cambridge, 87

Darwin, Port, its defences and position, 78, 79

Deakin, Mr., on the Colonial Conference, 97, 98

De Labilliere, Mr. F.P., his interest in, and writings on, Imperial Federation, 4

Derby, Earl of, on union of Empire, 93; on State-aided colonisation, 252

Derby, Earl of (formerly Lord Stanley of Preston), as governorgeneral of Canada, 280

Dilke, Sir Charles, his works on ' Greater Britain,' 29, 149

Docks, lack of, in foreign and Colonial possessions, 43; docks and graving-docks at coaling and naval stations, 80, 81

Dufferin, Marquis of, on Canada, 35. 280

Duluth, 277

Dunraven, Earl of, his speech on Australia and Imperial Federation, 110, 247-250; his proposals regarding Imperial defence, 144, 149, 150; motion in Parliament on trade relations with the Colonies, 165, 173, 174

Dutch colonists at the Cape, loyalty of, to British connection, 84, 122, 123, 159, 160

Dutch fleet use Singapore docks for repairs, 81

EDINBURGH, Mr. Forster's speech at, on the Colonies, 7; Lord Rosebery on Imperial Federation at, 14, 15

Edwards, Sir Bevan, on Australian and international defence, 144, 149, 150, 158, 180

Egypt, Indian troops in, 119

Elder, Sir Thomas, his gift to Adelaide, 240

Emigration. (See Colonisation.)

Engineers, wages and hours of, in Sydney, 238

England. (See Great Britain.)

Europe, progress of the principle of nationalities in, 65; trade route to Australia, 76, 78

FAIR-TRADE and Imperial Federation, 16, 47. (See also Free-trade.)

Falkland Islands, defences of the, 42, 45

Farrer, Sir William, on the Imperial Federation scheme, 220

Federation of the Empire. (See Imperial Federation.)

Ferguson, Mr. R. Munro,his connection with the Imperial Federation League, 175, 233

Ferguson, Sir James, on the growth of New Zealand, 34

Fitzgerald, Mr. R., at banquet in Melbourne (1887), 61

Fleming, Mr. Sandford, on the population of Canada in 1880, 35

Foreign Enlistment Act, 81

Foreign policy, Lord Rosebery on the effect of Colonial questions on, 106-109

Forster, Mr. W. E., his interest in Colonial questions and connection with Imperial Federation League, 6-10, 54, 56, 62, 63, 88, 105, 161, 179, 204,223, 228,246, 247

Foster, Mr., Canadian Finance Minister, 200

France, trade with Great Britain, 33; position of, as a maritime nation, 39; use of Hong Kong docks by her fleet during war with China, 81; influence of, compared with England, 97; and the Colonial question in America and Asia, 107; and the Newfoundland fisheries, 139, 141; Colonial representatives in Chamber of Deputies, 142; creation of a Colonial Council in, 142, 143; subsidy to mercantile marine. 198, 305

Free-trade and the Imperial Federation movement, 47, 148, 162, 163, 173, 174, 196, 197, 199, 205

French population of Canada, loyalty of, to British connection, 159

Froude, Mr. J. A., and Mr. Greswell's prize essay on Imperial Federation, 126; on the Colonies of Great Britain, 205

GALLE, defence of, 42

Gait, Sir Alexander, on Canada's connection with Great Britain, 120, 128; interest in Imperial Federation, 178

Gairdner, Professor, Ins interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Gell, Mr. Lyttelton, on the scheme of the Imperial Federation League, 217

German colonists in Queensland, characteristics of, 237, 238; at the Cape, 245

Germany, trade with Great Britain, 33; position of, as a maritime nation, 39; unity of, 40, 05,101; influence of, compared with England, 97; influence of, in the Pacific, 107, 108; as a model for federated British Empire, 184; subsidy to mercantile marine, 198, 305

Ghoorkas as soldiers, 264

Gibraltar, a base tor naval operations, 42; coaling-station at, 72, 117; lack of graving-dock, 80; the Imperial Government and the defences of, 80

Gibson-Maitland, Sir J., his interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Giffen, Mr., his statistical abstract on foreign and Colonial trade, 35; and Colonial indebtedness to Great Britain, 197, 198; his statistical eminence, 251

