Page:The empire and the century.djvu/375



'Mr. Jebb [in his work on 'Colonial Nationalism' traces a distinction between "federation" and an "alliance" within the Empire by defining these words in a manner which, from my standpoint, appears arbitrary. There is no real opposition in the ideas sought to be distinguished by him, though there may be a sequence. A federation is a particular form of such an alliance. Apparently what he favours should be styled a "confederation" of States within the Empire, each of them a unit, dealing with its fellow-States as units. This would not permit either a common citizenship or a federal legislature chosen directly by all the people of these states, endowed with plenary powers within certain clearly-defined limits. A true federation would. The difference between confederation and federation is real—so real that the kinds of alliance they represent may be dealt with as mutually exclusive. They are not necessarily to be so treated, or to be opposed as antagonistic, during our growth. As a league we favour federation in some form. That is the ultimate goal of our ambition, though there are patriotic alliances which may anticipate and prelude it. The strongest and most intimate "alliance" will always be that of people with people, citizen with citizen directly and on the same footing, instead of their external junction in masses as separate States, indirectly through their Governments. It is quite possible that our existing confederacy may last for some time to come, and may have to suffice pending the adoption of federal principles. There is not yet a rigid antithesis between them, and we need not create one. We must wait, and must be content to wait, without dogmatizing. A formal and complete constitution of the Empire may not come into being for a long time to come. No artificial bonds can satisfy us. We start with a magnificent patrimony, desiring to see a natural development from the present loosely-associated and imperfectly organized collection of self-governing 332