3-tier Imperial Parliament in London

[Grey Wolf]

I was thinking that a third house, say call it the Imperial Senate, could be established alongside the Commons and the Lords

The exact make-up would be either one delegate from each dominion, or crown colony, or whatever the criteria is. Or it would be based on population, but I can't really see the logic of say Canada sending 8 delegates etc. Maybe there would be weighted votes instead? Newfoundland casting 1 vote, Canada 8 or something?

But I think it more likely that the powers of the Imperial Senate would be sufficiently narrow that one-member one-vote for anyone considered eligible would work.

I think it would also have to be logical that nobody could be a member of more than one house - so that if an elected member of the Commons is made the UK representative to the Imperial Senate they must vacate their seat for a by-election.

If a member of the Lords is made the representative, it at first looks more complex, but legally a noble at the time is a member of the Lords because he is issued a writ to attend, not because of his title, which is his eligibility, not his membership. For example if you are the eldest son of a duke, and the duke dies, you will expect to succeed him (letters patent from the crown), but you wouldn't just be able to walk into the Lords and sit down, without being invited.
(see https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/writ-of-summons/
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer#Writs_of_summons)

Therefore if a lord was made a representative to the Imperial Senate (and since the nobility did emigrate, this might even be as Australia's representative, for example), then the writ inviting them to the Lords could just be withdrawn?

As for the powers of the Imperial Senate, it would have to be focused solely on what would affect every member of it with regards to legislation. Quite what that means, and how the body relates back to governors or governor generals, would need to be worked out.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

The Dominions won't accept a one-colony-one-vote system, as it would gravely weaken their influence in London. It would be a major step down from the system of conferences and agents-generals- why on earth would Canada and Australia, autonomous democracies with millions of people, accept the same representation as the Crown Colony of Jamaica or Fiji?

Imperial Federation was tremendously unlikely, but if you want to make it work you need to go back and look at the proposals that were put forward at the time- and not just from Britain. In many ways, it's far harder to find a system that's acceptable to voters in Melbourne or Ottawa (to say nothing of Montreal, given how racialised the Imperial Federation discourse was) than it is to find one that works for London.

So look to the proposals put forward in the Dominions first.

 

[sarahz]

The Dominions won't accept a one-colony-one-vote system, as it would gravely weaken their influence in London. It would be a major step down from the system of conferences and agents-generals- why on earth would Canada and Australia, autonomous democracies with millions of people, accept the same representation as the Crown Colony of Jamaica or Fiji?

Imperial Federation was tremendously unlikely, but if you want to make it work you need to go back and look at the proposals that were put forward at the time- and not just from Britain. In many ways, it's far harder to find a system that's acceptable to voters in Melbourne or Ottawa (to say nothing of Montreal, given how racialised the Imperial Federation discourse was) than it is to find one that works for London.

So look to the proposals put forward in the Dominions first.

It could be done. The real problem is if its the whole Empire there has to be a system that allows the existing Dominions due weight, but does not end up becoming completely Indian dominated, thats quite difficult unless India becomes several Dominions.

 

[Devvy]

It's possible, but you'd have to limit it to the actually top level governments; ie. exclude the colonies, because they fall under the UK banner. Otherwise you end up with the issue Chickpea mentioned; why would the UK, India, or one of the other major Dominions want to share the stage with Jamaica or some other smaller country?

Which makes the Imperial Senate a small group of the core nations (UK, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa in 1921), probably with the UK as first-amongst-equals to preserve the UK pomp. I guess other countries could be allowed in upon attaining "Dominionhood" (or whatever level of self government is required under the "Imperial umbrella"), but I'd also guess there would need to be some eligibility (ie. federate with your neighbours to reach population requirements, stay as a colony, or go independent).

PS: Going independent in this scenario, would be a little risky. In a world with an Imperial Senate, I'd imagine Imperial Preference is a thing, and I'd imagine that would spur much of the world economy to form in to trade blocs (French Economic Community, Latin America, etc etc) for which each would discriminate against the others blocs. Going independent unless you have a horde of rare resources would be risky.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Rig the voting system.

“India” gets one vote. For the government of India. And one vote for the territories administered by the Indian Government. And one vote for the Princely States (in some form of “association” maybe?) and possibly one for the larger Native States (Hyderabad, etc). In theory, they’re each to represent distinct different interests and communities of the Empire. In practice, they form a voting block that carries greater weight than the smaller colonies and would be dominated by White Colonial administrators that can likely be trusted to vote with London on key issues.

