Welsh Journals

LABOUR AND WELSH AUTONOMY We publish below extracts from further letters received from well-known labour men and others commenting upon the suggestions contained in the article by G on Labour and Welsh Autonomy," which appeared in our April number:- Mr. GEORGE LANSBURY, Editor of The Herald (the National Labour Weekly), formerly M.P. for Bow and Bromley. I have read the article on Labour and Welsh Autonomy." I think labour ought to stand for the right of all nationalities to develop their own lives in their own way, but I am also a federalist. I believe nationalism carried to the extreme is just the same as individualism carried to the extreme. As individualists, we find it better to sub- ordinate many of our wishes and desires for the good, not only of our- selves, but the community we live amongst. So with nations. Each nation has its rights, but no nation can live alone under modern con- ditions, and I am not sure that it would be good that they should. We want to have freedom of access into each other's country; we want also to be free to move about these countries but this must be reciprocal. The coloured man must have an equal right with the white man. Indians and Chinese must be as free to come and live in England as Englishmen to live in India and China. At the same time, neither Englishmen nor coloured men must use this privilege or right as a means of lowering the standard of life of other nationalities. The Chinese must not come to England to pull down our standard of life, and we must not go to China merely to exploit and keep down the teeming millions of that country. It appears to me that all over the world this question is up for dis- cussion and settlement. It applies not merely to Great Britain and Ireland but also to Egypt, India, the Kaffirs in South Africa, the Chinese in Hong Kong, the Bhuddists and Mahomedans in Ceylon, and all other nationalities living under the British flag. Also to our Allies and our enemies on the Continent. Whatever our feeelings may be about the Germans, it is true that at Versailles in 1871, Bismarck and the late Emperor William managed to frame a German federal scheme which, while it kept Prussia at the centre, did give a large amount of autonomy to the various kingdoms and pro- vinces that make up the German Empire. I was astonished when at Hamburg to find that it was what is known as a free city, that it had many of its own laws, and, in fact, had a kind of autonomy which does not exist, as far as I know, anywhere in this country. The Austrian Empire is federal also, but both these are held together by military power, not by the goodwill of the smaller nationalities that come within their dominion. The same can be said with respect to many of the nations under British rule. We hold Ireland, India, Egypt by the sword we hold the dominions of South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand by the power of goodwill. The reason is not far to seek. These latter countries are controlled and managed by white men. In granting self-government to her colonies Great Britain has been careful thus far to grant this boon only to the whites who thus become the predominant power. The time has come when we must go much farther and when we shall be called upon by the inhabitants of the above named countries to put our principles into practice and allow Indians to rule India, Egyptians Egypt, and Irish Ireland. If the British dominions are to remain and to progress along lines which will lead to a higher and nobler civilisation, then our Empire must be turned into a commonwealth of free nations, each coming in as a partner, each taking a legitimate share of the burdens common to them all, and each preserving to itself the right of developing its own literature, art, science, education, etc., in its own way. Such a federation of the four kingdoms that make up the British Isles would have a kind of autonomy the writer of your article suggests, but I also hope to see the day when there will be a federal Parliament repre- senting the United States of Britain in a wider sense-a Federation which will include within that Parliament representatives directly elected y men and women of all the nationalities, that make up the British dominions of to-day. It seems to me that this would be the first step towards the federation of the world, because we should be bringing together all the various races living within those portions of the world dominated by Britain, and by so doing prove our willingness to live up to the professions we are making in connection with the War, viz., that Britain desires all nations great and small to have and enjoy the full right of self-determination. This has not been her policy in the past, either in Ireland or towards more remote countries, and it is because we have been out for Empire, been out for exploitation, been out for money and moneys-worth that we are in so parlous a condition to-day. This, of course, is true of Germany, France and Italy. It is land-hunger, the desire to exploit which has brought the world to this pass. We can retrace our steps in one way only, and that is to recognise that the rights of nations, like the rights of individuals, are limited by the rights of each other; that no nation, great or small, has a right to dominate another any more than a clever highly skilled man, or set of men, have the right to dominate and control large masses of their own countrymen. AH nations must adopt and put into practice the Wilson formula "I will ask nothing from any nation I am not willing to concede to them." This is the pathway to peace. Councillor MORGAN JONES, prospective I.L.P. Parliamentary Candidate for the Caerphilly Division. There can be no doubt as to the attitude a Labour Party ought to adopt towards the Home Rule movement. The Labour movement believes in the people, its hope lies in the people, its work is for the people. Its one message to the people is Govern yourselves." It follows, therefore, that any movement which promises to bring each citizen into more intimate touch with the machine of government should receive from our movement the most sympathetic consideration. There is nothing more tragic in connection with our government at this moment than the enormous gulf which separates the ordinary citizen from the Legislature, and in a large measure from the administrative machine. Labour's attitude should depend upon the kind of Home Rule intended. Labour is not likely to get very enthusiastic over a glorified County Council idea. For, explain it as one will, the spirit of conservatism has found no more fruitful soil anywhere than within the precincts of our most important County Councils. There may be reasons for this, but they are difficult to find. An immense amount of time is taken up in adminis- trative work of the Councils, and only leisured and well-to-do people can undertake the work. The proceedings are rarely reported, and little is known of the quantity or quality of the work done, with the result that there is almost a complete absence of public interest. But if, by a Welsh Parliament, is meant a body elected on the basis of adult suffrage, and on the most democratic method of election, with payment of members, it is difficult to see what objection the Labour movement can have. At the same time, one would like to see the possi- bility of Home Rule becoming a plank in the electoral platform of any single party avoided, if possible. But the condition governing that possibility would have to be clear and precise. It would be preferable that Welsh Home Rule should be granted as part of a general scheme of Home Rule for all four countries in the British Isles. And such an agreement of all the parties so as to secure the most complete measure of self-government ought not to be difficult of attainment. At the same time, it would be very deplorable if any attempt were made to whittle down the Labour party demand for a thoroughly complete and demo- cratic measure of Home Rule just for the luxury of securing a sham unity with the other parties. The future should not be placed in pawn as a pledge for present co-operation. It would be desirable to secure Home Rule by agreement for at least two potent reasons. In the first place, the need for social reconstruction after the War is conceded by all. Indeed, one grows a little sceptical at times when one reflects upon the unanimity with which lip service is being rendered at this moment to the new duty of Reconstruction." Certainly, this charming unanimity is not a little interesting. But, for the Labour party, this question is a very serious matter. It will admit of no delay. It must be the party's chief concern the moment favorable conditions offer themselves. All the Labour forces will require to present a united front on that matter. It follows therefore that we shall not want the Home Rule herring drawn across our path. Let it be agreed that the securing of that herring will be desirable, but let it be picked up while we strive for the bigger fish." There is the further advantage of securing Home Rule by agreement, namely, that providing such a measure is generous in the matter of powers granted to our ownMegislature and executive bodies, we ought to be able to do our own reconstruction according to our own ideas.