Gillams, Colonel, Boys Farm scholars as colonists, 271

Gillies, Mr. Duncan, at banquet in Melbourne (1887), 61; on Lord Brassey and Imperial Federation, 90-92, 98; on the maintenance of an Imperial connection with Great Britain, 122, 128

Gladstone, Mr. W. E., and the Imperial Federation League, 21. 22. 226-232

Glasgow, Imperial Federation League meeting at, in 1888, 98-105

Glasgow, Earl of, his interest in Imperial Federation, 99

Goschen, Mr., speech on Imperial Federation in the Commons, 173, 174

Great Britain, and the independence of the Colonies, 5; separation advocated by the Manchester school, 5, 6; position of, as a maritime nation, 39; relations with the Colonies in the event of war, 40; trade with the Colonies and foreign countries, 45, 132, 194,205,277-279; Lord Brassey on loyalty of Colonies to, 63-68, 159, 160; the Government and Imperial defences, 82; Sir Henry Parkes on Great Britain's influence, 96,97; effect of Colonial possessions on foreign policy, 106-109; elasticity of trade, 111, 112; area of possessions, 118; Colonial aid to, in time of war, 118, 119; Colonial indebtedness to, 119, 120, 132, 156, 197, 206, 246; value of navy to the Colonies, 141, 157, 158, 206; fiscal policy, 143, 194-199, 208; as a market for Colonial produce, 157; value of the Colonies to, as fields for emigrants, 157, 245,260-262, 273; military strength, 157; the proposed mail route to Australia via Canada, 276, 277, 302-305

Great Lakes of Canada, 277

Greece, as a maritime and colonising State, 31

Greenwich Naval School, 158

Greswell, Mr., his prize essay on Imperial Federation, 126

Grey, Earl, his proposals concerning federation, 126, 134

Griffiths, Sir Samuel, speech at the Colonial Conference, 13

HALIBURTON, Judge (' Sam Slick '), on federation, 3, 168

Halifax, a base for naval operations, 42; coaling-station, 145; Canada and the defence of, 181

Halifax 'Evening Mail' on Imperial Federation, 167, 168

Hamilton, Lord George, interest in Imperial Federation, 9; and the defence of our coaling-stations, 263

Hay, Sir John, on the unity of the Empire, 92

Heath, Captain, his scheme concerning Colonial naval reserves, 264-266

Herbert River, sugar mills and plantations at, 242, 243, 245, 26

Herschell, Lord, interest in Imperial Federation, 51, 114

Hicks-Beach, Sir Michael, interest in Imperial Federation, 9

Hill, Mr. Becket, on the Imperial Federation League scheme, 219

Himalayas, 117

Hofmeyr, Mr., Dutch leader at the Cape, 122, 128; on loyalty of Dutch population of Cape to British connection, 159; his scheme of Imperial customs union, 164, 173

Holland, Sir Henry. (See Rnutsford, Lord.)

Holland, and her possessions in the Eastern Archipelago, 196

Home Rule and Imperial Federation, 16

Hong Kong, as a trading port, 31, 45; coaling-station and its defence, 42, 117, 145, 181; dock accommodation, 43; gravingdocks at, 80; private ship-repairing docks at, 81

Houghton, Lord, interest in Imnerial Federation, 138, 205

Howe, Mr. Joseph, his interest in federation, 3, 168

Howell, Mr. George, interest in Imperial Federation, 228

Hozier, Mr., interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Huddart, Mr., of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the proposed mail route to Australia, 277, 302, 304

