The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1911. THE BASIS OF IMPERIAL UNITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7452, 29 May 1911, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1911. THE BASIS OF IMPERIAL UNITY

Tlie withdrawal of Sir Joseph Ward’s resolution brings tho principle of Imperial unity into prominence, with ques-( tionings as to what it is. To answer; these it is necessary to take a brief glance at the course of the Imperial Conferences reaching back to tho year 1897. In that year there was a feeling abroad—in Great Britain, not in the colonies, where public opinion was in no way exercised—that the sentiment which had up to that time united the Empire was no longer sufficient for the continuance of that important function, but must be reinforced by something more formal in the way of constitutional machinery of some kind—to “ draw the bonds tighter ” as Mr Chamberlain expressed it; He was the apostle of the new idea, and made a strong speech in its support at tho Conference of 1897. “ Strong as is the basis, of sentiment,” he said, “ and impossible as it would be to establish any kind of relations unless that bond of sentiment existed, I believe that we all feel that it would bo desirable to take advantage of it and to still further, tighten the ties which bind us together.” But even he did not ask the Conference to go further on tho road than an increase of tho colonial contributions to the navy. The Conference disagreed with Mr Chamberlain as effectively as its successor of to-day differed with Sir Joseph Ward. It affirmed that “ the present political relations between tho United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies are generally satisfactory under the existing condition of things.” It separated without coming to any resolution about the increased contribution to tho navy. In 1902 Mr Chamberlain was less certain about'tho political evolution, 'contenting himself with advising 1 tho Conference to “ do nothing to make it impossible ” when the time should come for tho realisation of what was “ in all their hearts.” But he was even more urgent than on the previous occasion on tho need for increasing the naval contributions. The Conference familiarised by tho facts of tho Boer war with tho principle of active help to tho Mother Country adopted the suggestion to ask the colonies for larger contributions to the burden which Mr Chamberlain had (of course easily) proved to be very unfairly distributed. On the political question they affirmed tho desirability of holding Conferences every four years or so for

considering and discussing “ questions of common interest affecting the relations of the Mother Country and his Majesty’s Dominions over the seas, ns between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Prime Ministers of tlio self-governing colonies.” The Conference also passed a resolution asking that in the matter of treaties with foreign Powers the views of the colonies affected should be obtained in order to enable them the better to respect the same. By 1907 Mr Chamberlain had despaired of political evolution by tbe road of falling in with Imperial policy pins a naval contribution, and sought to gain his objective through a tariff. His idea was of preference, and though lie was not present or taking any leading part at the Conference of 1907, the idea was put forward, and wo need only say that it was lost as completely at least as Sir Joseph Ward’s proposal of the other day. At the same time, another idea had come to the front—the idea of co-operation as the basis of Imperial union. Thrusting away the old idea of union hy simple adoption colonially of Imperial policies, the Conference determined that it would bo advantageous if the four yearly meetings of tho Conference could discuss the relations between tlie Mother Country and the self-governing Dominions “as between the Secretary of State and the Prime Ministers of the self-governing colonies.” This clearly was, and was generally understood, to imply a union of “five nations under ono flag/’ with all it might involve. This Conference and tho later Naval Conference settled the naval question on a.now basis, practically accepting all round the principle of increased colonial contribution ; and agreed to the establishment of an Imperial system of land defence with the principle of local autonomy very fully safeguarded. At this point the Conference of 1011 has taken up tho running, if running it can be called. As in 1897 there are now men who think, as Mr Chamberlain thought, that the time has come for drawing tighter the bonds. Tiiat question had to bo settled before anything else could he done, and, as the “ Westminster Gazette ” points out, Sir Joseph Ward did good service by bringing the question out of tho abstract into the concrete. The result is a second pronouncement by the Con.forenco that tho time has not yet come. |We may judge as much by the lino of (reasoning adopted against the resolution, since every argument employed (applies to any proposal for a federation (of tho Empire that may ho made in future, without being able to prevent the adoption of-a federal constitution when the time is ripe. For the present, then, tho result is that the (unity of tho Empire must continue to depend on the strength of the sentiment which has been from the first tho icnly bond. Sir Joseph has fallen bach (on his second resolution, we observe, which provides, not, indeed, for a (further step forward in federation of .the five nations under one flag, but aims at making the surroundings of the present connection more comfortable. It is notable that tho Unionist press is taking tho lino that “ the hand of tho Government is shaping the course of the Conference.” There is just as much truth in that as there is in the previous Unionist statement that Mr (Chamberlain dominated the Conferences of 1897 and 1902, keeping the discussions to tho “ realities of life.” Ho did not dominate, as we have shown above; neither did he touch on anything but impossibilities. The fact on 'the present occasion is that the discussions of the Conference have so far 'been led into the subjects suggested (from New Zealand. The upshot is that tho Empire will have to rely for an indefinite period on sentiment, aided, not by anything new constitutionally, but hy coining to understandings for the improvement of mutual relations. Such is the basis of Imperial unity today. And to those eager souls who feel that the day has come for replacing the bond of sentiment and the chains of material interest by some written deed of partnership some words which fell from Mr Chamberlain at the Conference of 1902 may he recalled. “ The link which unites us,” ho said to the assembled Prime Ministers, “ almost invisible as it is, sentimental in its character, is one which we would gladly strengthen, hut at tho same time it has proved itself to be so strong that certainly we would not wish to substitute for it a chain which might be galling in its incidence.” It is true that Mr Chamberlain soon abandoned this salutary rule of conduct, but the warning he gave holds good to-day; the wreckage of all his gaudy schemes gives it point and emphasis.