CHAP, Ti1] THE CONFERENCE OF 1911 1505
representatives of the United Kingdom on the Parliament
body would make up for the loss by the Imperial Government
of its present control of foreign relations. In fact the Imperial
Government would have practically the same power as at
present, but it would be a real Imperial Government, as
the Dominions would be indirectly represented. Sir Joseph
Ward added that even if no member of the Conference should
be in agreement with his views he would still hold that the
existing position was unsatisfactory, and that some measure
must be devised for the representation of the growing
democracies of the Dominions.
The proposal, however, failed to find acceptance in any
quarter. Sir Wilfrid Laurier! said that even had the
resolution remained in its original form he would have had
some difficulty in accepting it, but a legislative body which
had power to impose expenditure but could not raise revenue
was quite indefensible, and the proposal was absolutely
impracticable. Mr. Fisher ? was of opinion that there was
nothing the matter with the Government of the Empire
which could not be removed by conference from time
to time. Even had the proposal as originally drafted been
put forward he could not have accepted it in that form.
General Botha ® was also unable to concur in the proposal ;
he was of opinion that an Imperial Council must necessarily
encroach upon the self-governing powers of the various parts
of the Empire. He did not think that the time was yet ripe
for the coming into existence of a body of elective represen-
tatives of the different parts of the Empire. Sir Edward
Morris 4 also thought that nothing could yet be done : even-
tually some representation in the Imperial Parliament would
be desirable, but the control of war and treaties and foreign
affairs must at least for a very long time still rest in the
hands of the Imperial Government.
Mr. Asquith,’ on behalf of the Imperial Government,
referred to the memorial presented to him by a large number
+ Cd. 5745, pp. 67, 68. See Sir J, Ward's reply on p. 72.
« Ibid., pp. 68, 69. * Ibid., pp. 69, 70.
Thid., pp. 70, 71. * Ibid., pp. 71, 72.
