representative government-第49章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　equal　federation；　the　mother　country　retaining　to　itself　the　powers　of　a　Federal　Government；　though　reduced　in　practice　to　their　very　narrowest　limits。　This　inequality　is；　of　course；　as　far　as　it　goes；　a　disadvantage　to　the　dependencies；　which　have　no　voice　in　foreign　policy；　but　are　bound　by　the　decisions　of　the　superior　country。　They　are　compelled　to　join　England　in　war；　without　being　in　any　way　consulted　previous　to　engaging　in　it。　　　Those　（now　happily　not　a　few）　who　think　that　justice　is　as　binding　on　communities　as　it　is　on　individuals；　and　that　men　are　not　warranted　in　doing　to　other　countries；　for　the　supposed　benefit　of　their　own　country；　what　they　would　not　be　justified　in　doing　to　other　men　for　their　own　benefit…　feel　even　this　limited　amount　of　constitutional　subordination　on　the　part　of　the　colonies　to　be　a　violation　of　principle；　and　have　often　occupied　themselves　in　looking　out　for　means　by　which　it　may　be　avoided。　With　this　view　it　has　been　proposed　by　some　that　the　colonies　should　return　representatives　to　the　British　legislature；　and　by　others；　that　the　powers　of　our　own；　as　well　as　of　their　Parliaments；　should　be　confined　to　internal　policy；　and　that　there　should　be　another　representative　body　for　foreign　and　imperial　concerns；　in　which　last　the　dependencies　of　Great　Britain　should　be　represented　in　the　same　manner；　and　with　the　same　completeness；　as　Great　Britain　itself。　On　this　system　there　would　be　perfectly　equal　federation　between　the　mother　country　and　her　colonies；　then　no　longer　dependencies。　　　The　feelings　of　equity；　and　conceptions　of　public　morality；　from　which　these　suggestions　emanate；　are　worthy　of　all　praise；　but　the　suggestions　themselves　are　so　inconsistent　with　rational　principles　of　government　that　it　is　doubtful　if　they　have　been　seriously　accepted　as　a　possibility　by　any　reasonable　thinker。　Countries　separated　by　half　the　globe　do　not　present　the　natural　conditions　for　being　under　one　government；　or　even　members　of　one　federation。　If　they　had　sufficiently　the　same　interests；　they　have　not；　and　never　can　have；　a　sufficient　habit　of　taking　counsel　together。　They　are　not　part　of　the　same　public；　they　do　not　discuss　and　deliberate　in　the　same　arena；　but　apart；　and　have　only　a　most　imperfect　knowledge　of　what　passes　in　the　minds　of　one　another。　They　neither　know　each　other's　objects；　nor　have　confidence　in　each　other's　principles　of　conduct。　Let　any　Englishman　ask　himself　how　he　should　like　his　destinies　to　depend　on　an　assembly　of　which　one…third　was　British　American；　and　another　third　South　African　and　Australian。　Yet　to　this　it　must　come　if　there　were　anything　like　fair　or　equal　representation；　and　would　not　every　one　feel　that　the　representatives　of　Canada　and　Australia；　even　in　matters　of　an　imperial　character；　could　not　know；　or　feel　any　sufficient　concern　for；　the　interests；　opinions；　or　wishes　of　English；　Irish；　and　Scotch？　Even　for　strictly　federative　purposes　the　conditions　do　not　exist　which　we　have　seen　to　be　essential　to　a　federation。　England　is　sufficient　for　her　own　protection　without　the　colonies；　and　would　be　in　a　much　stronger；　as　well　as　more　dignified　position；　if　separated　from　them；　than　when　reduced　to　be　a　single　member　of　an　American；　African；　and　Australian　confederation。　Over　and　above　the　commerce　which　she　might　equally　enjoy　after　separation；　England　derives　little　advantage；　except　in　prestige；　from　her　dependencies；　and　the　little　she　does　derive　is　quite　outweighed　by　the　expense　they　cost　her；　and　the　dissemination　they　necessitate　of　her　naval　and　military　force；　which　in　case　of　war；　or　any　real　apprehension　of　it；　requires　to　be　double　or　treble　what　would　be　needed　for　the　defence　of　this　country　alone。　　　