Welsh Journals

Search over 450 titles and 1.2 million pages

Home Rule, were were divided on details. The impression which I received from the Conference which was held to discuss the details was one of doubt whether we can even take the principle for granted. To the convinced Home Ruler the establishment of a Welsh Parliament is not merely a testimony to national sentiment, it is also a test. It is both a tribute and a trial. The Conference at Shrewsbury would, I have no doubt, have cordially accepted a motion de- claring its adherence to Home Rule. But would it have done more had decisions been invited? There are more ways of killing a cat than by drowning it, and there are more ways of defeating a policy than by submerging it on a vote. For practical purposes there is little difference between saying that we do not want a Welsh Parliament, and saying that we do want it but that we cannot afford it at present, or that the particular sort of Parliament that we want is not that under discussion. And it was for practical purposes that the Shrewsbury Conference was summoned. Its promoters will, I am sure, agree with me in ex- pressing appreciation of the courtesy shown by the Councils which appointed delegates, and that of those who attended, and acknowledgment of the helpful and practical counsel offered by those who took part in the discussion. I do not know whether my impressions are theirs. It may be that I am unduly influenced, not so much by what the Conference was, as by the thought of what it might have been but was not not so much by the fifty who were present, as by the NATIONALITY & STATE. The true poetry of Rome lived in its institutions." — SHELLEY. IN his excellent book on Nationality and its Problems," Mr. Sidney Herbert says: Nation- alism allied with the! modem theory of the State is the very definition of tyranny (p. 133). In the last chapter of this book Mr. Herbert also says The conception of nationality must be divorced from that of the State. They answer to different needs, fulfil different functions. To thrust them into an enforced and unnatural marriage is to sin alike against reason and experience. The only issue of such a union will be, in the future as in the past, tyranny, hatred, and the spirit of revenge." There seems an obvious difference between nation- ality and nationalism the one, to my mind, seems equivalent to individuality, the other to individualism. Having this distinction clearly in mind we can realise the danger expressed in the first sentence quoted above concerning the alliance of national individualism and the pugnacious "modem theory of State. But is Mr. Herbert right in wishing so strongly to divorce the conception of nationality from that of the State ? It seems to me that he is not justified in making this claim. Much depends, of course, on what we mean by State. That Mr. Herbert himself is not quite clear and consistent is proved by his statement (in his last chapter) that The true function of the hundred and fifty (and more) who were absent. An empty chair can be very eloquent. I left the hall impressed by the absence of interest and enthusiasm which those vacant benches indicated. Do they also indicate the absence of any popular demand? It is not safe to be too positive, but one lesson they surely teach. Those who advocate Home Rule should explain what it is that t'hey hope to achieve those who are doubtful should explain, what it is that they fear. Frankness is the basis of confidence, and without confidence we should make nothing of a Welsh Parliament even if we had: one. Finally, I left the Conference convinced of the necessity of instructing ourselves and each other in the practical application of that principle of self-govern- ment which was a fountain of inspiration to those who were responsible for the political awakening of Wales. It is worthy of note, and a subject for serious reflection, that this apathy should prevail at a time when the national sentiment is as strong as ever. Of that I am convinced. Were it otherwise, one would, indeed, have cause to be sad. A more ironical fate could not be conceived than that, at a time when the principle of Nationality receives greater homage and more practical expression than has been 5ts lot for many generations, so dis- tinctive, compact, and virile a nationality as ours should find itself. of its own fault, neglected, and that Wales should be deprived of the privileges and, more important still, of the opportunities which should be the prerogatives of her nationhood. By D. Jefrey Williams. State is to make liberty and social co-operation pos- sible. The constitution of a multi-national state therefore, must guarantee adequate opportunities for cultural self-expression to all nations within its bor- ders." We are, it seems, to trust the multi-national state to guarantee cultural self-expression, but to consider the national state as the enemy of the nation, the unnatural marriage of which will produce tyranny and hatred and revenge. Many questions leap to one's mind in considering this relation of nationality to state. Is the modern theory of State,-the Bismarkian, iron-fisted, brute- force theory-the only theory and a right theory? Is that of, say, Professor Seely. summed up in his own words as command enforced by penalty," with its underlying assumption and implications, a true view of the State? Is the definition given in the Encyclo- paedia Britarmica, e.f., the word State expresses the abstract idea of government in general, or the govern- ing authority as opposed to the governed," the last word on this question? Is the State, rightly considered, the natural enemy of liberty, of growth and self-expression in so far as a nation is concerned ? Is the State an artificial instrument created by or brought into being as the result of a so-called contract that must be based