May 25, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
union. It is much easier to form an Imperial Reichstag 
sitting in Berhn, in which Saxony and Wiirtemburg and 
the rest of the German States arc represented, than to 
form an Imperial Parliament sitting in London to which 
Canada, Australia and New Zealand would have to send 
representatives across the seas. For these and similar 
reasons there is little profit in studying the German 
analogy too closely. Our problems are peculiar to our- 
selves and they must be studied in the light of our own 
experience and the light of our own ideals. When Mr. 
Chamberlain addressed the representatives of the Colonial 
Conference in 1902, he said emphatically that the first 
thing to consider was " how far we can extend the trade 
between the different parts of. the Empire — a reciprocal 
trade." He added in words which were as emphatic 
as they were definite, " Our first object then, as I say, is 
free trade within the Empire." To that proposal 
the i)ominions made no response. They were not 
prepared to concede free trade to the Mother Country. 
In none of his speeches urging Imperial union has Mr. 
Hughes indicated any willingness on the part of Australia to 
repeal the somewhat heavy duties which are imposed upon 
the manutactures of the Mother Country. What is true of 
.'\ustralia is apparently 
true jilso of Canada, 
New Zealand and South 
Africa. The only portion 
of the Empire where free 
trade with the United 
Kingdom prevails is In- 
dia, which is due to the 
fact that India is under 
the direct political con- 
trol of the Home Gov-, 
ernment. Clearly it is 
impossible to coerce 
the Dominions in this 
matter. Nobody would 
dream of proposing to 
undertake such a task, 
and if conceivably it 
were undertaken it 
would certainly fail. 
These are facts which 
should be borne in mind 
by those newspaper 
writers who are in the 
habit of arguing that the 
opposition to Imperial 
unity comes from the 
free traders of the Uni- 
ted Kingdom. Complete 
fiscal union is impossible 
without Imperial free 
trade and the opposition 
to Imperial free trade 
comes not from English 
free traders but from 
Colonial protectionists. 
Assuming that this pro- 
tectionist opposition to 
Imperial unity cannot be 
overcome we have to 
consider whether any 
steps can be taken to secure a closer unity while still 
maintaining the fiscal independence of the Dominions 
and recognising that that independence will be used for 
the Sa.ke of protecting colonial industries against the 
competition of British manufactures. Here again it is 
alleged by tariff reform writers that opposition comes 
from English free traders. Again the allegation is untrue. 
The only proposal which the tariff reformers in this 
country have made is that a general tariff should be 
imposed upon all goods entering the United Kingdom, 
but that colonial goods should be admitted at a lower 
rate than foreign goods. This proposal, so far from 
bringing nearer the ideal of fiscal unity would drive that 
ideal farther off. There is no colonial producer who 
would not prefer the present system of free entry into the 
British market to the proposed system of a duty upon his 
goods and a higher duty upon foreign goods. 
This indeed is a crucial question both from the point 
of view of the Dominions and of our Allies, and it is well 
at once to face it, especially in view of the growing demand 
for protective duties at home for the special benefit of 
p 
■ 
■ 
^■^.V''■>' 
t^H 
1 
:«^ 
i^l 
^B 
-jif 
^^M 
^K 
'^S^ 
^^H 
m 
^f^^mmM 
m,. . 
■•■ ■■••■< ■.■■n.. ;»f " \, ■ -- -^j-: iJBBfe 
fe^^j^^^^^^^^^^^l 
British agriculture. The arguments for and against that 
proposal cannot be here considered in detail, but this 
fact must at once be faced, that it is impossible to protect 
British agricultural industries without imposing heavy 
duties upon agricultural products now supplied to us by 
our own colonies and by our Allies. 
\\c have then to consider whether, leaving aside both 
the proposals of the tariff reformers and the pre-war 
view of the ultra-free traders, we can take any practical 
steps which, while falling short of Mr. Chamberlain's 
ideal of free trade within the Empire, , may stiU make 
Imperial trade ' relations closer. There is one step 
which we can certainly take, namely to agree with 
the Dominions to penalise the trade of our enemies. 
If either by tariffs, or if necessary by absolute pro- 
hibitions, German trade is handicapped in all countries 
under the British flag, to that extent those countries 
will at any rate have the opportunity of trading 
more frequently and more fully with one another. 
On the political side the ideal vaguely floating in 
many minds is the creation of some form of truly 
Imperial Parliament. But the Dominions, quite intel- 
ligibly, look with alarm upon the possibility of an 
Imperial Parliament 
which would deprive 
them of even a portion 
of their present com- 
plete legislative inde- 
pendence. But it may, 
however, be suggested 
that there are certain 
inter-Imperial questions 
which can reasonably be 
referred to decision by 
an Imperial Council 
\vithout effectively 
encroaching upon the 
privileges of the various 
domestic legislatures. 
Probably any such Coun- 
cil would have to be 
composed rather of dele- 
gates from the existing 
governments than of 
representatives to be 
chosen by direct popular 
election. '; 
Without waiting for 
the creation of such an 
Imperial Council for 
settling inter - Imperial 
problems, there is one 
definite step towards 
closer Imperial union 
which might be taken 
at once. The present 
Parliament of the United 
Kingdom — frequently 
known as the Imperial 
Parliament, though the 
title is only partially 
justified — consists not 
only of the House of 
Commons, but also of the 
House of Lords. When England and Scotland were 
united by the Act of Union in 1707, it was very 
properly provided that the sovereign should no 
longer create peers of England, but that he should 
instead create peers of Great Britain. Subsequently 
when Great Britain and Ireland were united in 
1801, peerages of the United Kingdom were substituted 
for peerages of Great Britain. Cannot we, following these 
analogies, now provide for the creation of peerages of the 
Empire ? Such peerages must be freed from the serious 
objection attaching to existing Peerages, namely, their 
hereditary character, and be given for life only. They 
must clearly be limited in number, and precaution must 
be taken that the selecting authority is not affected by 
considerations of British party politics. Subject to these 
conditions, it would be an immense advantage if the 
King were at once authorised by Act of Parliament to 
create Peers of the Empire, without regard to creed or 
race or colour, to hold office for life and to act 
as spokesmen in the House of Lords for the oversea 
portions and problems of His Majesty's Dominions. 
Elliott and Ifry 
CECIL RHODES 
Born Bishop Stortford. July 5, 1853— Died Cope Town, March 26. 19D2 
