THE COLONIES AND THE EMPIRE.

Evening Star, Issue 12766, 20 March 1906, Page 1

THE COLONIES AND THE EMPIRE.

The. British Colonies not sd long ago were a negligible factor in Imperial politics. In th°se quite recent times the comprint wag that Downing street was more interested in the petty semi-savage principalities of Eastern Europe than, in-bur great self-governing colonies, and that the bulk of the people did not even know their geographical position. At this hour much, though not all, of this is changed. We should not like to affirm that/there are no educated-men in England who do not still think, when they think about it at all, that New Zealand may be reached from Hobart by a cheap ferry steamer, that colonists are safe only when they are armed, and that the chief products of this Colony are footballers and frozen mutton. We may, however, affirm that the word Colonics does certainly appear with greater frequency in the newspapers, in the speeches of and in parliamentary debates than it did within the memory of the youngest elector. Whether the change is an entirely desirable one is not so certain. On the contrary, it would not be difficult to gather a large amount of, evidence the burden of which is distinctly distasteful to. patriotic Britons at Home and abroad. The Colonies; unfortunately, have become .a sort of shuttlecock between the two chief political parties in the Motherland, and it will hardly make for peace, prosperity, or progress if this regrettable aspect of the question is to continue. The creation and expansion of free communities, in North America, South Africa, and Australasia are the outcome of what even yet may be termed Liberal policy. The rights of. self-government and! self-development, of working ont our own salvation on democratic lines and free from the galling restraint of class and privilege, constitute the foundations of modem Liberalism as it was preached and taught by Gladstone, and Bright, and Oobden, and Mill. Nor have the Colonies forgotten what they owe to the Liberals; and as far as the domestic policy of that party is concerned there are probably no great differences «f opinion between the Motherland and her offspring. But whilst this is so, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that in the larger field of foreign policy and colonial aspirations the Conservative party have been more palpably in sympathy with the self-governing peoples of the Empire than their political opponents. We do not propose to exhaustively examine tliis statement, nor to analyse its actual worth i we merely mention it as reflecting a common and popular standpoint. What is, however,' of interest at this juncture is the too palpable fact that the Colonies and appeals, to colonial sentiment and colonial prejudices are being made, by Liberals and Tories alike, subjects for party cries and pawns in the political game. We can anticipate rio advantage from this procedure either to'the Colonies or the Old Country,- although - we are not-, prepared to say how it can at this moment be avoided. "When Mr Chamberlain, in May, 1903, appealed to the statesmen and people of the United Kingdom to reconsider their Fiscal policy in the interests of tire. Colonies, and when he drew striking pictures illustrative of the decay of Great Britain’s trade and proclaimed the necessity, in response to colonial requests, of drawing the bonds of Empire closer by means of improved trade relations, the feeling throughout Canada, South Africa, Australia, and; New Zealand was generally sympathetic, and at the same tune his patriotism, sacrifice, and sincerity were cordially commended. The- passage of time did not confirm the enthusiastic hopes of the first days of the new evangel. Detailed inquiry showed tbs improbability of the Colonies being in a position to do much for the British manufacturer, and Mr Chamberlain's polity, as far as it affected the Home worker, became all too rapidly one of unadulterated Protection. On this issue the people of Great Britain pronounced their verdict in January last, and the House of Commons subsequently confirmed the popular judgment by an emphatic declaration of its belief in the principles of Freetradc. Stated in this bare form, there is not, we think, any insuperable reason why the controversy should not be allowed to drop as fax as the Colonies are concerned. We regret, however, to note that tire more ardent of Mr Chamberlain’s supporters, and even Mr Chamberlain himself, are telling the people of England that the Colonies arc deeply offended at the action of the British, electors and those members of the House of Commons who are hostile to either Protection, Retaliation, or Preferential Trade. The ‘ Outlook/ in- a recent number, said: The offer of Preference, with all that it implies, has been declined, and there can be no doubt that tbisact of national folly is deeply resented in the colonies. There was even a danger that Canada might decide to withdraw the.measure of preference she has freely given, as a proof of disfavor. And the same paper referred to- Mr Chamberlain as The one statesman living who has seen into the hearts of the colonists, and understood that Preference was the expression of all there is and can lie of Imperial sentiment. We. ourselves warmly approved the broad principle embodied in Mr Chamberlain’s original proposals, which were in line with the policy that this journal has consistently maintained for many years. 'But we uo not- therefore fed called upon to express sympathy with the later developments of Mr Chamberlain's propaganda, -nor can,; we endorse the spirit that breathes through the ‘ Outlook’s ’ wrath. r Mr Chauxbeilaih has;' himself said: “You cannot keep .the- “ Empire' togeth,er, i{ you 'snub the Colo- “ nies.” But- neither newspaper nor states-' man appears to have brightly -caught' the' sentiments of the people .of the outlying parts of the Empire. There was not, to our knowledge, either resentment or annoyance, or disappointment at the verdict passed by the British electors at the polls, and we have never yet been 1 able to understand exactly what is meant by the “colo- ; nial ; offers ” that the Liberals have refused to accept. It is to be regretted, we repeat, ’ that the Colonies, ms soon as their importance as active partners in the future’ work of the Empire: is admitted/’sHbuld become a battle cry for partisans and 'factionists. What South Africa, or what any self- ■ governing British Colony, 'may do iu the

event of a measure . strongly approved • by the people of the’ Colony being 7 vetoed' by the imperial Government, it is premature to discus. What no . colonist can atford to disregard are that the existence of eveiy British Colony is dependent upon the supremacy of the: British. Navy, and, that tho navy is controlled by a Government - ■who still possess some lights as to how and by what means those /colonies shall be .continued in their privileges. There was. some what we cannot but term “wild talk” in Pape Town last week about “ cutting the painter’’ in the event of something happening which has ndfc yet occurred.. It is not advisable to “cut the painter” unless we are first certain as to. our future course and ultimate destiny. For our own part, wo cannot see how New Zealand and Australia, in view of Mr Seddon’s speeches and Mr Deafm’s address and the, action of their respective Parliaments, can support the Transvaal, should the Home ’ Government insist that the Chinese coolies must go.