The N.Z. Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1907. MR BALFOUR AND THE COLONIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6138, 19 February 1907, Page 4

The N.Z. Times

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1907. MR BALFOUR AND THE COLONIES

tHi wmzch u xiroomroaArM tjuc “ inuuwvMr BBmVMKT," ■wiw.wm 184*. '

All signs are acceptable of the happy time when the lion shall lie down with the kid, and it surely counts for something towards the era of universal peace when we find Mr Balfour, in the Parliamentary sense, lying amicably down side by side with Mr Winston Churchill. Mr Balfour has spoken and Mr Churchill has applauded, heartily and without reservation. This interesting incident came about from Mr Harold Cox’s moving in the House of Commons that the time was come for a discussion of the question how far it was incumbent on the colonies to participate in the defence of the Empire, Mr Cox suggesting that this was a proper question for the Colonial Conference to consider. Mr Cox’s motion was ultimately withdrawn, hut not till-it had giyen Mr;

Balfour the opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject. The substance of Mr Balfour’s remarks was that the question of the mutual obligations binding the colonies and the Mother Country was a delicate matter with more than one side to it —a matter, moreover, which it behoved all concerned to approach in no huckstering spirit. It is no doubt true that Great Britain is annually put to enormous expense for the upkeep of her navy, to say nothing of her army, and no less true that, so far as defence goes, the colonies profit by this outlay equally with the Mother Country; for it is indisputably true that La mb ton Quay is safe just as long as Cheapsido is safe, and not a minute longer. It looks on the face of it, therefore, as if the colonies were morally bound to stand their fair share of the reckoning; and that is what w© consider to be the exact state of the case. Morally bound, however, not legally bound. The opinion of the leader of the British Opposition, warmly approved by Mr Winston Churchill, is that it would be a mistake to make any formal legal bond between Mother Country and colonies; that, on the contrary, the relations of mother and daughters are likely to remain much more sweet if those are left to their own natural feelings of loyalty and affection. In such a case as this, it is the law that kills, the spirit that keeps alive. The bond between Great Britain and her colonies looks to the superficial eye no doubt extremely loose and insecure. The slightest twitch, it might be supposed, would snap the silken cord. So until a short time ago foreign nations wore foolish enough to suppose. It was, they thought, a mere question of waiting until the strain came, as come it must, sooner or later. The fact is that in respect of political adhesion the parts of the British Empire have all the characteristics of the parts of the British family. The bond of kinship sit s lightly upon the members of the British family; they go their own several ways with a considerable show of independence and without any effusive display of family sentiment. But let any offence come from outside, and there is an instant closing in of the ranks, with the instinctive solidarity of common kinship. And that is precisely the spirit of the colonies. Bach manages its own affairs, and is particularly jealous of any interference from the mother or the sister colonies. A very slight interference with their . liberties, the mere semblance indeed of' interference in which there may be little real cause of grievance, is sufficient to generate a spirit of revolt, which fortunately, however, never goes very far, because the Mo ther Country knows too well the susceptibilities of her children to meddle more than can be avoided. It might seem, therefore, to those who did not know us that bonds which sit so lightly upon us would readily sever in times of storm and stress. It is just the reverse that happens. In times of peace and prosperity you may hear such an ugly phrase as “cutting the cable.” But ‘■let the blast of war blow in our oars,” and there is another story to tell, as the whole world effectually learned •not so long ago. Mr Balfour recognises the strength of this natural bond of blood, and rightly deprecates anything that might change it into a mere ledger account of debit and credit. In dealing with the matter Mr Balfour sounded a note which it is good to hear from a statesman, a note that will go straight to the heart of ©very Englishman in Greater Britain. And Mr Winston Churchill, with his natural generosity, and with a readiness of perception which shows that, young statesman as he is, he has a very wholesome largeness and breadth of view, responded as heartily as if the sentiments had been uttered by his own political chief and not by the leader of the opposite party. Mr Balfour is by this time probably tolerably indifferent to words of praise or censure; but we fancy it must have given even his tough political heart a thrill of pleasure to hear his brilliant young opponent describe his speech as "one inspired by profound political wisdom.”