But　though　Great　Britain　could　do　perfectly　well　without　her　colonies；　and　though　on　every　principle　of　morality　and　justice　she　ought　to　consent　to　their　separation；　should　the　time　come　when；　after　full　trial　of　the　best　form　of　union；　they　deliberately　desire　to　be　dissevered…　there　are　strong　reasons　for　maintaining　the　present　slight　bond　of　connection；　so　long　as　not　disagreeable　to　the　feelings　of　either　party。　It　is　a　step；　as　far　as　it　goes；　towards　universal　peace；　and　general　friendly　cooperation　among　nations。　It　renders　war　impossible　among　a　large　number　of　otherwise　independent　communities；　and　moreover　hinders　any　of　them　from　being　absorbed　into　a　foreign　state；　and　becoming　a　source　of　additional　aggressive　strength　to　some　rival　power；　either　more　despotic　or　closer　at　hand；　which　might　not　always　be　so　unambitious　or　so　pacific　as　Great　Britain。　It　at　least　keeps　the　markets　of　the　different　countries　open　to　one　another；　and　prevents　that　mutual　exclusion　by　hostile　tariffs；　which　none　of　the　great　communities　of　mankind；　except　England；　have　yet　completely　outgrown。　And　in　the　case　of　the　British　possessions　it　has　the　advantage；　especially　valuable　at　the　present　time；　of　adding　to　the　moral　influence；　and　weight　in　the　councils　of　the　world；　of　the　Power　which；　of　all　in　existence；　best　understands　liberty…　and　whatever　may　have　been　its　errors　in　the　past；　has　attained　to　more　of　conscience　and　moral　principle　in　its　dealings　with　foreigners　than　any　other　great　nation　seems　either　to　conceive　as　possible　or　recognise　as　desirable。　Since；　then；　the　union　can　only　continue；　while　it　does　continue；　on　the　footing　of　an　unequal　federation；　it　is　important　to　consider　by　what　means　this　small　amount　of　inequality　can　be　prevented　from　being　either　onerous　or　humiliating　to　the　communities　occupying　the　less　exalted　position。　　　The　only　inferiority　necessarily　inherent　in　the　case　is　that　the　mother　country　decides；　both　for　the　colonies　and　for　herself；　on　questions　of　peace　and　war。　They　gain；　in　return；　the　obligation　on　the　mother　country　to　repel　aggressions　directed　against　them；　but；　except　when　the　minor　community　is　so　weak　that　the　protection　of　a　stronger　power　is　indispensable　to　it；　reciprocity　of　obligation　is　not　a　full　equivalent　for　non…admission　to　a　voice　in　the　deliberations。　It　is　essential；　therefore；　that　in　all　wars；　save　those　which；　like　the　Caffre　or　New　Zealand　wars；　are　incurred　for　the　sake　of　the　particular　colony；　the　colonists　should　not　（without　their　own　voluntary　request）　be　called　on　to　contribute　anything　to　the　expense；　except　what　may　be　required　for　the　specific　local　defence　of　their　ports；　shores；　and　frontiers　against　invasion。　Moreover；　as　the　mother　country　claims　the　privilege；　at　her　sole　discretion；　of　taking　measures　or　pursuing　a　policy　which　may　expose　them　to　attack；　it　is　just　that　she　should　undertake　a　considerable　portion　of　the　cost　of　their　military　defence　even　in　time　of　peace；　the　whole　of　it；　so　far　as　it　depends　upon　a　standing　army。　　　But　there　is　a　means；　still　more　effectual　than　these；　by　which；　and　in　general　by　which　alone；　a　full　equivalent　can　be　given　to　a　smaller　community　for　sinking　its　individuality；　as　a　substantive　power　among　nations；　in　the　greater　individuality　of　a　wide　and　powerful　empire。　This　one　indispensable　and；　at　the　same　time；　sufficient　expedient；　which　meets　at　once　the　demands　of　justice　and　the　growing　exigencies　of　policy；　is　to　open　the　service　of　Government　in　all　its　departments；　and　in　every　part　of　the　empire；　on　perfectly　equal　terms；　to　the　inhabitants　of　the　Colonies。　Why　does　no　one　ever　hear　a　breath　of　disloyalty　from　the　Islands　in　the　British　Channel？　By　race；　religion；　and　geographical　position　they　belong　less　to　England　than　to　France。　