(2) The right of borrowing money on their own credit.

(3) All education other than higher education.

(4) Agriculture.

(5) Hospitals.

(6) Munic.i.p.al inst.i.tutions.

(7) All local works and undertakings within their provinces.

(8) All roads and bridges within their provinces.

(9) Markets and towns.

(10) Fish and game preservation.

(11) The right of fine and imprisonment, and (12) Generally all matters which, in the opinion of the Governor-General in Council, are of a merely local or private nature.

Ireland would not very much mind that kind of unionism!

The fact is, of course, that this instance of South Africa is a typical example of the principles of unity and division working at the same time. In regard to South Africa as a whole, the Union Act was a great and beneficent grant of Home Rule. It was the end of a long period of hara.s.sing interferences with the affairs of South Africa on the part of the Imperial Government at home, through its High Commissioner on the spot. That process is even now unfinished. It will probably in the end have to be brought to completion by the inclusion within the authority of the South African Parliament of countries like Rhodesia, and even, perhaps, of Basutoland.

But in regard to South Africa itself, the same Act was a case of true unionism required and necessitated by the conditions of the country.

Before 1909 the South African states were suffering within themselves from excessive division of functions. They were quarrelling over railways and tariffs. They were unable to pursue any common policy or common aim. That perpetual division of functions weakened them in the presence of the world, and rendered them unfit for local guidance. We should have a similar situation in this country if England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were all under separate governments, with separate tariffs and separate policy. In that case the doctrine we should be preaching to-day would not be Home Rule, but Unionism. For these two tendencies throughout the world are like a see-saw. Both are required for efficient government. Both may be carried to excessive and exaggerated lengths. Our case in regard to the United Kingdom is that unionism has been carried to excessive lengths, and requires to be tempered by Home Rule.

For let any Unionist glance round the world outside the British Empire.

He will find that the British do not stand alone in their trust in the Home Rule principle. Nearly every great Empire in the world rests upon Home Rule as its basis. Even Russia, perhaps the most centralised of all, has its provincial councils, known as the Zemstvos, and it was one of M. Stolypin's most daring actions that he even broke the letter of the Russian Const.i.tution in order to strengthen the Zemstvos of Eastern Russia. Finland, too, a province of Russia, possesses a larger form of local government than is even being demanded by Ireland. It is a curious irony of the present situation that many of those Britons who refuse self-government to Ireland are most diligent in watching the action of Russia in relation to the powerful and--up to the present--almost independent Parliament of Finland.

THE GERMAN EMPIRE

If we pa.s.s from Russia to the other great human combinations, we shall find the principle of Home Rule far more extensively and powerfully developed. Take China, a combination of 400,000,000 of human beings, now changing before our eyes from an absolute monarchy to a const.i.tutional republic. But whether as a monarchy or a republic, China has always rested her rule on gigantic and almost autonomous provinces, under separate Viceroys. Those provinces have doubtless been subject to the same autocratic control as China herself, but with the change in her central government they will probably pa.s.s by an easy transition into Home Rule provinces. Or come nearer home to an Empire which most Englishmen imagine to be the most centralised in the world--the German Empire. That Empire rests upon a basis of twenty-six autonomous governments, varying from autocracies at one end to republics at the other. The German Empire contains within it every form and shape of human community, varying from sheer mediaevalism to extreme modernism.

But whatever the form or shape of these separate governments, they are all alike in having control over their own local affairs. Most of the great states of Germany still possess control even over their own railways. They have their own Parliaments, their own judges, and, in many cases, their own reigning sovereigns. It was part of the wisdom of the founders of the German Empire that they made no attempt to interfere with these local powers. They contented themselves with combining all those forces for common defence, including them under a common tariff, and giving to them a common vote for a common a.s.sembly at the centre. In other words, Germany rests upon the two principles of unity and division, and in that combination lies its strength.

