Any discussion of Imperial organization must start from some fairly definite conception, not only of the present inter-State position, which is the hypothesis of the problem, but also of the ideal which it is hoped to promote, or at least not to retard, by the scheme proposed. In the passage quoted above, Mr. Deakin has given a very clear summary of the essential difference between the federalist ideal of Empire (including for my purpose only the autonomous democracies) and other conceivable forms of Imperial union. A federal union implies the junction of citizen to individual citizen directly and on the same footing—to that extent obliterating the State boundaries—whereas a 'confederacy' or 'alliance' implies only the external association of those masses of citizens which are called States, indirectly through their Governments. As for the present position, Mr. Deakin refers to 'our existing confederacy.'
This question of terms and expressions is one of the standing difficulties in discussions of Imperial evolution. Perhaps every writer who wishes to be lucid must expose himself to the charge of being 'arbitrary.' Mr. Deakin's explanation of the distinction between federation and confederation strikes me as another example of arbitrariness. It is valuable because it does clearly convey a real distinction of practical importance. But, as regards his use of the terms, what about the Dominion? So far from being a looser form of union than the American or Australian 'federations,' the Canadian 'confederacy' is a closer form than either of them. In it the 'residuum of sovereignty'—i.e., all powers not specifically assigned to the provincial Governments—resides in the central authority. But in the United States and the Commonwealth the conception of independent States is fundamental, and so the
