THE PERILS OF PETULANCE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 254, 20 July 1908, Page 6

THE PERILS OF PETULANCE.

! During May last we had to call attention to a regrettable alteration .in the tone of Sir Joseph Ward's discussion of Imperial Preference. At the Colonial Conference he showed a splendid example, in restraint to Mr. Deakin and Sir William Lyne, whoso loud, domand for tariff reciprocity was highly irritating to the British Freetraders.," During his May speeches, however,- he l occasionally broke forth into" language 'sharp enough to competo with that of the Australian Minister for Customs,. and we urged thfyun-. wisdom of adopting a hectoring attitude that would enable the Tariff Reform journals to make such use , of tho Dominion, by flourishing it in the face of the Freetraders, as would revive the dislike and suspicion with which, in the most heated periods of the fiscal controversy, tho Freetrade party wrote and talked of tho oversea Dominions, What we anticipated has unfortunately happened. The substance of the Prime Minister's speech, at Eltham was cabled Homp, and was promptly seized upon by some of the Tariff Reform journals as a warning to Grekt Eritain. The remarks of Sir' Joseph were thus reported in tho British Press: — New Zealand did not intend to interfere with British politics, but 'he thought tho colonies wero within their' rights in asking for Preference. . The competition between the colonies for tho sale of their produoe kept pricos down, but the colonies should not be called upon to' competo against Denmark, America, and the/Argentine, which had built up high .protective walls. He was sorry to notico that Canada had concluded a. commercial treaty with France. ■ When other colonies made such arrangement's'with foreign countries it would be tho beginning of the overthrow of the commercial supremacy of the Empire. -• The Scotsjnaii on May 29 opened its discussion of this ; injudicious speech in very significant 'fashion: "Warning voices on the folly, of the present Government's ' do-nothing '' attitudo in regard to "Imperial preferential trade are heard." In the course of a long article —we need not quote its fiscal thesis—: this great and influential journal gave' to the Prime Minister's'speech the interpretation that plight l havo been exr pccted. "Sir Joseph Ward's jposition," it said, " is this—that commercially the British connection; so far as the trade of our Colonies, wi(ih foreign nations ia concerned, constitutes a handicap rather than an advantage i and he claims that the handicap should bo reduced .by preferential treatment!in the British market," Now, if Sir Joseph Ward does believe that the British connection is, from any point of view a handicap and an objectionable ■ thing, well' and good —or bad. If he does not—and we believe that ho does not —he should know the unwisdom of making speeches that lend themselves to a Viisreprcsentat'ion so injurious as this. He may not be averse, being human, from having l his utterances solemnly quoted by aj great. British newspaper as " a voico ofj warning," but'that compliment may bo ycr'y dearly bought. As was recordod in a paragraph which wo printod recently, | Canadian opinion resents Sir Joseph's : references to a treaty that was carried through by' an Imperialist like Sir Wilfrid Laurier, . so that tho Eltham spcech was moro injudicious than wo anticipated it would turn out to he. v \ . > Everyone who has followed tho comments of tho British! Press upon the Tariff Reform of Hit. Obambbr.. lain knows that tho irritation of British'

Freetraders against the colonies is no delusion. At times tho Ercetrade Press has openly expressed its suspicion of colonial motives, and has commented on tho " stand-arid-dclivcr" attitude of somo' colonial statesmen- in a tone of bitter dislike. Just after the publication of Sir Joseph Ward's speech, the Manchester Guardian, one of tho loading Freetrado newspapers in Great Britain, discussed Mr. Deakin's most recent references to Imperial tariff reciprocity, Tho tone of this sober journal's comments will be seen in these cfctracts from its article: — Mr De;ikin wauls colonial preference, and, as ti Sydney correspondent explains to-day, Mr, Deakin knows what ho means by it. Ho wants n preference, in tho British market; to put it plainly, ho wants tho British labourer to pay more for his meat and tho British weaver, more for his wool. And for this lie offers tho English labourer and weaver a qualified compensation; they aro.to have a "preference" in tho Australian market, on one' condition only—that nono of their products shall compoto with Australian goods.' The tariff, is to keep out anything that Australians might conceivably manufacture; and the Government sets the example by boycotting, in its_ purchases all English wares. . . . . . Can Mr, Deakin seriously believe that this is the way to strengthen that affec* tion of Englishmen Australia which now exists, and without which any sort' of closer commercial or political tia\ would ' be,' but, tissue-paper? • Wo havo frequently urged, that the great peril to the Empire—tho only force that can.injure a thing by. nature cohesive— in the petulance of its over-ardent friends. Let there grow up in Groat Britain-a general belief that tho loyalty of the colonies is merely a cupboard love, and tho disruption of tho Empire ia im"ininent. • . *'