The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1914. COLONIAL OR BRITANNIC?

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2156, 23 May 1914, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 23, 1914. COLONIAL OR BRITANNIC?

Shakespeaiie tells us that ,;'a rose Ijy any other name would smell, as sweet"—und no doubt it would; but for all that there is a groat deal in ii name. The battleship New 'Avalnnd might not.have aroused quite the same amount of enthusiasm as it did when it visited these shores had it been called the Flying Dutchman or the Timbukt.fi; or at any rate wo would have felt that such names would not have been in accord with the fitness of things. A nam? shonM, ar, far as po?f<ihle, htivmotn.w with the thing named. Acting on this

opinion -a 'section of members of the Buyai. Colonial Institute is''at present a change in the titlo of the-Institute, ,and the proposal has evoked quite an interesting discussion. .Those''-who favour tho eli an go urge with considerable force that in view of the great growth of the overseas Dominions the word "colonial" is no longer an adequate or appropriate description of an Institute composed of men interested in the development and consolidation of the British Empire, and at the annua! meeting held in March last tho Council of the Institute brought, forward the suggestion that the title should bo changed from "Royal Colonial" to "Royal Britannic Institute." The .matter was. keenly discussed by the Fellows, it being- eventually decided that no alteration should be made without the consent of a majority of the Fellows, and that their views be ascertained by means of a-postal referendum.

One cannot help .having a good deal of sympathy for those who ding to the old name under which the Institute has grown and prospered until the membership now totals over 9000, while, tho value of its assets' is over £70,000. Tho majority of those present at the annual' meeting wore certainly against the change, ' and they were not at all satisfied -With ■the 'arguments put forward by the other_ side. They apparently felt that in such a matter the claims of sentiment should receive a.t least as much attention as logical consist-' ency, and there is no denying the fact that many cherished associations have grown up around the words ''colonial" and "colonist" The British colonist hag made the Empire what it is, and to some people it would be almost sacrilegious to cast the fine old word "Colonial" out and to substitute "Britannic,""'.a term to which wo have not yet become accustomed, and which "strike's some .people as new-fangled and somewhat showy. One of the upholders ot the. old name states thai numerous instances might be given of titles which are inadequately representative, inappropriate, or'even misleading; ln.it nobody wants to change them, even- for more appropriate ones, "because ia their special connections they have gained a new meaning, and stand for, or suggest, something much wider than "the strict connotation of the words of which they are composed." There is no doubt considerable force in this argument, and it is also contended' by some that, even if a- change were desirable, the word Britannic does not exactly meet the cose. •The sentimental reasons for retaining the present title are sure to'; appeal strongly to many minds, but the plain fact remains that the word 'colonial,"-whieh was no doubt the natural term to use in 16G8 when the Institute was founded, is no longer an appropriate description of the scope aiKl purpose of such a body. It conveys an idea which is not in accordance with the Imperial situation as it exists to-dav. India never was a British colony, and the solt-governing British communities no longer Call themselves colonies: They'prefer such terms as Dominion, Commonwealth, and Union. It ia not that they are ashamed of the word "Colonial"—to from it. 'It is still held in affectionate regard, but it points to a stage of growth which has been, or is being, left behind. Ms. Richard 'Jeisd overstates . the-' case when he says that Canadians, Austral was, awl New Koalandors object to being called colonials. They do not consider tho name objectionable, but merely think that it has been outgrown. By a process of Imperial ■evolution tho colonies have become Dominions, and the Colonial Conference has becomo the Imperial Conference. The overseas Dominions are growing rapidly in population and wealth, arid are developing na- ! Monal characteristics of their own* ' and also their own ideals of nation- ■ hood. Generations of native-born I citizens are growing up who naturally regard' themselves as Canadians, New Zcalandcrs, and Australians, and the word ."colonist" is generally reserved -for the gallant band of early settlers who are now passing away. These facts certainly point to tho coming of the-time, if it has not already come, when the present title of the Royal Colonial Institute-will be an anachronism, and a change must be made sooner or later. There is of course room for difference of opinion as to the sub-' stitution of the word "Brita-aidc," but on the whole it is undoubtedly a more aot description of an Institute dealing with the affairs of the self-governing Dominions at the present stage of their national develop- ■■ rnent, and it is a title which 'is not likely to bo rendered obsolete by anv probable new departure in the future history of the Empire. It has already found an honoured place in the term "His Britannic Majesty." But the choice does not Mccs&fcnly lie. between "Colonial" and "Britannic," and before the matter is finally settled a more acceptable and appropriate word than either may possibly be discovered and adopted.