Hughes, Sir Walter Watson, his gift to Adelaide, 240

IMPERIAL Federation, Lord Brassey's interest in, 2, 4; early history of the movement, 3; Mr. Lowe's and other prominent men's views on the subject, 3, 4; the London Australian Association in 1857, 3; official and other obstacles to federation, 4-6; Mr. Forster's share in the promotion of federation, 6, 7; the movement in 1880: Lord Brassey's addresses on Our Colonial Empire, 28-49; Conference in 1884,0-8; formation of the Imperial Federation League, 8,9; progress in 1885,9,10; death of its founder in 1886,10; stimulating effect of Colonial and Indian Exhibition in 1886, 11, 50, 51; banquet of the League and the advocacy of an Imperial conference, 11, 51; deputation to Lord Salisbury, 11, 51; names of the deputation, 52,. 53; Lord Brassey's and other speeches, 54-59; the Conference and the results therefrom, 11-13, 59, 60; Lord Brassey promotes the cause in Australia, 13, 14, 0168; the movement in 1888-89, 14-16, 70-110; in 1889-91, 111-176; further deputation to Lord Salisbury in 1891, advocating a second Conference, 17, 176; names of the deputation, 176-178; Lord Brassey's and other speeches, 178-182; Lord Salisbury's reply, 182-185; consequent action of the League, 17, 18, 185-189; the movement in 1892,190-209; recommendations of the Special Committee of the League, 18-20, 210-310; meeting of the Council, and names of the same, to receive the Report, 29, 216-286; deputation to Mr. Gladstone in 1893, and speeches on the occasion, 20, 21, 226-232; future policy considered and determination to dissolve the League, 22-24, 232, 233; increased activity among its advocates consequent on its dissolution, 25-27, 233, 234; Lord Dunraven on Imperial Federation, 249, 250; the Colonies and, 265, 266; list of the Council, 283-288; text of the Report. 289-305

India, the Opium Commission in, 21; British trade with, 32, 102, 132, 196, 205, 256; trade routes to, 41, 42, 78; importance of, to the Colonies, 66; the Government and the defences of its coalingstations, 73, 80; England's position in, 84; Sir Henry Parkes on the future of, 96; Australian aid in the defence of, 102, 119; effect of England's position in, on foreign policy, 106; native troops serve in Egyptian Campaign, 119; its Council a model for an Imperial Council, 142; former connection of the Straits Settlement with, 155; native troops at Aden, 181; railway enterprise of Mr. Thomas Brassey in, 194; indebtedness to England, 197

Indian Head, experiments in philanthropic colonisation at, 272; farming operations at, 273; inducements to colonists, 273, 274

Italy, position of, as a maritime power, 39; unity of, 46, 65, 101; subsidy to mail steamers, 305

JAPAN, coaling-stations in, 42; communication with Vancouver, 277

Javanese labour on Australian sugar plantations, 245

Jenkins, Mr. Edward, paper on ' Imperial Federation,' 4

Jervois, General Sir William, duties in Australia, 76; at Imperial Federaiion League deputation (1891), 182

Jubilee of H.M. Queen Victoria. (See Victoria, Queen.)

KAFFIRS as soldiers, 264

Keighley Chamber of Commerce, Lord Brassey's address to the, in 1889, 111-114

Khartoum, British expedition to, 118

Kimber, Mr., his efforts on behalf of State-aided colonisation, 258

Kimberley, Lord, on Colonial contributions to Imperial defence, 155

King, Sir James, his interest in Imperial Federation, 98

King George's Sound, strategical position and defences of, 76, 79, 84, 85, 263

Knutsford, Lord (Sir Henry Holland), tribute to the memory of Mr. Forster, 7; interest in Imperial Federation, 8, 9; presides over Imperial Colonial Conference, 12,58, 59, 164, 179; on the contributions of the Colonies to Imperial defence, 154; at Congress of Chambers of Commerce (1892), 192

Kriegsvcrein, the constitution of a, for the British Empire, 166,184, 185, 229

Kurrachee as a naval port, 74

LAMINGTON, Lord, connection with Imperial Federation League, 291, 301

Lang, Rev. Dr. Marshall, interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Langley, Mr. J. N., at Cambridge, 87

Lansdowne, Marquis of, as governor-general of Canada, 280

Lascars, use of, to the Indian Government, 73, 75

Laurie, Lieut.-Gen., connection with the Imperial Federation League, 175, 182

Leeds, Imperial Federation League meeting at, in 1891, 14, 138-142, 205; Lord Brassey's speech, 140-148,150

Lion of St. Mark, Venetian symbol, 32

Lisbon coaling-station, 42

Liverpool, Imperial Federation League meeting at, in 1890 and 1891, 132-135, 138-148; Lord Brassey's paper on State colonisation read at, 256-266

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper,' Lord Brassey's article on Imperial Federation in, 203

Loder, Mr., interest in Imperial Federation, 169

London Chamber of Commerce, Lord Brassey's address before the, 71-84

Loring, Mr. Arthur H., Secretary of the Imperial Federation League, 301

Lome, Marquis of, interest jn Imperial Federation, 99; as governor-general of Canada, 280

Lowe, Robert (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke), on federation, 3

