[T.D. Wanliss; Ballarat 'Star'; the Union; British/ English;Home Rule for Scotland] Substantial Autograph Letter Signed T.D. Wanliss to A.G.L. Rogers, author of books on social questions and sometime Secretary of the Liberal Publication Department

Four closely written pages, 12mo, bifolium, good condition. He initially responds to Rogers' comments about the question of 'Britain & England'. You say you 'decline to recognise that the history of England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland, is of any importance beside the history of England whether politically, constitutionally or economically - at any rate until the present century'. Now with all due deference, this seems to me to be beside the question. The title, or rather one of the titles of your father's book [ROGERS (James E. Thorold)] is 'England's Industrial & Commercial Supremacy'. If this means anything, it means England's present supremacy & as such a title is evidently an international one, i.e. the association of England's present [underlined] industrial supremacy amomng the nations of the earth, I maintain that such a title is a misnomer, and moreover a slight & an offence to Scotland, Ireland & Wales. In the first palce England as an individual nation or an international entity does not exist. Since 1707, there has been, internationally, no England: for by the Treaty of Union of that date, England agreed, in consideration of value received so to speak, to give up her name of England for ever [phrase underlined]: the words I have italicised are part of the Treaty, & are embodied in the first article of the Union - so if England has any industrial or Commercial supremacy now [underlined], as part of Britain, she certainly had no claim to any such position before 1707. She was then very far from being first in any thing except in Constitional development & political freedom - certainly a very important point. But the great & cardinal fact, that I wish to point out is, that it was only the union with Scotland, which gave England her industrial [strength?]. Had Scotland remained hostile to England, as Ireland continued, sad to say, owing to misgovernment & oppression, continues to be - there can be little doubt I think that there would have been no occasion to write a book about either 'England's' or 'Britain's' industrial supremacy. It was the security obtained by England from the Union with Scotland, which started the northern half of England in that wonderful course of industrial development which is now the wonder of the world. Your father in one part of his book I think candidly [avows?] this,tho' he refers it further back to the Union of the Crown under James I & VI (see page 317)- But if this be so, & I think it is indubitable - then it is grossly unfair & even offensive to Scottish national sentiment to use a [title?], which implies not merely that Scotland has no share in this industrial supremacy, but that internationally she is but an English province. On this point of unfairness see your father's remarks in page 458 - beginning with the Words 'It is in the last degree irregular to dismiss a recognised unfairness &c'. | In the latter part of your letter, you allude to the colonies, & say their political & economic history 'except in a few particulars -' is as imprtant as that of Wales Ireland or Scotland - but I do not presume that the Australians wd like to be told they were not Australians' you say -'but Britons - you then allude to India, & its races - 'the Parsees, & the Hindoos surely they are not Britons' you say. Pardon my saying that I do not see the relevancy of the remarks - We start from an international unit 'Britain' - for the term is generic to all the British Isles. This is the only foundation for our being as a people or nations - regarded from an international point of view. From that point of view there is no England - & any attempt to ignore this, is simply a discrediting of the English name, because it is the assertion of a disgraceful breach of faith towards Scotland especially. This being the case, the proper name for the people of these colonies is not English Australians but British Australians, because Australia is not an English Colony but a British one. The Hindoos are neither Englishmen nor Britishmen, but they are British subjects, not English subjects. When we speak of Englishment, Scotsmen or Irishmen we speak of the race [underlined], or people, not of the Empire or Kingdom: & so when we speak of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, we must use a term which includes the four nationalities. British is the only word which does this. Therefore British-man or Britons is the true term for the whole people of the United Kingdom: so follow teh term British Austrlain British Canadian. British South Africans. British Indians &c. The wonder to me only is that fair-minded Englishmen such as I take you to be, do not see this [?]. It seems to me as obvious. Your father [promptly?] recognised the truth, when it was brought under his notice in the [?] in the House of Commons. .