Wellington Independent THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3149, 16 March 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1871.

On the question of the " neutrality of tbe colonies" brought before the public in the report of the Royal Commissioners of whom Mr Dully is chairman, we were the first in this colony to express an opinion. Some time intervened before any of our contemporaries took up the question, and as file after file reached us we found ourselves in the no very enviable predicament of being in a minority of one. The Australian press, too, almost unanimously we think, supported the views of the Royal Commissioners. The arguments of the " Argus" and the "Age" as together fairly representing public opinion in Victoria, we fairly met and fully discussed in our columns. We have since carefully noted every expression of opinion on the part of the colonial press generally ; and the result of our observation is that the notion of the neutrality of the colonies in a state of war is all but universally considered feasible. Public opinion therefore, so (

far at least as can be inferred from newspapers, is against U8 in the colonies. But what is the state of public opinion in England ? To answer this we have carefully conned all the articles in the leading English journals bearing on the question, and we find that it is exactly opposite to that so generally prevalent in the colonies. All the leading journals take exactly the views of the proposition expressed by us at the time the report was published, and some of them almost in totidem verbis. They agree with us in thinking that the notion is a " chimera," and that even if this " neutrality" could be established it would not subsist for a day in time of war, when alone it could be put to the test. They also agree with us in thinking that the cases of Hanover and the lonian States put before us as precedents are extremely unfortunate, and that it is rather ominous that both these states are now separated from Great Britain. On the broad ground that British subjects must he at war with all the enemies of their sovereign, they are entirely at one with us. The covroboration of our views by all the great organs of public opiniou at home naturally leads us again to refer to the subject. Without repeating what we have already advanced, we contend that it is contrary to every principle of international law to suppose that an empire should be at war with any foreign state, and any section of its subjects at the same time at peace with it. The Royal prerogative of making peace and war resting only in the sovereign is coextensive with his dominions, and no subject of his, no matter in what depen--1 dency he may be placed, can go beyond its read;. It may be argued and indeed it has been argued, that while King George was at war, his subjects in Hanover were in a state of peace. Now herein lies the fallacy. They confound the sovereign with the individual sitting upon the throne. If the King of Hanover proclaimed war with the King of France, all his subjects (qua King of Hanover) thereby became enemies of France. If the King of Great Britain declared war against Italy, all his subjects (qua King of Great Britain) thereby became enemies of Italy. But in the one case the other subjects of the King (the British) and in the other (the Hanoverians) were not thereby involved. The reason is obvious ; the people of Hanover were not British subjects, and the people of Britain were not Hanoverian subjects. Both were subjects of King George, but both were not British subjects. A Hanoverian might become a British subject by naturalisation, and then only would he be at war with those with whom the British sovereign was at war. So long, therefore, as colonists are British subjects (no matter what may be the internal Government of the colony) they cannot escape the Royal prerogative. So long as we are governed by her Majesty (as represented in the Governor appointed by her) and profess the allegiance of subjects to her, it is manifestly impossible we can be at peace with her enemies. Nor should we forget the impossibility of this notion of " neutral colonies" finding acceptance with foreign powers, which having no colonies of their own, would thereby be deprived (without receiving any corresponding advantage) of the opportunity of attacking Great Britain in the very part which might be most vulnerable ; and the defence of which would most exhaust her resources. Being British subjects, we are entitled to the protection of the British Crown ; but wo cannot avail ourselves of the advantages implied by this connection without at the same time sharing the danger. " A neutral colony," foreign powers would consider as nothing but a collusion between Great Britain and her dependencies, contrary to the law of nations, and capable neither of being supported by any precedent, nor defended by any principle of international law. British subjects, in short, must follow their Sovereign in peace or war ; her friends must be their friends, and her enemies must be theirs too. To conclude, the notion of a neutral colony, as we said six: months ago, is " a political chimera."