FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1911. THE UNITY OF EMPIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 124, 26 May 1911, Page 4

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1911. THE UNITY OF EMPIRE.

Sir Joseph Ward has taken the only safe and dignified course left open to him by withdrawing his proposal for an Imperial Council representative of every section of the Empire. Apparently our Premier had worked out his scheme in considerable detail; and it is probable that such a system of representation as he suggested on a population basis would come as near the attainment of his object as is possible under existing conditions. At the same time we may well doubt if England is yet prepared to admit the representatives of her colonies and dependencies to the discussion of such questions as peace and -war on equal terms with herself. Certainly, while the people of the United Kingdom have to make the heaviest sacrifices to protect the Empire, the question is a difficult one; and no less difficult would it be to apportion the exact shares of the burden of Empire that representation on such a Council would entail. But we may spare ourselves the trouble of further speculation on the subject just now; for the whole scheme is for the present manifestly outside the range of practical politics. Sir Joseph Ward evidently received no support from his fellow-delegates, and as was to be expected, the British representatives made no attempt to conceal their dislike for his proposals. We could wish for the sake of Sir Joseph Ward's prestige as an Imperial statesman that the scheme had never been brought forward; and under the circumstances it may be allowed to lapse at once into oblivion.

For as we have always contended all such schemes for the federation or unification of the Empire on rigidly formal lines are foredoomed to failure. However well they might sound theoretically, it would be extremely difficult to put them into a practicable shape, and they would inevitably cause friction and discord between all the members of the Imperial system. But quite apart from all these objections, schemes of this kind seem to us entirely superfluous, even where they are not directly harmful. Our conception of Imperial unity approaches more nearly the ideal of the family than of the formal federation based upon statutes and defined by constitutions." The basis of family life is sentiment pure and simple; but what bond is stronger and more enduring? What is needed to ensure peace and harmony between members of the same family is not a strict enforcement of the law of the land, but a clear conception of the common interest and a sympathetic regard for the rights and privileges of each individual. Iβ it impossible for a gTeat Empire to be held together by ties of this purely emotional and sentimental kind? The history of our cnvn Empire supplies the. answer. And beBide the feeling of kinship and loyalty, of patriotism and. blood-brotherhood, we have that strong sense of a "community of material interest, -, which, as Mr. Asquith has just reminded us, stands for great and substantial benefits given and received. How potent all these considerations may become we may learn from the assurances that Canada is now offering' England of her determination, come what will, to hold by -the Empire; and the noble speech in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier a few weeks ago, replying to the critics of his Reciprocity treaty announced the inflexible resolution oi his country to remain loyal to England and true to the great Imperial tradition, is a sufficient answer to the doubts and apprehensions that have apparently inspired Sir Joseph Ward's proposals.