Lubbock, Sir John, connection with Imperial Federation League, 175; presides over Congress of Chambers of Commerce (1892), 191, 192

Lubbock, Mr. Nevile, mover of resolution at Congress of Chambers of Commerce (1892), 191, 200

McALISTER, Dr., at Cambridge, 87

McBain, Sir James, at banquet in Melbourne (1887), 61

Macdonald, Sir John, and Imperial unity, 3, 54, 128; on the value to the Colonies of union with Great Britain, 66, 136; on commercial union between Canada and the United States, 103; on the advantages of a customs union with Great Britain, 163; on the future of Canada, 283

McNeill, Mr. Alex., on the Imperial Federation League scheme, 219

Macoun, Professor, on Canada as a corn-growing region, 35

Madeira, coaling-station at, 42

Mail route, proposed, to Australia, via Canada, Lord Brassey's letter to the ' Times,' 302; the Ottawa Conference and, 303; cost of vessels, 303; subsidy, 303, 304; objections of the Allan Company, 304; reasons why a subsidy should be given, 305

Malta, a base for naval operations, 42; dock accommodation, 43; coaling-station, 72

Manchester, Lord Brassey's speech at, on State colonisation, 251-256

Manchester School, its policy of disintegration, 5, 6

Manitoba Board of Trade, resolution of, at Chambers of Commerce Congress, 192; the Canadian Government and the colonisation of, 245; Lord Brassey's address to Manitoba Board of Trade on Colonisation, 271-281; the trade and produce of, 277, 281

Manning, Cardinal, interest in Imperial Federation, 16, 51, 179

Manning, Sir W., on union of the Empire, 93

Mansion House, Imperial Federation League meeting at, in 1887, 16, 179, 205

Maories, and the New Zealand Government, 38

Marburg, German settlement at, 237

Marriage Laws and Imperial Federation, 16

Mauritius, harbour and coalingstation, 42, 117, 145; defences of, 78, 80; dock improvements at, 80; Mr. Thomas Brassey's railway enterprise in, 194

Meath, Earl of, efforts on behalf of colonisation, 245, 258, 267

Mediterranean, bases for fleet in the, 42

Medley, Mr. G. W., mover of resolution at Congress of Chambers of Commerce (1892), 192, 200

Melbourne, Imperial Federation banquet at, 14, 01-08; -defences of, 38, 43, 70,86, 100; gravingdock at, 81; suburban dwellings for working classes, 239; university, library, and art galleries, 240, 241; labour market in, 243

Mercantile marine as a naval reserve, 82,83

Merchant Taylors' Hall, Congress of Chambers of Commerce at, in 1892,191-199

Mexico, Gulf of, naval base in the, 42

Miners, coal and gold, wages of, in Australia, 230

Mocha, effect on, of British administration of Aden, 31

Montgomery, Sir Hugh, interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Montreal, Lord Brassey's visits to, 30, 117; resolution of its Chamber of Commerce at London Congress, 192, 200; importance to its trade of efficient canals, 277

Morgan, Mr. G. Osborne, interest in Imperial Federation, 175,182

Morgan, Mr. S. Vaughan, and the Imperial Federation League, 233

Mort, Messrs., engineers at Sydney, 238

Mount Morgan, gold mining at, 236

Mulock, Mr., his resolution on Canadian loyalty to British connection, 137

NATIONAL ANTHEM, its popularity in Australia, 63, 64, 100

Naval College, proposed, for the Colonies, 115

Navies of the Empire, Lord Brassey on the, 114; suggestions regarding naval colleges for the Colonies, 115; the Colonial navies, 115, 116

Navvy, wages of the railway, in Western Australia, 235, 236, 261, 262

Navy, British, the mercantile marine as an auxiliary to, 82, 83; and Imperial defence, 113, 114, 138, 145, 157,158, 166, 167,169, 170, 206, 266, 274; Colonial reserves for the navy, 264, 265

Newcastle (N.S.W.), its coalfields, 236

Newfoundland, Lord Brassey's visits to, 30, 117, 251; fishing industry, 107; fisheries dispute, 139, 141, 175

New South Wales, trade and progress of, 34, 35; defences, 38, 77; and the Soudan War, 145; wages in, 236; public debt, 238, 239; Lord Brassey's visit to, 251

