THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1930. THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20595, 20 June 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1930. THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

The second Colonial Conference of what may be termed the new series will open in London next Monday. The first gathering to bear that name was held in 1887, when representatives of all parts of the Empire were in London for the Queen's Jubilee. Self-governing and non-self-governing colonies participated in it alike. That particular precedent was not followed, for the subsequent gatherings which later were given the name of Imperial Conferences were attended only by deleKates from the autonomous countries of the Empire. The name and fact of colonial conferences were revived in 1927, when the Colonial Office, of which Mr. L. S. Amery was then the head, convened a meeting of governors and senior officers from the Crown colonies, protectorates and mandated territories. At its close the hope was expressed that similar gatherings would be held at intervals of not more than three years. The first had convinced all who attended that there was work to do at subsequent meetings. Last February it was announced that there would be a conference this year, a fact which suggests the system of triennial gatherings will bo established. As is noted in a London message, a new phase of British policy gives special point to the one to open next week. The Colonial Development Fund, established by Mr. J. H. Thomas in connection with his policy to combat unemployment, proposes to make available a sum not exceeding £1,000,000 each year for colonial development. This adds | a subject of great moment to be discussed by the Colonial Office and those who represent the countries where the money will be spent. The principle of continuity is to be followed, for the subjects of discussion and the divisions into which they .fall will be practically the same as in 1927. An adequate summary is given in the official wireless message which tells of the forthcoming gathering. The first and third sections, covering development and administration, show how comprehensive is the work which has to be done on behalf of these lands which are in touch with European civilisation, but are not themselves capable of handling its complexities. A subject of special moment is that of the colonial services, because a report on the staffing of them has recently been made available. The establishment of a unified colonial service has been proposed. There is a model for it in the Indian Civil Service, an organisation which receives scant justice in these days when the cry is all for self-government and the Indianisation of the services. There is much to be said for both ideals, but in the advocacy of tfiem the wonderful work done patiently, thoroughly and quietly for so many years by the Indian Civil Service has suffered, because its existence has seemed an obstacle to the cause by their passionate propagandists. There has never been a colonial service in the same sense. Mr. Amery emphasised this in opening the 1927 conference, saying also that there was no Colonial Empire either. As head of the Colonial Office he dealt with 36 different Governments, each entirely separate from the others. It would not be possible, nor desirable, to amalgamate these Governments, but a unified service with systematised recruiting, equal standards of efficiency and equal conditions appeals to common sense as being a desirable development. The detachment of the Governments, one from another, has not meant that common problems have never been discussed, nor experiences exchanged. There have been opportunities before, but these conferences will broaden what previously existed. They should lead to speedier progress in such departments as agriculture, transport, communications, health and education.

A plenary session of the conference will discuss the social welfare of the colonial populations, a subject naturally linked with others such as health and education. To find such topics given special prominence justifies emphasising a phase of British colonisation which deserves more attention than it generally receives. The x j hi'ase " the white man's burden," often used, is an unfortunate one, because it has been derided, and frequently misunderstood. It has been represented as a cloak for all kinds of oppression and exploitation. There is this substantial fact, that, wherever Britain has assumed responsibility for a native population of the primitive type, the existence of certain fundamental duties has been automatically recognised. The maintenance of law and order has always been ranked as of first importance—and almost as often been denounced as oppression. Even so discriminating an admirer of British institutions as the late Walter Hines Page failed to understand that it was as much in the interests of the natives as anyone else that order was kept and justice dispensed with a strong hand. The health of the people has been made subject to official care as a matter of course, and, where the impact of civilisation has brought great changes in ancient customs and ways of living, it has been no light responsibility. In certain other respects, native welfare has been carefully considered. Writing of conditions in Samoa 40 years ago, Robert Louis Stevenson remarked how "salutary British law" kept British traders from supplying the Samoans with arms for their native wars, though traders of other nations gathered like Hies at the first hint of trouble. So the evidence could be multiplied disposing of the evil legend that British colonising methods have involved oppression, ruthless exploitation and little more. The high place given to subjects which touch primarily on tho welfare of the primitive populations shows that the conference to open next week will conform to the highest traditions of British colonial administration.

PROPAGANDA IN INDIA.

The recent outbreaks of revolt in the north-west of India, although distinguishable in character from the unrest prompted elsewhere by the Nationalist agitators, are now known to be an outcome of the same influence. This development indicates both a widening and a deepening of the plans of these agitators. It has been possible hitherto to attribute disturbances in the north-west to the innate turbulence of the uncouth tribesmen, and to view them as quite apart from any political movement in the dependency. What is now declared to have happened may provide no reason for anticipating any pact between the Nationalist campaigners in the cities and towns of British India and these tribesmen of the faraway hills. There is no close community of interest between the regions. But the news gives cause to fear that the political campaigners are prepared to go to great lengths in their hostility to British rule. Not long ago there was circumstantial and direct iproof that Mahatma Gandhi had enlisted Sikh violence in aid of his civil disobedience crusade. That argued a readiness to pass utterly from the stage of merely passive non-co-operation. This recent development in the north-west points the same way, and adds to the anxiety with which is anticipated the possibility of further outbreaks when the second part of the Simon Commission's report is made public next week.