The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1911. THE RESULT OF MISREPRESENTATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1194, 1 August 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1911. THE RESULT OF MISREPRESENTATION.

It was late in May when Sir Joseph Ward had to withdraw, in a hopelessly withered and battered condition, that proposal to set up an Imperial Coitncil of State which he assured the British public was endorsed by New Zealand. It would not, therefore, be until about the middle of last month that the mail fiom New Zealand would bring to London the news that the _ Prime Minister had so seriously misrepresented the feeling here that practically the whole of the New Zealand press—including even the "wholehoggers" amongst Sin Joseph Ward's' supporters—repudiated tho scheme and expressed satisfaction that our delegate had had to withdraw his foolish proposal. When tho English mail that arrived here yesterday leftLondon (June 23) the London newspapars were accordingly still in tho dark as to the true facts of the case. In the meantime no little harm has been done by tho Prime Minister's inexcusable misrepresentation of New Zealand opinion, for much of tho public discussion of the Conferonce was led astray by the idea that one Dominion for certain, and others also if the truth were known, are weary of "disfranchiscment" and are aching for representation on an Imperial Council ot State or in a Parliament of the Empire. We could quote many examples of the working of this false impression so unhappily created by Sir Joseph Ward, but one', tho latest, will suffice—a passage from an excellent surwy of the Conference printed in tho Spectator of June 17. "If New Zealand," says the spectator, "is inclined , to censure the Mother Country for going too slow in the matter of forming an Imperial Council, and is demanding a larger amount of control over foreign affairs, it is very useful for her statesmen to learn that the objection to such closer union in regard to foreign affairs cloos not come from any want of sympathy on the part of the Mother Country, but largely from the attitude taken up by the Dominion of Canada. . .• . In saying this we are imputing no sort of blame to Canada, but, on the contrary, we. believe that the Canadian Government is wise in hastening slowly." This sincere and sympathetic statement is a humiliating thing for New Zcalanders.tdVread. Tho people of this country,,are not responsible for the British"'irnpression that they arc inclined to censure the Mother Country, but they cannot escape the responsibility of allowing themselves to be represented by a delegate who could thus create an impression as to New Zealand feeling' the exact reverse of the actual fact. So far was New Zealand from censuring the Mother Country for resisting Sir Joseph AVard's scheme that it rejoiced over the joint action of Britain and the sister Dominions. The pr-iss here, as we have said, was almosfpcrfectly unanimous on the point. Despite its. misconception of the New Zealand attitude the Spectator's article is refreshingly sane in its giasp of tho essential facts of Empire, those facts so commonly for l gotten by the Silver pump school of Imperialists to resist whom we have kng considered it is our duty arrl the" duty of all responsible colonial newspapers. It is reassuring to find a British newspaper of such high authority as the Spectator taking the same view: In our opinion (it says) the Imperial Conference has been a very great success, and has proved how unwise as well as mistaken is the policy of those fussy tuul pessimistic persons who, in effect declare that unless something strong and violent is done for the Empire, and done at once, il will crumble to pieces. In contrast to these demands that we should do something in a hurry to tighten the i bonds that bind us to the daughter nations is the wiser counsel that we .should go slowly and step by step, keeping always before us the goal of closer union, but never running the risk of destroying altogether tho cables that bind the Mother Country to tho Dominion by putting a sudden strain upon them. The Spectator goes to some pains to dissipate the idea that Britain wishes to interfere in the affairs of the Dominions, and the equally injurious idea that tho British Government wishes to exclude colonial opinion altogether in carrying out British foreign policy. Incidentally it has something to say on "the real crux of Imperialism" that should bo very carefully noted by everyone who really desires to get to the bottom of the question: It is clear that if the .Dominions are

lo be given their proportionate share of control [of Imperial policy] they must also bear their proportionate share of the cost. Probably Sir Joseph Want and the New Zealand Government are quite prepaied to shoulder tlie full burden, but wo very much doubt whether any of the other Dominion Governments would go so far. Indeed, it is pretty clear that this was what Sir Wilfrid Laurier really meant by objecting to (he Dominion Governments being 100 closely consulted on matters of foreign policy. Ho realises that the more the Dominions aro consulted, and the more influence they are given in foreign affairs, tho more unanswerable will become the claim that they shall bear their proportionate share in Imperial defence. Already, we believe, the Dominions have agreed, so far as evidence is available, that the Conference did very good work indeed, and did its best work by refusing to make any large change in the existing machinery of tho Empire. Sir Joseph Ward's unwarrantable attitude, however, in representing New Zealand as desiring the wild changes that he proposed, has misled British opinion very seriously. There is hardly a contention in the Spectator's article that New Zealand will not endorse, and yet the Spectator has evidently been led by our delegate's performances to believe that exactly the opposite is the ease. "Sin Wilfrid Laujmer," one can imagine a sincere student of the Conference proceedings saying Id himself, "has special reasons, like Jlu. FisiiEit, for representing his country as opposed to Jmperijil Councils and Parliaments and all the other means of 'enfranchising' the Imperial 'back-blocks'. Their

niiviil policies, for example. But here is Si 1; Joseph Ward, nnha.uipered by a national n;iv:il policy, and of courses representing the. trim feeling of his country, crying out biltr.r'k against, the present arrangeir.ent. ' It, is char that New Zealand is rosll'ss and discontented; r.nil it. is highly probable l!i;iL tin- other !)(.- minions; are in the same condition " Should this erroneous opinion !ircome general in Britain, it will direct th" action of the. British ;iulh<iritii's, who will deplore the. fully of the Dominions but will nevertheh'ss foci bound to respect their wishes. The result would h? disastrous, us nerd hardly bo pointed mil.. Wo do not suppose, that much will over be liiiu'd again of Sir Joski'h Ward in the. Imperial controversies, hut the. injury he has done should remain as a warning to New Zealand of the. serious importance of correct thinking about the. Empire and of pro venting our public men and Ministers from ignoring the people and Parliament and by thrusting forward their own ill-considered views misrepresenting the national feeling.