New Zealand, trade and progress of, 34, 35; militia and volunteer force, 38, 102; seaboard, 39; death rate, 157

Nile, Canadian voyagers on the, 118

' Nineteenth Century,' Lord Brassey's paper on Imperial Federation in the, 156-168

Norway, position of, as a maritime nation, 39

Nova Scotia, Lord Brassey's visit to, 251

OLIVER, Mr., connection with Imperial Federation League, 175

Ontario as a wheat-growing country, 35; loyalty of inhabitants to British connection, 121, 159

Opium Commission in India, Lord Brassey's connection with, 24

' Orion ' at Singapore, 75

Ossington, Lady, efforts on behalf of colonisation, 259, 267

Ottawa, Colonial Conference at, 129, 276, 277, 303

PACIFIC, coaling-stations in the, 42; England's position in the, and the effect on foreign policy, 107,108; future of Australia in, 119

Palmerston, Lord, on patriotism, 116

Parkes, Sir Henry, and federation, 3; on the relations between the Australian Colonies and Great Britain, 92, 96,97,121,128,160; efforts to federate Australia, 180, 181; financial policy in New South Wales, 239

Parkin, Mr. G. R., his efforts on behalf of Imperial Federation, 15, 132, 169, 222

Parliament, Lord Brassey's speech in, on the defence of the Straits Settlements, 151-153; motions in advocating a second Imperial Colonial Conference, 173

Parnell, Major, on the value of fortifications, 44

Patriotism, Lords Brassey and Palmerston on, 116, 117

Persian Gulf, British trade on the shores of, 31

Peterson, Mr. McDonald, at banquet in Melbourne (1887), 61

Phœnicia as a maritime and colonising state, 31

Playfair, Sir Lyon (afterwards Lord), his interest in Imperial Federation, 175, 177, 186, 291, 301

Port Arthur, 277

Fort Louis, a naval base, 42

Port Royal, Jamaica, a naval base, 42

Portugal and the discoveries of Vasco da Gania, 32

Pownall, Governor, on federation, 4n

Privy Council and Imperial Federation, 126, 134

Protection and the Imperial Federation movement. (See Freetrade.)

QU'APPELLE, colonisation scheme at work there. 267, 271

Quebec, Lord Brassey's visits to, 30, 117

Queensland progress and trade of, 34; trade routes to, 76, 78; gold-mining in, 236; a pastoral country, 237; sugar cultivators and manufacturers in, 242, 251; price of land in, 259

RAMSAY, Professor, interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Rankin, Mr. James, connection with Imperial Federation League, 291, 301

Rawson, Sir Rawson, his work on British trade, 111; awards prize to Mr. Greswell for essay on Imperial Federation, 126; connection with Imperial Federation League, 291 301

Reay, Lord, interest in Imperial Federation, and connection with the League, 175, 233, 291, 301

Redpath, Mr. Peter, interest in Imperial Federation, 56

Robertson, Sir John, on union of the Colonies with Great Britain, 92, 23

Robinson, Sir Bryan, on the fisheries of Newfoundland, 38

Rosario, railway and Colony at, 254

Rosebery, Earl of, interest in, and connection with, Imperial Federation, 8-11, 14-17,24,51,87-89, 98, 99, 105-109, 125, 130, 131, 134, 139, 160,162-165,175, 178, 179, 205, 206, 228, 233

Royal Colonial Institute, its origin and advocacy of federation, 3, 4n, 5, 6; Lord Brassey's paper read before the, on Work and Wages in Australia, 235-250

Royal Commission on Admiralty and War Otlice Administration: Imperial defence, 141, 166

Rusden, Mr. G. W., connection with Imperial Federation League, 175

Russell, Earl, on our Colonial Empire, 37

Russia, yield of wheat in, 35; effect on Australian Colonies of threatened hostilities between Great Britain and, 42, 43; influence of Russia compared with Great Britain, 97; Canadian aid to Great Britain in last war against, 97; subsidy to mail steamers, 305

SAIGON, French naval establishment at, 81

St. Helena, communications with, and defences of, 45, 79, 80

St. Lawrence, Gulf of, the Allan Company on its navigation, 304

St. Lawrence River, 30, 117

St. Vincent, detention of transports at, 42

Salisbury, Marquis of, and the Imperial Federation League, 11, 12, 17, 19, 51, 56-58, 69, 97, 123-125, 128-131, 144, 146,148, 149, 160, 161,163, 165,172-174, 186-188, 204, 226, 228

Samoa, German influence at, 81, 108

' Sam Slick.' (See Haliburton, Judge.)

