THE H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, OCT. 20th, 1916. NATIONS OF EMPIRE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 261, 20 October 1916, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, OCT. 20th, 1916. NATIONS OF EMPIRE.

The London “Times” has all along been a consistent and enthusiastic supporter of the idea that the Oversea Dominions should have a voice in the conduct of Imperial Affairs. Ln a number that is just to hand it has an article which is of peculiar interest to us in New Zealand, inasmuch as, in the course of a discussion of colonial mental attitude towards the Empire, it embodies the apology, which was cabled to us, with regard to the introduction of compulsory service out here. In the growing tenseness of the war in Europe, it says, the people of Great Britain cannot afford to forget the separate, and in many ways markedly individual, life of the Dominions. t'or the moment their several characteristics are hidden beneath the common enthusiasm for one great cause. Yet it has to recognise that they still exist and will persist, probably asserting themselves with all the greater vigour because of their temporary eclipse by the overshadowing issues of the Glreat War. But this is deemed to be something to the good, so long as the individual type of the Dominion peoples retains, when the war is over, “the impress of the national impulse to which it has reacted during the last two years.” Nothing, however, it is suggested, could be calculated to drive natural individuality into aloofness than an easy assumption by the people oi the Old Land that the young nations, because they have put themselves under British leadership during the time of war, have lost all volition of their own. The Dominions are regarded as being “still keenly, and quite properly, jealous for their own rights and their own ways of thought. They are sensitive to, and quick to resent, any assumption that their share in the war has affected their right to decide for themselves their own destiny in the way thev think best.” It is here that the “Times” brings in the matter of its reference to our Military Service Act. “The mere imagined suggestion,” it says, “of any slight upon the national vigour of the Dominions is enough to bring a forcible and outspoken reminder that sueh reflections are resented. Innocently enough, we ourselves elicited such a protest a few days ago, by a reference to the adoption of compulsory service in New Zealand. We need hardly repeat the assurance that, in welcoming this step, we had no thought of any reflection upon the patriotic zeal of New Zealand. The Dominion need fear no comparisons in that regard. It has played a man’s part among the nations of the Empire, and its adoption of compulsory service was yet another proof that it is determined to keep nothing back -which can be of service in the common cause. Its sensitiveness on this point is the natural and proper sensitiveness of a worthy pride based on the consciousness of duty well done. We only refer to the incident again to draw from ir the moral that full undertanding of Dominion circumstances is now, and will be still more, one- of the first duties of enlightened citizenship in this country.

But while this direct and appreciative mention of our own little Dominion and its efforts is of special interest to us, the more notable part of the "Times” article is that which bears upon our big sister Dominion of Canada and upon the new entity of the great Union of South Africa. The reference to Mr. Hertzog contained in the quotation we purpose making will be quickly understood by most New Zealanders, but the name of Mr. Bourassa is not so familiar to us. While Canada as a whole has made most generous response to the call of Empire, Mr. Bourassa is the leader of a party there which refuses to acknowledge any duty to lend assistance to the Motherland in the, great struggle. His attitude has the more significance because, himself of French extraction, the fact that we l are fighting side bj- side with France carries no w’eight with him or with his followers who are also mostly of the Gallic breed. “In two Dominions,” the “Times” goes on to saj r , “beneath the strong stream of patriotic endeavour there runs a dangerous under-current. The nationalism of French Canada and of Dutch South Africa has sound and admirable elements. In both cases it reveres the traditions of a great past, fosters the love of the old language, and aims to keep beating the pulse of a sturdy and independent national type. No lover of liberty can have any quarrel with such impulses. But the war has brought the nationalist, both in Canada and in South Africa, to the test of greater issues. He is asked to recognise that the memories which he cherishes, the traditions which he reveres, the language which he strives to keep alive, are dependent for their survival upon the preservation of British ideals. The challenge finds him hostile. He has long hugged the idea that there is some deep antipathy between these objects of his worship and the corresponding ideals of his Englishspeaking fellow-citizens. He sees that their ideals have inspired them to plunge into the European conflict. recoils from the claim that it is his duty also to take the plunge, and, under the impulse of that recoil, goes to the bitter extreme of repulsion and hostility. Some process of this kind must be held to account for the language which Mr. Bourassa has been holding in Canada and Mr, Hertzog in South Africa. They are both men of keen personal likes and dislikes. Both hate with a soul - and envenomed hatred a bogey that they have created for themselves and have labelled ‘lmperialism.’ Both believe that the devotees of this false deity of their imagination have dragged the British peoples into the war. ”

The potential danger involved in this attitude of hostility not so much to British political domination as to the British ideals of national freedom and independence has to be taken into serious account. "In Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Hertzog, ” the “Times” says, “we have to deal with the two men convinced that the salvation of their people lies along the path of separation and isolation. Of all forms of political obsession this is the most distressing, for it is impervious as a rock to any influence of argument

and reasoning, and —touching the noblest issues of loyalty and patriotism —has a peculiar quality of exasperation for its opponents. It is too much the fashion just now to prophesy smooth things about Mr Bourassa and Mr. Hertzog, and about theijj following in Canada and South Africa. The more complete the knowledge of the impasse' which they present, the more serious it is seen to be.” The solution of the Imperial problem thus complicated by the nationalism of the. French Canadians and South African Dutchmen is considered to demand immediate attention, and one step towards it, the “Times” believes, is to be found in an Imperial Conference that should not be deferred until peace is reached. “The Imperial Conference,” it says,, “should be summoned and should invite the Parliaments aud peoples of the Empire to send delegates to an Imperial Convention. This is how Canada, Australia, and South Africa prepared to meet the question ot their own future at a time' of crisis. It. is the way for the Empire also, though here an intermediate stage, in which all Dominion Prime Ministers should become by virtue of their office members of the British War Council, is obviously desirable.”