The Dominions would get a vote apiece, but maybe sit on some form of Council that gets to decide what is voted on in the first place.

As for Britain... Only one vote? How about one vote for each Nation of Britain plus some kind of “Royal vote” that represents the Monarchy? It’s not difficult to see an Imperial Parliament (I don’t like ‘senate’) would be coupled with a form of “Home Rule for All” that sees Scotland Wales and England gaining distinct Parliaments to go with Ireland’s.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Imperial Federation was heavily tied up with Anglo-Saxonism; if you actually read proposals for how it would work most of them don't mention India, but also struggle with how to accommodate Afrikaners, French-Canadians and of course the Irish.

Even if we handwave a Federation into existence, it would face a crisis of decolonisation in the twentieth century. Yes, as @Devvy suggest independence would be more economically risky in world of imperial preference; but I would say that in this world the British are more likely to face an analogue to France's late imperial wars as governments fail to understand why the vast majority of African and Asian subjects don't feel an attachment to a political situation where a literate elite get second-class citizenship and everyone else is permanently locked out of power.

Above all, though, these forum threads never address the problem that there was never any point between 1870 and 1914- which I believe to be a generous end date, since all my reading suggests the Imperial Federation project's chances had massively declined by the 1900s- no point at all, where Imperial Federation commanded the majority support of a single government in Britain, Canada, South Africa or Australia. Brilliant advocates like Joseph Chamberlain and Alfred Deakin do not a workable parliamentary majority make.
So not only does the aspiring alternate historian need to find a scheme of federation that attracts majority support in even one of those polities, which of course never happened, they need to find one that will attract worldwide support even though those polities have competing interests, and keep that support alive enough for the probably decades long process to implement it.

From Benjamin Mountford's 'Colonial Australia, the 1887 Colonial Conference and the Struggle for Imperial Unity,' The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 47:5 (2019):

Salisbury’s attitude to imperial federation was perhaps most clearly expressed in 1890, in his correspondence with one of Australia’s most influential political leaders, Sir Henry Parkes. From Sydney, Parkes proposed the creation of ‘a great National Council’ with executive powers ‘in which all parts of the Empire … [by which he meant Britain, the Australasian colonies, Canada, South Africa, and Anglo-India] should be represented on terms of equality’. In his reply, Salisbury offered a response that conjured up all his wariness about the idea of Greater Britain, both for its potential impact on imperial policymaking and its failure to adequately recognise the complexity and diversity of the empire. While Parkes’ sentiment was noble, he wrote, the path to closer union was barred by two main practical considerations: the first was that the formation of any imperial council would require that London sacrifice control of ‘either our domestic or our foreign policy’. The second was the multi-racial character of the empire, which meant it was no longer possible ‘to ignore all the constituents of it that are not of Anglo-Saxon origin’. As representation on any imperial council would have to be based on population, the guidance of the empire’s destiny would fall ‘entirely into Asiatic hands’. This was ‘hardly a change’, Salisbury noted dryly, ‘which Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada would desire’.

More broadly, imperial federation seemed to Salisbury practically unworkable. Discussion by an imperial council might produce some ‘general concurrence’ on imperial questions, but division would re-emerge with ‘each individual controversy’. Moreover, it would require a ‘sacrifice on the part of England of the independence she at present possesses. She will have to ask the consent of others before she makes decisions which now she makes on her own authority.’ ‘Will it be possible’, the prime minister reflected, ‘ever to obtain from England a consent to this surrender?’

 

[Devvy]

Roughly agree with @SenatorChickpea - you wouldn’t get a unified empire anywhere near a federated state, not even close to the EU. Anything you manage to wave through will be limited to defence integration (ie. an Imperial NATO), broad economic strategy (to maintain Imperial free trade) and constitutional arrangements. Maybe some other shared programmes such as space/satellites in later years which are large for any single country.

 

[Grey Wolf]

A few replies

As @Devvy said I can see it encouraging federations etc - eg the West Indies entering as a single colonial entity

However, equal representation in the US Senate does not cause Texas to throw its toys out of the pram because Rhode Island or Hawaii have the same number of senators

I called it the Imperial Senate because the other two houses are the House of Lords and the House of Commons. You can't call it the Imperial Parliament because together they all make up parliament. You couldn't call it the Imperial Council because that would not be a parliamentary body.

