THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1889.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9378, 30 May 1889, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1889.

We have received by the last mail two more publications on the federation question now being backed by such powerful influences in England, and pushed by delegates of the Imperial League in all the colonics. Both of these publications are timely and worthy of notice. The one is t called the " Future of the Empire," written by Mr. Alexander Gordon, and • pub-

lished in London. The other is a thoughtful, well reasoned article in the London Law Quarterly Review, by Mr. Ernest Burton, an Auckland barrister. Mr. Burton's article demands a notice for itself, and we shall return to it on a future occasion. For the present Mr. Gordon's little book, which ought to be widely read, will suffice. Mr. Gordon, after giving a brief sketch of Federation as it exists in forms more or less modified in several countries, goes straight to the heart of the question by asking if the British Parliament is ready to abandon its present proud position, and instead of an imperial, become a federal legislature. He asks also if the colonies are willing to be taxed by such a federal legislature for the support of armies and navies which they could not control, and for the cost of wars in which their interests might be most remote. Will they consent at all to pay taxes to be spent beyond their own border ? If not, of what use can be the muchvaunted imperial control, implied in federation ? The gist of the controversy lies in these questions, and no amount of loud-sounding generalities will do as a substitute for a clear reply. If Imperial Federation mean, as it no doubt does with many in a vague kind of way, that the British Parliament shall wield the

resources of the colonies as well as the resources of the Home country, the position is easily understood. But to give it shape the colonies must part with the control they now exercise over much of their higher legislation, especially over that affecting their tariffs, their land, and their immigration. If it do not mean this, there is but one other alternative. England must restrict her foreign policy, abdicate her position in European politics, and in some way rearrange her position in India. She must cease to be "the great, historic, w\de-intluencing England," and become a restricted State in an "Imperial" federation. These are weighty words, willing for careful consideration. Mr. Gordon, after giving to them and to many similar but less vital points a very full consideration, comes to the conclusion that the scheme is undesirable and

impracticable. The colonies will never submit to be ruled by any Legislature ill which they do not feel that they have a potential voice. To grant that potential voice would imply on England's part an abdication, a surrender of her traditional and proud position in Europe, which would be repugnant to the feelings of great and influential masses of her people. It means reducing the Parliament of Great Britain to a Home Rule Parliament for England, and creating similar Home Pule Parliaments for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. It means over all a Federal Parliament, in which every part of _ the scattered Empire shall be potentially represented, ami which shall rule not only that scattered Empire, but the great Empire of India and the numerous Crown colonies. Supposing that this were attained, Mr. Gordon justly asks what strength would the home country derive from the Federation ? The only colonies which could federate in any sense of the term are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope. Canada has a population of five millions, including a large proportion of French Canadians and Indians, and a very large number who openly desire to join the United States. In the Cape colony there are not 350,000 of European descent, and Australia and New Zealand might add 3k millions more. Of course these numbers, especially in Australia and New Zealand, are sure to be much greater in the course of years, but if discontented their increase would become a danger instead of a source of strength to the Empire. What we have to deal ' with now is simply a proposal to place eight or nine millions of widelyscattered colonists under the control of the British Parliament which is to be made " Imperial" and at the same time " Federal." What strength will thus be added to the Empire, asks Mr. Gordon We entirely agree in the conclusion to which he comes, that no real strength would be gained, while there would be infinite hazard of friction dangerous to the solid union that now so happily exists. On another point we are heartily in accord with Mr. Gordon. We dislike much the tone of covert hostility towards the United States, only too manifest in much of the speaking and writing on this subject. Federation is to give us the control of all the coaling stations on the ocean, while the United States have _ none, cries one speaker. Canada will beat the United States out of the grain market in England, says another. You will no longer be obliged to use the United States railroads, says a third, but will have the grand Imperial Line running through Canada, from ocean to ocean. You, even you, New Zealanders, though thousands of miles away, will proudly own your share in that great Imperial work, in all those grand Imperial coaling stations, in grand worldencircling Imperial electric cables, and in a glorious " Imperial Empire." Mr. Gordon thinks, and we agree with him again, that we already have quite as large a share in those good things as we ought to desire, and that any additional share, derived from an ill-assorted Federation, would be dearly bought at the price. The Federation ot the "English-speaking folk," whenever it comes, must include the United States, the most powerful and most homegencous country of them all. A Federation without especially in the Pacific— be Imperial, but it would be the play of Hamlet with the principal character omitted —a piece in which few, who are not dazzled by the rank or title of their fellow-actors, I would care to take part.

Our Wellington graphs a list of the <^ST mi **• priations" which will K? appro ' table of the House when it tl ° n tha is a document of "J* * Atkinson was always v erv fT. "7 "savings on appropriaS»°l. > has at various times shown f 1,7- lch h « 12 or 14 years of his mSS 11 th * ought to have reducedl tKS a 7 «*«« expenditure to next to nothiL u time. Sir Harry Atkinson', 8b ? th * and Sir Julius ogel's %" ofi fy^ ! ' conversion of loans" are two m th « wealth and prosperity which have been most proline but"^ to missed lire somehow Perl avQ ''profits on conversion" will cX;. I*o1* 0 have only patience and S N enough. As to the "mines" Vi °& reason we don't thrive undUtu real that they are very often not SvtS ii! all, merely a suspension of^S at for one year, to be followed byffi°S expenditure in the year to come- •# total savings in appropriations" 0 f If e Public Works Fund amount- T £240,602." So telegraphs to pondem, and so will say the n-iZ . be laid on the table of the Hou? T ° figures are big, and ought at all PVP to siiow that we shall need no f,,ii loans for sometime. The real fat • that the money was not wanted an i " should r.ot have been appropriated' all. herein lies the mystery ff + , ' return were described as "ex, ? appropriations asked for by th« n vernment" instead of "savings in penditure" the thing would be ,> T understood. But that is just r V Treasurers neither wish norintJj fc a rule, and Sir Harry Atkinson & tamly not an exception. \i r "