THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1907. THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13831, 19 February 1907, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1907. THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE.

Although the Colonial Conference, which is to be commenced' in the middle of April, was not mentioned in the King's Speech nt tho opening of the Imperial Parliament, it is evident tliab it is to provide the subject of a great deal of discussion in the course of tho debate on the Addresp-in-Reply in the Houso of Commons. "Wo were informed last week that notice lias been given of as many as thirty amendments to the Address upon points connected with the Conference. It will not bo expected that tho House shall divide upon many, if any, of these amendments. The object with which they will be proposed will, rather, bo to ventilate the topics to which they relate, and more especially perhaps to elicit from the front bonches an expression of the opinions respectively held by responsible members of the great parties of the State. It was probably with 110 motive other than that of securing pronouncements of this kind that an amendment was submitted from the' Liberal side affirming the desirability of tho Conference discussing the question of the colonial contributions towards tho defence of the Empire. It is inevitable, as a matter of fact, that whether this subject be brought directly under the notice of the Conference by resolution or not, tho problem of Imperial defenco will engage the attention of the representatives of the colonies. A consideration of the question cannot, for example, be excluded from a discussion of the trade relationship of the Mother Country and the colonies, and that will be one of the matters of principal interest with which tho Conference will have to deal. Of the spirit in which the subject was handled in the House of Commons ou Friday last no colonist can reasonably complain. Mr Balfour and Mr Winston Churchill spoke in terms which indicated that on both sides of the House a broad view is taken of the matter. They both deprecated the idea that the question of the naval defence of the colonies is 0110 that should be placed on tho level of a commercial transaction. Mr Churchill, in one of the epigrammatic sentences in which his speeches happily abound, declared that the Empire was not a business proposition: it was based on the principle of a family and not on that of a syndicate. And because this is the conception that is justly held of the composition of tho ifimpire, it follows that, as tho Under-Secretary for the Colonies went on to say, it is the duty of the colonies to contribute as the occasion arises towards the cost of their common defensive needs. This contribution must, however, Mr Balfour and Mr Churchill agree, be voluntary in character. One virtue of the principle to which both sides of the House of Commons have thus given their support is that it afFords room for discrimination on the part of the colonies respecting the character of tho assistance they would tender. It may seem to one colony more expedient to equip and maintain troops than to send money. Another colony may prefer to supply ships. Canada may perceive 110 reason why sho should voto any subvention towards the cost of the upkeep of the Navy, since she need not bo apprehensive of invasion at any time save by land. Australia may cling to tho notion, the soundness of which is far from apparent, that the problem of naval defence so far as she is concerned is best solved in the provision and maintenance of her own navy. Probably it is the existence 111 tho Commonwealth of this idea, sometimes described as a national sentiment, which Mr Balfour had in his mind when he suggested that it might be possible for tho Mother Country and the colonies to enter into treaties providing for the transference by tho colonies of their troops and ships to Imperial control in the event of the occurrence of Imperial complications. But even this would involve the necessity of bargaining, and Mr Balfour, while throwing out the hint, was careful to disarm any suggestion that the colonies should be pressed to agree to such an arrangement. Tho sense of the Imperial statesmen would seem, therefore, to be that the colonies should be trusted to render whatever assistance their own judgment may dictate as being fair and proper towards the maintenance of the Navy. The extent to which the existence of the colonies has necessitated the .strengthening of the Navy has never been officially estimated, Mr Balfour says in efl'ect that the Naval Estimates would not, be reduced at all if there were 110 colonies to defend. That is, however, not a statement that could be seriously justified. The maintenance of tho squadrons that are detailed for colonial service in itself represents a great' annual expenditure. But the sound view of the subject of naval defence is that the protection of the colonies may rest as much ou the sue-

eessful maintenance of the Channel or of tho Mediterranean fleet as on the maintenance of that of somewhat doubtful fighting value which is kept on tho Australasian station. This being so, it certainly seems to u* that the colonies should respond to the trust which is reposed in them by Home statesmen by making their contributions towards the cost of naval defonco as generous ns their circumstances will permit.