PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2085, 8 February 1894, Page 42

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Britain's Colonies.

Last week I wrote about Britain's naval power, and this week I intend to write a line or two on her colonies and the need of a fleet to protect them. At Home there is a strorig feeling, I am told, among the working classes that Britain is spending too much in providing ships to protect the commerce of her colonies ; and there seems little doubt that federation is little discussed among them. I think, however, that the British Parliament, purely from a commercial point of view, ought to Bee that the navy is strong enough to rule the eeas. As I wrote last week, though many of the colonies are protective, yet the mother country enjoys more freedom of trade with them than would be the case if they were under foreign domination. Then what a ruinous result would follow if France or some other nation were to cut off all supplies of food and raw material. Imagine what misery would be caused by commerce destroyers stopping all wool, wheat, and cotton cargoes, and the export of manufactured goods ! Britain's enviable commercial supremacy would soon vanish.

Then, apart from trade, Britain is the world's carrier and moneylender, so that to lose the supremacy of the sea would mean the loss of — at any rate a great deal of it — the carrying trade, and the loss of security for interest on money lent ; so that a strong navy is necessary as a sea patrol, and is really an insurance premium. The colonies are now helping the mother country to maintain her fleefc, bat even if they didn'c it is held by many that the mother country should bear the entire burden of a navy to secure the commerce of the empire, because, as a buyer and seller, it is to her own advantage to secure freedom from risk, for safe transit means lower prices ; so that though Britain may be put to great expense in defending the empire, yet she is the gainer by it. And it may be put another way : Taxes have to be paid to keep up the navy; goods are sold by the British as a nation at a price that gives a profit after all expenses are paid, and as taxes are included in expenses, it follows that the colonies and other customers for British manufactures pay their share of the tax, That being so, it is not reasonable

to call npon the colonies to pay again for protection. It may be argued that if the colonies did pay a million or two towards the cost of the navy the Home taxation would be appreciably lessened, and goods would also appreciably decline in price. But as the colonies do not include all the trade of Britain they would be paying a subsidy to cheapen goods for the other customers of Britain. I think, however, whether what I have written is justifiable or not, that it is advisable for the colonies to assist in their own defence, if for no higher reason than that the dislocation or stopping of trade, and a possible invasion and conquest, would be exceedingly disastrous and humiliating. But I did not intend to write so much on who should maintain the Royal Navy. The rise and growth of the colonies is what I mainly wish to draw your attention to, thinking that by doing so you will see the necessity of imperial federation, which wonld necessitate a navy strong enough to defend the empire against any force likely to be brought against it.

Generally speaking, there are four classes of colonies — (a) those established by Governments, such as the Spanish colonies of America; (ft) colonies taken from civilised nations, such as Canada ; (c) colonies where the white man exercises a despotism over the native, as in India and the East Indies ; and (d) colonies where the colonists emigrate from the mother country, and after exterminating the original owners, establish settlements and Governments similar to those which obtain in the mother country. To the last class almost all the British colonies belong.and they are the most valuable to the parent country. In such colonies there is the strongest patriotism. In the past they have been established by two classes of men eminently adapted to nation making. First, there are the Catholic, Puritan, and Church of England settlements of North America. They were settled by men of intense religious convictions, and the historian Mr Leckiesays of such : "As a class religionists are above the average in intellectual and industrial qualities, and nearly always greatly superior in strength of conviction and in those high moral qualities which play so great a part in the wellbeing of nations." The second class of colonists may be called adventurers — men who came to Australia and New Zealand, who are now dotting South Africa, and who in the historic past fought the American Indian single-handed, and faced anything and everything in their search for gold, and in settling large tracts of territories in hostile regions. Such men, gettiDg no Government assistance, were, and are, necessarily self-reliant. These are the men to carve out an empire. So that, given a colony made up of either or both of the classes given, we have a community that will be a source of strength to the mother country, if it is not unduly fettered. No nation but Britain possesses, or has possessed, colonies built up under such conditions. In the Spanish, French, and Dutch colonies, past and present, natives were in the majority in numbers, and the mother countries placed vexatious restrictions on their trade and government, so that little or no bond of sympathy existed between the colonies and the parent nation. These colonies, therefore, became comparatively easy prey — I am speaking generally — to the British, or have very largely drifted apart and become independent. South Africa and Lower Canada are the main exceptions to this. The former was principally Dutch and the latter French when taken, but being- settled by adventurous men, they clung to the mother countries, and have caused far more trouble and anxiety, and shown a far greater desire for independence, than, cay, Australia or New Zealand.

At the present moment the French colonies are said to be a source of weakness to France, (a) because they possess but few Frenchmen, and the restrictions to trade cause such a dislike to French rule ; (5) on account of the incapacity of the French to adapt themselves to a suitable colonial system of Government ; (c) because they are not self-supporting; (d) because they are controlled by Boldiers who may be more value to France for acbing offensively or defensively in Europe ; and (c) because in spite of hostile tariffs mosb of the trade of her colonies is not done with hertelf . Now British colonies possess none of these defects fco any noticeable degree, so they are not in these respects, at any rate, a source of weakness to England. I had intended to enter more fully into the reason why Great Britain should retain her colonies, but I must leave that for some other time.

YOU LOOK SICK ! ' YOU FEEL SICK ! YOU ARE SICK ! WHAT WILL YOU DO ? IF YOU ARE WISE YOU WILL TAKE A COURSE OF CLEMENTS TONIC. The greatest renovator of a worn-out system, the world has ever seen, positively and permanently restores manly virility — to prove which evidence is forthcoming from any quarter.