THE UNITED STATES

Or turn to the United States. There you have another of those powerful human governments resting on a basis of forty-six State authorities, each with its own legislature, and even with its own little army. Each of those state governments has control over such great matters as criminal and civil law, marriage and divorce, licensing, education, game laws, and the regulation of labour. They have the right to place a direct tax upon property. They have their own governors and their own ministries. And yet they all work harmoniously within the central authority of the Federal States. Probably by no other means could that great combination be held together.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Or come back to Europe, and take the astonishing case of Austria and Hungary. There you have two countries of different race and different language, with different ideals, and with bitter memories of past strife lying between them. A generation ago it was a commonplace among all politicians that the Austrian Empire must break up. Yet it still holds together, and has recently shown itself capable even of aggressive action. The prophecy of decay is being pushed further and further forward, and Austria still remains the great Christian bulwark of Europe. How has that miracle been achieved after the terrible internecine struggles of the mid-nineteenth century? How is it that Hungary has forgotten the hangings and the butcheries of the sixties, and still works within the Austrian Empire? Why, simply by virtue of the principle of Home Rule.

Austria and Hungary, indeed, represent a far more extreme and daring instance of this principle than it is necessary to put forward in regard to Ireland. They possess distinct Parliaments and distinct ministries. Those Parliaments sit apart and legislate apart and neither possess any representation in the other. But they have, as we have already seen, their link, not merely in a common Emperor and King, but in a common body called the Delegations. There is the Austrian Delegation and the Hungarian Delegation, both consisting of sixty members, twenty from each Upper House, and forty from each Lower House.

The delegations sit alternately at Vienna and Buda Pesth, and they deliberately and independently communicate their decisions by writing.

But if after three such interchanges no decision is arrived at, then the whole 120 meet together and settle the matter by vote without discussion. They possess a common Minister for Foreign Affairs, a common Minister of War, and a common Minister of Finance. Count Von Aehrenthal, who has in late years produced so startling an effect on European politics, is the common Minister for Foreign Affairs for Austria and Hungary, two countries with distinct Parliaments.

INDIA

I return from this tour of the world back to the British Empire. Here, too, the principle of Home Rule has been working, not merely in regard to our white dominions, but during the last ten years even more daringly in regard to the countries of our black subjects. The great Indian Reform Act of 1909 has created in India what are practically the first beginnings of Home Rule Councils. Seven great provinces of India have now each of them Legislative Councils of their own, and on nearly all of these Councils the unofficial members are in the majority.[71]

The powers of these Legislative Councils are still very limited; but who can doubt that they will increase?

We are, in other words, faced with the fact that while Ireland has been waiting for Home Rule we have taken the first great step in granting Home Rule to India. Surely this is a fact that presents a new challenge to the reactionary Unionist of the United Kingdom. Does he really contend that Ireland is incapable of receiving the same liberties as we are granting to India? Or will he make the wicked and dangerous suggestion that we are only conceding these things to India by force from fear of disorder, and in that way threaten the happy peace of Ireland?

Surely the concession of Home Rule to India removes the last vestige of an Imperial argument against Home Rule for Ireland also!

Such are the results of a general survey at the present moment. They show that in proposing Home Rule for Ireland we are not rowing against the tide, but following the drift of a general law which is prevailing all over the world.

FOOTNOTES:

[69] See Appendix K. This figure includes, of course, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

[70] See the Letters of Lord Aberdeen quoted by Mr. Gladstone.

[71] The Governors of Madras and Bombay and the five Lieutenant-Governors each have Legislative Councils. Under the new scheme the Legislative Councils of the provinces are const.i.tuted as follows:--

Madras 48 members. 20 official. 26 unofficial. 2 experts.

Bombay 48 " 18 " 28 " 2 "

Bengal 51 " 18 " 31 " 2 "

United 49 " 21 " 26 " 2 "

Provinces East Bengal 43 " 18 " 23 " 2 "

and a.s.sam Punjab 27 " 11 " 14 " 2 "

Burma 18 " 7 " 9 " 2 "

HOME RULE FINANCE

"You gave 20,000,000 to the negroes or to their masters. Will you give 20,000,000 to the Irish?"

O'CONNELL

"The n.o.ble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, spoke of the cloud which rests at present over Ireland. It is a dark and heavy cloud, and its darkness extends over the feelings of men in all parts of the British Empire. But there is a consolation which we may all take to ourselves. An inspired King and bard and prophet has left us words which are not only the expression of a fact, but which we may take as the utterance of a prophecy. He says, 'To the upright there ariseth light in the darkness.' Let us try in this matter to be upright. Let us try to be just. That cloud will be dispelled. The dangers which surround us will vanish, and we may yet have the happiness of leaving to our children the heritage of an honourable citizenship in a united and prosperous Empire."

JOHN BRIGHT (1868)

CHAPTER X.

HOME RULE FINANCE