Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity

by George R. Parkin

I attach very little importance to the opinion, sometimes expressed, that in view of the rapid increase of a native-born population in Australia, any measures looking towards national unity should be hurried forward before the generation born in the United Kingdom had passed away or lost its controlling influence. Other reasons there are for early movement, but not this one. The idea of national unity must win on its own merits. The growth of a native-born population may or may not make for consolidation, but it is on the judgment and sentiment of such a population that the strength of any union must ultimately depend. Meanwhile we may remember that four-fifths of the population of Canada is native-born; the fact has not weakened in the slightest degree the closeness of sympathy with Great Britain and the Empire.

Of the many ardent advocates of national unity, everywhere scattered throughout the Dominion, by far the larger proportion consists of native Canadians. So I believe it will ultimately be in Australia. The longer history of Canada, the more severe conditions of that history, seem to me to have given a greater {218} maturity and definiteness of political thought in Canada than in Australia.

It was often pointed out to me in Australia, by the older inhabitants, and particularly the older politicians, that among the un-travelled younger people of the colonies there was at present an extraordinarily exaggerated opinion of the absolute and relative importance of Australia in the world. A stranger naturally hesitates to generalize on the truth of such a criticism, though marking individual illustrations. I had the privilege of addressing a gathering of young men of the Sydney University. In a debate which followed one of the students asked: 'What single thing have people in England better than we Australians have here?' The manifest sincerity with which the question was asked made the remark deeply interesting—almost touching. The attitude of mind is accounted for by the lack of some standard of comparison close at hand. England has measured her strength with too many rivals to overrate her place in the world. Canada has had a great neighbour to force upon her a sense of proportion. The United States themselves emerged from the great war of Secession with a temper curiously modest and moderate as compared with the spread-eagleism which prevailed in the years when the country had known little but continuous prosperity, when its strength had not been tested by trial, and when a republican form of government was supposed to be a guarantee against all the ills from which monarchies were wont to suffer. {219} The remarkable conditions under which Australia has been developed, with no strong native races against which to struggle—with external enemies kept at a distance by British ironclads, or by fear of the British name, and with suddenly gained wealth almost without precedent in history—sufficiently account for any over-confident attitude on the part of very young Australians. This, time is sure to rectify. Political experience gives political perspective. Out-side of this it would be difficult to discover anything in the mass of Australians to indicate that they were likely to be different from Englishmen or Canadians in loyalty to a large nationality. I say the mass of Australians, for it would be idle to ignore the fact that another current of thought exists.

In two of the Australian colonies, New South Wales and Queensland, some journals are found which make it their business to cultivate an anti-British and separatist feeling, and it must be admitted that they give themselves to their task with great and unflagging energy. It is very difficult to estimate accurately the range of their influence. I found the most divergent opinions held upon the point by well-informed Australians themselves, some looking upon them, and the idea which they represented, as forces that would have to be reckoned with in the future: others regarding them as unworthy of notice, and without any permanent influence. Certainly in strength of language they have no parallel in any other part of the British world, or in the United States. British people {220} outside of Australia may be interested in knowing something of their tone and aim. I select a comparatively moderate passage. 'What does it [British Federation] offer us in exchange for our ideals and our aspirations, and our sympathies and our interests? … It offers us only an unwieldy Empire, crusted over with fungi, rotting with inequalities, governed by a class which is blown out with Privilege and Pride, that ignores the Spirit of the Age and clings to the brutal Past. In this Empire our Australia will be swamped, under it she would be buried; in it our inspiration to lift again the torch of Liberty would be smothered and drowned. We do not want it and we will not have it. Our Australia shall be as free from foreign control as is the sunshine that the Australian loves; as is the billowing sea that surges eternally around her shores. She shall in herself be complete, in sympathy with all, in dependence upon none. … We have no interest in British Trade and still less in the maintenance of the Empire. We do not care who owns India; we hope that if any more opium wars come about the white ensign will be blown out of Chinese waters; nothing would please us better than to hear that the Spaniards had retaken Gibraltar and the Germans Heligoland and that the huge facade of commercial aggression and oligarchic robbery had come down with a crash.'

This passage fairly represents a kind of political pabulum which is dealt out very freely and finds an audience in Sydney and Brisbane. For the most {221} part it is furnished, not by native Australians, but by imported talent. In Sydney a higher grade of newspaper freely discusses the question of separation from the Empire, with a distinct inclination towards independence as the true Australian ideal.

At a public meeting which I addressed in Sydney the statement of the arguments for British unity met with what seemed to me a distinctly unfriendly reception. The case stands quite alone in my experience of the British world. I was, however, to my surprise assured by leading men who were present that the hearing given me was, for Sydney, a very good one. If so, the lot of a public man in New South Wales is not an enviable one.

At this meeting Mr. Buchanan of the Legislative Council moved, and Mr. Traill of the Legislative Assembly seconded, a resolution, affirming that 'the natural and inevitable tendency of the Australian colonies is to unite and form among themselves one free and independent nation.' I give the names of the mover and seconder that the weight or weakness of their support of such a resolution may be justly estimated by those competent to judge. In comment upon the occurrence the leading Sydney journal, while repudiating any sympathy with the display of Separatist feeling, said, 'the fact is patent that within the last few years the opponents of closer union, even the advocates of separation, have gathered courage, spoken more boldly, and taken an aggressive attitude.' Australians therefore know what they have to deal {222} with. Mr. Dibbs, the present premier of New South Wales, has used expressions that indicate a wish for or an expectation of Australian independence. On the other hand, among the great majority of leading men in the colony, including native Australians of prominence and conspicuous ability, such as Mr. Barton and Mr. Reid, the opinion appeared general that separation from the Empire would mean for Australia 'all loss and no gain.' At the Sydney conference of 1891 the voice of Sir Henry Parkes was as decisive for permanent unity with the Empire as was that of Sir John Macdonald at Quebec in 1864.

Making all allowance, however, for division of opinion in Sydney, it must be remembered that New South Wales by no means represents all Australia.

If large and enthusiastic meetings, the hearty support of an influential and exceptionally able press, and the cordial approval of the clearest thinkers form a sufficient index to popular opinion, then one is justified in saying that the idea of national unity appeals strongly to the sentiment and to the reasoned conviction of the people of the next great colony, Victoria. The dominating energy of Victoria has extended its interests to every corner of the Australian continent. Its business connection with the mother-land is more important and intimate than that of any other colony. Hence the outlook on national questions is wide, and Victoria would steadily resist any tendency to separation from the Empire. The same may be said, I think, of South Australia, where the press is conspicuous {223} for its able and temperate discussion of national questions and where the prominent leaders of opinion are sincere believers in the permanent unity of the Empire.

In Queensland, as is well known, there has been in past years much talk of separation, chiefly arising from friction with the Colonial office being made a factor in local party conflicts. For some time Queensland refused to share in the expense for naval defence undertaken by the other colonies, the contribution for that purpose being denounced as 'tribute.' Later and wiser thought has reversed this decision. From its long coast-line and the immediate proximity of settlements formed by other nations, Queensland has more interest than any other colony in naval defence.