But；　while　they　enjoy；　like　Canada　and　New　South　Wales；　complete　control　over　their　internal　affairs　and　their　taxation；　every　office　or　dignity　in　the　gift　of　the　Crown　is　freely　open　to　the　native　of　Guernsey　or　Jersey。　Generals；　admirals；　peers　of　the　United　Kingdom；　are　made；　and　there　is　nothing　which　hinders　prime　ministers　to　be　made；　from　those　insignificant　islands。　The　same　system　was　commenced　in　reference　to　the　Colonies　generally　by　an　enlightened　Colonial　Secretary；　too　early　lost；　Sir　William　Molesworth；　when　he　appointed　Mr。　Hinckes；　a　leading　Canadian　politician；　to　a　West　Indian　government。　It　is　a　very　shallow　view　of　the　springs　of　political　action　in　a　community　which　thinks　such　things　unimportant　because　the　number　of　those　in　a　position　actually　to　profit　by　the　concession　might　not　be　very　considerable。　That　limited　number　would　be　composed　precisely　of　those　who　have　most　moral　power　over　the　rest：　and　men　are　not　so　destitute　of　the　sense　of　collective　degradation　as　not　to　feel　the　withholding　of　an　advantage　from　even　one　person；　because　of　a　circumstance　which　they　all　have　in　common　with　him；　an　affront　to　all。　If　we　prevent　the　leading　men　of　a　community　from　standing　forth　to　the　world　as　its　chiefs　and　representatives　in　the　general　councils　of　mankind；　we　owe　it　both　to　their　legitimate　ambition；　and　to　the　just　pride　of　the　community；　to　give　them　in　return　an　equal　chance　of　occupying　the　same　prominent　position　in　a　nation　of　greater　power　and　importance。　　　Thus　far　of　the　dependencies　whose　population　is　in　a　sufficiently　advanced　state　to　be　fitted　for　representative　government。　But　there　are　others　which　have　not　attained　that　state；　and　which；　if　held　at　all；　must　be　governed　by　the　dominant　country；　or　by　persons　delegated　for　that　purpose　by　it。　This　mode　of　government　is　as　legitimate　as　any　other　if　it　is　the　one　which　in　the　existing　state　of　civilisation　of　the　subject　people　most　facilitates　their　transition　to　a　higher　stage　of　improvement。　There　are；　as　we　have　already　seen；　conditions　of　society　in　which　a　vigorous　despotism　is　in　itself　the　best　mode　of　government　for　training　the　people　in　what　is　specifically　wanting　to　render　them　capable　of　a　higher　civilisation。　There　are　others；　in　which　the　mere　fact　of　despotism　has　indeed　no　beneficial　effect；　the　lessons　which　it　teaches　having　already　been　only　too　completely　learnt；　but　in　which；　there　being　no　spring　of　spontaneous　improvement　in　the　people　themselves；　their　almost　only　hope　of　making　any　steps　in　advance　depends　on　the　chances　of　a　good　despot。　Under　a　native　despotism；　a　good　despot　is　a　rare　and　transitory　accident：　but　when　the　dominion　they　are　under　is　that　of　a　more　civilised　people；　that　people　ought　to　be　able　to　supply　it　constantly。　The　ruling　country　ought　to　be　able　to　do　for　its　subjects　all　that　could　be　done　by　a　succession　of　absolute　monarchs；　guaranteed　by　irresistible　force　against　the　precariousness　of　tenure　attendant　on　barbarous　despotisms；　and　qualified　by　their　genius　to　anticipate　all　that　experience　has　taught　to　the　more　advanced　nation。　Such　is　the　ideal　rule　of　a　free　people　over　a　barbarous　or　semi…barbarous　one。　We　need　not　expect　to　see　that　ideal　realised；　but　unless　some　approach　to　it　is；　the　rulers　are　guilty　of　a　dereliction　of　the　highest　moral　trust　which　can　devolve　upon　a　nation：　and　if　they　do　not　even　'him　at　it；　they　are　selfish　usurpers；　on　a　par　in　criminality　with　any　of　those　whose　ambition　and　rapacity　have　sported　from　age　to　age　with　the　destiny　of　masses　of　mankind。　　　As　it　is　already　a　common；　and　is　rapidly　tending　to　become　the　universal；　condition　of　the　more　backward　populations；　to　be　either　held　in　direct　subjection　by　the　more　advanced；