Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1891. A GREAT COLONIAL QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume XLI, Issue 74, 30 March 1891, Page 2

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1891. A GREAT COLONIAL QUESTION.

England lost what is now the United States over a tea fight. Is history going to in a measure repeat itself, and the oldest British oolony be lost over a lobster worry ? It really looks like it, and, worse still, it looks as if tho statesmen who now rule the Empire are not one whit more wise than those who, a century and a quarter ago, -drove the American colonists into revolution. The position of affairs in Newfoundland is most serious. It is full of interest to all the colonies. Newfoundlandis notonly the oldest settlement under the Crown, but it is the nearest to the Mother Country of all the colonies which enjoy Responsible Government. This, of course, renders a policy of ooeroion easier for Great Britain than if a more distant colony were conoerned ; but the principle at stake affeots every portion of the Colonial Empire. The alleged French rights are, of oourse, older than the Constitution. They date from 1713, when the Treaty of Utrecht, recognising the sovereignty of England over Newfoundland, also reserved to France certain rights on what was known as the " Frenoh shore," and these were confirmed in 1814 and 1815. It was not till 1832 that a Constitution was granted. It may be oontended that in accepting Constitutional Government the colony took over all Imperial liabilities under these treaties, but this contention is ecaroely fair. The rights olaimed are very vaguely defined by the treaties, and a Convention made in Paris in 1857, which nominally included certain Frenoh concessions, was strongly protested against by the colony. The point now really at issue is one of interpretation : Are lobsters fish, and is "canning" drying? If these queries are answered in the affirmative, it would appear that the Newfoundlanders will be praotically deprived of the nse of a very large portion of their coast line and territory, including valuable fisheries and mines. It is scarcely likely that any colony possessing free institutions wonld submit to Buch deprivation out of respect for old treaties with whioh it had nothing to do, and in whioh its interests were in no way considered. The oolony contends, and rightly, we think, that the Imperial Government should compromise theae treaty rights or obligations, whatever they are, at its own cost. The Imperial Government, fatuously following the example of 1768, threatens to compel Newfoundland to snbmit to and recognise the Frenoh claims. Not long ago Captain Sir Baldwin Walker, of H.M.S. Emerald, on complaint from French lobster fishers, landed an armed party and foroibly shut up Mr. Baibd's faotory. Mr. Baird, we have bean informed by cable, has obtained a verdiot for damages against the Captain. Of oourse, this was in the Newfoundland Conrts. The Imperial authorities no sooner find their high-handed use of Naval foroa declared illegal than they introduce a Coercion Bill into the Imperial Parliament. By this tbey propose to give almost irresponsible power to naval officers in oommand on the coast, and to deprive the settlers on the ooast of

the protection of their own laws and constitution. It is not to bo wondered at that such a proposal should excite the keenest indignation amorjgat the colonists. A deeper -wrong could not bo inflietfd on them, or a greater insult offered to them. Their indignation, however strong, appears to ub fully justified. Think what would lie the feelings of this or any of the Australasian colonies if such an outrage were attempted on their independence as to place the coasts under the administration of any captain of a man-of-war who ohanced to be handy. We doubt if the Australasian colony so threatened would not at once emulate tbe example of the Bostonites who emptied the tea into the harbour in 1763. if constitutional colonies can be so treated as Newfoundland is threatened to be, Britiah troops to coerce the colonists being even talked of, then our Constitutions are mere pieces ot waste paper, and we are only being allowed to play at governing ourselves. All tbe colonies must sympathise with Newfoundland in the present struggle, for on its issue 1 may depeDd the whole fnture relations and connection of all of them with the Empire. The adoption of force in New foandland would give all the Australasian colonies more scrions problems lo considor than those connected with Australian Federation, now engaging attention. We sincerely trust that the difficulty will not be forced to a crisis, and tbat the influential deputation now about to interview the Imperial Government from Newfoundland will ttriLg about an amicable settlement. It wonld be the greatest national misfortune of the century to see Newfoundland driven into renouncing its allegiance, and throwing itself iuto the opou arms of the United States. Tho temptation, however, may prove irresistible if force is attempted on the other side. America, of course, would, in pursuance of the Monro doctrine, recognise no French rights if ft ewfoundland became American territory.