As @Devvy also said, I envisaged its purview being quite limited - it's not intended to federalise the empire, but to provide a common framework where PARLIAMENT can include empire-wide subjects. Defence, trade, foreign affairs would be some of the things that seem most logical here.

The legislatures of the individual dominions etc should not feel undermined because the representative on the Senate is there to represent them. Sure, I can imagine some situations where Governors/Governor Generals appoint someone to go against their own legislature in a dominion, but in general they are going to try to work together.

I don't know what the voting system would be? Logically I can't see why it couldn't be majority voting, perhaps with a threshold? I think a need for unanimity would simply empower someone to wreck the whole thing

 

[Analytical Engine]

Why not just have an imperial conference, where common matters can be agreed upon. Each dominion, colony, major protectorate etc. would have its own delegation, but only one vote each. Britain could cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Because the existing conference system couldn't come to workable agreements about constitutional policy, no one was prepared to sacrifice their own interests to a majority vote and it would have required the Dominions- and Britain- to sacrifice the power to arrange their internal affairs in the service of a cause that most citizens weren't interested in.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Because the existing conference system couldn't come to workable agreements about constitutional policy, no one was prepared to sacrifice their own interests to a majority vote and it would have required the Dominions- and Britain- to sacrifice the power to arrange their internal affairs in the service of a cause that most citizens weren't interested in.

So, therefore, Federation would be totally unworkable. No one would be able to agree to what it would look like, or what powers it should have.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

However, equal representation in the US Senate does not cause Texas to throw its toys out of the pram because Rhode Island or Hawaii have the same number of senators

Texas and Rhode Island and the Hawaiian political elite are all white, all Christian and all share common institutions like a constitution.

No one- absolutely no one, in any of the many, many proposals I have read for Imperial Federation in the late nineteenth century- envisaged or would have tolerated giving black and Asian colonies the same rights and representation as white governments.

So, therefore, Federation would be totally unworkable. No one would be able to agree to what it would look like, or what powers it should have.

Yes. It's a fascinating dream, and it's important to study because it tells us a lot about how people saw the Empire and its potential future. But it was never, ever close to being a workable political project.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Yes. It's a fascinating dream, and it's important to study because it tells us a lot about how people saw the Empire and its potential future. But it was never, ever close to being a workable political project.

I agree entirely but sometimes isn't it fun to throw it to the wind and explore a possible alternate timeline?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

To put this another way:

Drawing up a constitution that would work for an Imperial Federation is not the problem.

The problem is not even convincing many disparate legislatures to enact that constitution.

The problem is that you would need to fundamentally change basic ideas of whiteness, Britishness and what the Empire even exists for to make the kind of suggested government possible, and that would likely require a POD centuries before hand and serious changes to eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophy, science and political thought.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I agree entirely but sometimes isn't it fun to throw it to the wind and explore a possible alternate timeline?

Hey, if someone wants to start a timeline or a story with the premise 'Imperial Federation has happened, here's what's next' then more power to them. I don't need to think Sealion is plausible to enjoy Fatherland or SS:GB.

If someone wants to start a discussion thread on how the imperial federation constitution would work, that's a technical question, and one that doesn't allow for willing suspension of disbelief.

That is to say, I'm not trying to nitpick for nitpicking's sake. I'll absolutely enjoy a good story- but my understanding was that the thread was about whether a proposed political arrangement would actually work, and I was attempting to answer that. I'm not trying to be hostile!

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Hey, if someone wants to start a timeline or a story with the premise 'Imperial Federation has happened, here's what's next' then more power to them. I don't need to think Sealion is plausible to enjoy Fatherland or SS:GB.

If someone wants to start a discussion thread on how the imperial federation constitution would work, that's a technical question, and one that doesn't allow for willing suspension of disbelief.

That is to say, I'm not trying to nitpick for nitpicking's sake. I'll absolutely enjoy a good story- but my understanding was that the thread was about whether a proposed political arrangement would actually work, and I was attempting to answer that. I'm not trying to be hostile!

No, I don't think you were. I was just momentarily looking in the middle distance and visualizing Pax Britannia, like all AH.commers do sometimes. Big red swaths on the map!

Unlike we remember all the bad things it did.