:L A J\ D AiN J) W ATE R 
February lo, 1916. 
THE IMPERIAL TASK. 
By Neoimperialist. 
RELUCTANCE to discuss after-war develop- 
ments till after the. war be won is normally 
the mark of the practical intelligence. It is 
waste of time buildiilg airy structures on 
foundations of prophecy, or on calculations of which so 
many terms are unknown that they have all the dis- 
advantages and uncertainties of prophecy. 
A very important exception must be made in favour 
of as free and detailed a discussion as can be contrived 
amidst our tragic preoccupations and anxieties, of the 
great question of the Imperial settlement. 
It is certain that the urgency of that question and 
the general lines of the settlement will be unaffected by 
any possible issue of the war. The utmost that the 
already chastened imagination of the directors of the 
Central Powers can now 'envisage in the way of success 
is the stalemate which may give them the pause for tiie 
rebuilding of their grandiose plans. Such a result, 
disastrous as it would be to us, could only, under the driving 
sense of a common danger now intimately realised, 
precipitate that process of setting our house in order, 
and welding the peoples of Greater Britain into a duly 
organised state, as opposed to the mere casual and 
indeterminate alliance which the British Empire is now 
in actual fact — an alliance with certain very definite 
factors of disintegration conflicting with the more 
obvious factors of unification. 
If, on the other hand, victory crowns the arms of 
the Allies, as the resolute temper of the allied peoples and 
conservative calculation of their resources alike give 
the most abundant hope, there will be given to the British 
race an opportunity of erecting the most solidly based 
system of defences of personal and poHtical freedom of> 
which the world yet holds record. It is indeed a destiny 
that beckons with an heroic gesture. 
Let the reader not think that such phrases are 
lightly set down in a mood of rhetorical exuberance. It 
is easy to wa.x vaguely eloquent over the obviously 
spectacular aspects of JBritish Imperialism. The least 
imaginative of those amongst us who have a little free- 
dom and leisure in our lives can be inspired by the acreage 
of a territory amounting to but little less than a quarter 
ji the earth's surface, and by the grand muster of its 
peoples, numbering substantially more than a quarter of 
the human race. 
These vast figures cover a variety of types and stages 
of political development, a series of problems of widely 
differing character and complexity. They convey k 
generalsense of enormous responsibility, or, to those who 
still think in terms of dominion, of enormous power. 
Clear thought about this immense conglomerate can only 
begin when the problems are sorted into their various 
categories. Naturally the first problem which detaches 
itself, the key- problem in fact, is that of the relations 
between the" Mother Country and the self-governing 
dominions. It is that problem, referred to as the Im- 
perial settlement and separated so far as is possible from 
the question of the relations between the Imperial Govern- 
ment and the less-developed races, which will be con- 
sidered in this series of Imperial studies. 
The thinking that must go to its Imal and adequate 
solution cannot be postponed till the happy issue of the 
war, because only very slowly can the principles which 
a somewhat intricate problem involves be apprehended, 
canvassed and established in the public mind. It is 
indeed more than likely that our own preoccupation with 
clamorous domestic problems of demobilisation and the 
labour troubles, with the recriminations and inquisitions 
as to Ihe preparedness for and conduct of the war, wJien the 
general peace breaks our particular political truces, 
may then prevent this qiicstion being seen in its proper 
perspective. It is really the fact, though it may soimd 
paradoxical, that the days of our trial provide a better 
occasion for those who are not directly engaged in the 
business of war to think out this problem of the comple- 
tion of the unfinished constitution of the British Empire, 
than thie davs that follow the declaration of peace. 
The paramount fact that the writer seeks to establish 
.n these articles is that the real issue is shirked. That 
real issue is: that the self-governing nations, The 
Dominion of Canada, The Commonwealth of Australia, 
New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, conveniently 
but loosely referred to as the Dominions- — a term whicJi 
carries mischievous implications — must, as the essential 
token of their free fellowship in the Imperial Federation, 
be, on demand, admitted to a responsible share in the 
control of imperial foreign policy ; with the corollary that 
thev must also share the financial responsibility in some 
justly calculated proportion. Control of voted funds is 
an essential, not merely an accidental, attribute of 
responsible self-government. 
No doubt the issue is often not clearly seen. A vague 
cloud of good will, good will now immeasurably increased 
by the splendid fellowship of the war, tends to obscure 
the fact that a ciuite definite and precise solution of a 
tangible difficulty must be sought — a difficulty which un- 
solved may imperil the unity of Greater Britain, as a 
not altogether dissimilar difficulty, left unsolved, actually 
sheared the American colonies from England with the 
Declaration of Independence on that fateful fourtli of 
July in 1776. 
In a recent review in these columns of The Nciv 
Empire Partnership occasion was taken to observe how 
two w(iIl-informed and zealous Imperialists, Messrs. Percy 
and .■\rchibald Hurd, forecasting the future of the Empire, 
curiously failed to face this essential issue. The whole 
trend of their argument seemed to lead their horses to 
this particular fence, but they refused the jump. Another 
notable instance may be recalled in Sir Joseph Ward's 
motion at the Imperial Conference of 191 1. Whether 
from a prudent decision not to press a point for which 
the occasion seemed in his judgment unfavourable, or 
from actual confusion of thought as from the context 
seems more likely, he allowed the President (Mr. Asquith) 
to ride him off the essential ground of discussion. 
It is quite possible that the President's action on that 
occasion was deliberate. Politicians do not want prob- 
lems with sharp edges. Seriou? changes and I'eal diffi- 
culties are involved in preparing for the final and irrevoc- 
able step of the " self-governing " dominions from re- 
stricted to full responsibility of government. 
Reasons for the general reluctance of statesmen and 
writers to approach a direct solution must be discussed in 
due place. 
Meanwhile the general procedure is to assume quite 
rashly that good will and loyalty will carry us through 
all troubles as they have already carried us in strengthened 
unity through this testing crisis of war. But " sentiment 
is not government " though it prepare the way for a 
solution of the problems of government. It is the 
business of statesmanship to put this admirable mutual 
regard to use in steering through the undoubted diflicul- 
ties of the future settlement. 
It will make clearer the general argument of these 
papers if the thesis, which, as the writer begs leave to 
argue, states the logical and only safe solution of the 
Imperial problem, be here outlined. 
The Dominions must be allowed to claim a share of 
responsibility for Imperial and Foreign policy, co-ordin- 
ate with, and of the same essential nature as, the res- 
ponsibility of Great Britain. The Imperial Executive 
must be answerable to the electorate of the Dominions 
as well as to the electorate of Great Britain which 
now alone* decides questions of foreign policy and a 
war ; because no other solution is consistent with the 
fundamental rights of self-government, the unassailable 
heritage, as it has now become by accumulated precedent 
and c( mmon consent, of every British subject fit to exer- 
cise political responsibility ; because no other can prevent 
ambiguous loyalties, causes of quarrel and disintegration 
of which significant episodes of our history give us 
warning. 
There can be no half-way house between organised 
unity on the one hand and inevitable disintegration on 
the other. And the ^Mother of Parliaments must realise 
that she has to face sacrifices of privilege which she has 
grown to think established in the nature of things^-she 
has to pay the price of Admiraltj- and of Serxicc. 
I 