Schultz, the Hon. John, on the future of Canada, 281,282

Scratchley, Sir Peter, duties in Australia. 76

Seamen in Australia, wages of, 236

Seeley, Sir John, interest in Imperial Federation, 86,87; speech at Cambridge Meeting, 86, 87

Service, the Hon. Mr., interest in Imperial Federation, 56, 95

Sherbrooke, Lord. (See Lowe, Robert.)

Sierra Leone, defences of, 79, 80; Lord Brassey at, 117

Sikhs, as police at Singapore, 75, 152; as soldiers, 264

Simon's Bay, a naval base, 42; defences of, 78, 85

Singapore, as a trading port, 31, 45, 75; as a naval base, 42; defences of, 42, 75, 80; docks at, 80, 81; the Colonies and the defences of, 145, 151, 155, 181

Slavs, union of, 46, 101

Smith, Adam, his ' Wealth of Nations ' cited, 4n

Smith, Mr. Marshall, on a Colonial naval reserve, 44, 45

Smith, Mr. W. H., interest in Imperial Federation, 8, 9, 131

Soudan War, Australia and the, 97, 113, 119, 145

South Africa, local interest in naval defence, 12,1(59; Australia and the war in, 118, 119; as a field for emigration, 257

South Australia, progress of, 34, 35; railway enterprise in, 78; and the Transvaal War, 118, 119

South Seas, Australia's position in the, 119

Spain and the discoveries of Columbus, 32; Colonial representatives in Chamber of Deputies, 142; administration of Cuba. Itlfi

Sprigg, Sir Gordon, on the advantages of Colonial connection with Great Britain, 122, 128. 159

Stanhope, Mr. Edward, his interest in, and connection with, Imperial Federation, 9-11, 21, 24, 51, 58, 59, 179, 217-220, 220, 228, 233; on Colonial contributions to Imperial defence, 155; and the defence of the coaling-stations, 203

State colonisation. (See Colonisation.)

Steamers, Lord Brassey on foreign subsidised, 198

Straits Settlements, European trade with, 31; trade route to, 78; its contribution to Imperial defence, 151, 152, 154, 155

Strangways, Mr., on Imperial unity, 40

Stuart, Colonel Harrington, interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Suez Canal, effect of the, on Singapore, 151

Sugar plantations in Queensland, 242, 245

'Sunbeam,' the, her famous voyages, 28

Sydney, defences of, 38, 43, 70, 86; private docks, 81; graving docks, 81; naval reserves, 82; convention, 146; wages and hours of labour in, 238, 239, 243, 248; University and art galleries, 240, 241

TABLE BAY, defences of, 78, 86

Tanner, Professor, and the Canadian co-operative colonisation scheme, 267

Tasmania, its Volunteer corps, 38

Teek, the Duchess of, and Princess May at Chester, 116

Tennant, Sir Charles, interest in Imperial Federation, 98

Thibet, British commerce with, 107

Thucydides quoted, 67

Thursday Island, defences of, 77-79, 84, 263

'Times,' the, on Imperial Federation, 13; Lord Brassey's letter in, on colonisation, 266-271

Toronto, Lord Brassey's visit to, 30, 117

Trincomalee, value of, asaharbour and dockyard compared with Bombay, 73, 74; defences of, 74, 75

Trollope, Mr. Anthony, on College Hall, Sydney, 2-10, 241

Tryon, Sir George, on the defences of the British Empire, 94

Tupper, Sir Charles, his connection with Imperial Federation and theories concerning fiscal policy of British Empire, 20, 120, 128, 103, 200, 217, 223-226, 291, 301

UNITED STATES, trade with Great Britain, 33; yield of wheat in, 35; position of, as a maritime nation, 39; coaling-stations, 42; Sir Henry Parkes on the future of, 96, 97; influence of, compared with England, 97; commercial union with Canada discussed, 103; relations with Canada, 107, 121, 136, 137, 139, 159, 168, 169; as a model for British Empire, 126, 133, 184; commercial relations with Canada, 195; Protection in the United States, 197; land in, compared with Western Australia, 244; emigration of British subjects to, 262; possibility of