NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15500, 6 January 1914, Page 6

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

A "KINGDOM OF CANADA." Discussing a proposal for the establishment of a " Kingdom of Canada," made by Mr. J. S. Ewart, of Ottawa, the Vancouver News-Advertiser, —For those who do not quite see how nations can be independent of each other, and yet have the same sovereign, Mr. Ewart cites the case of Hanover, which before the reign of Victoria recognised the British King as the sovereign. The illustration is a little old, for all historians know that the death of William the Fourth ended a situation in Hanover which was becoming impossible. So long as the English kings, like the first Georges, spent much of their time in Hanover, and ruled personally, the dual government was possible. But when the King of Hanover ceased to be German, and when Hanover began to desire self-government, the system became a failure. The dual monarchy of Norway and Sweden has also collapsed. There is not now in the world, and probably never will be again, an example of two or more independent States, internationally recognised, under one king. This kind of sovereignty . had good authority a few hundred years ago, but it is now obsolete. But this is a detail. The main thing is that. Mr. Ewart proposes to retain the king and smash the Empire. A society formed to separate Canada from the rest of the British Empire may as well go all the way and also renounce tie King. If it were possible that Canada could become a separate kingdom she would have & separate king, for Canadians own allegiance to the .rightful Sovereign of the British Empire, and not to a particular individual or family. At various periods '5; d nadian history some few persons have tried to start a separation movement. ' Sometimes it , was called Continental ! Union, sometimes Annexation, sometimes Independence. The people of Canada have not taken any of, these movements very seriously, and each one has fallen.a little flatter than the last. . Professor Goldwin Smith, Mr. Mercier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, have each in turn proclaimed the doctrine of separation. Where they have failed, Mr. Ewart will hardly succeed even when he coolly proposes to make the King a party to the dismemberment of, his own Empire. . .

NO PARTY IN DEFENCE. Mr. Austen Chamberlain says he is sure that in national interests. of such ■ magnitude, such delicacy, and such importance as the army and navy; "party spirit could do nothing but harm, and a united effort was required to safeguard national interests. He did not mean for a moment to say that there should not be economy in the fighting services, as in.the other services.. But .reductions were not to be expected in that direction, and could hot be safely sought at such a time as this, when we had barely escaped, from a great. European crisis. Since the maintenance of peace had been assured, they had seen relaxation of the tension, no , sign in any part of feeling that it was possible now to relax baval and military effort, and to lessen the expenditure on those services. Germany, on the contrary, added two Army Coips to her forces. The sons of France gave a third year of their life to military training for the defence of them country, and everywhere outside this coun? try effort, instead of being relaxed, had increased to make the defence of the respective powers- ' secaa-e. We could not afford to lag behind. We could not forego the duty of defending our own shores and the Empire for which we were respon-; sible. In matters of defence it was not) a question of a little more or a little less; it was enough or .it was nothing., (Cheers.) We must be ready at any moment to meet the strain which might be placed on us.