THE COLONIAL PROBLEM.

Evening Star, Issue 4039, 5 February 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE COLONIAL PROBLEM.

H»ST ARTICLE Whilst Colonial sophists are vexing themtheir readers with abstruse disquisitions on the social condition of the lMsr World, thinking men at Home are discussing the great. Colonial problem, upon the propter solution of which depend the wellbemg, safety, and advancement of the Empire. And indeed this is a subject which has never failed to engage their attention •dace the time when Professor Goldwin Smith, “ frighted the isle from its propriety”' by the enunciation of the dangerous and delusive doctrine of dismemberment. We ate very far from asserting that the arguments advanced in support of that policy are not forcible, logical, and worthy of aU consideration ;. but to our mind they are immensely overweighted by the arguments urged m behalf of Imperial federation. If the best mode of carrying the latter proposal mtp effect has not yet been ascertained or developed it may be that the time is not yet Wpte for its adoption ; and the fact that the entire nation has been roused to a sense of its importance is the surest possible guarantee for its ultimate success. . The most recent illustration of the interest that is being taken in this matter is furnished by the annual Inaugural Address of fche Edinburgh Philosophical Institute. The orator of the evening was the Eight Hon. i’ ■^°F s^er > M.P., and the subject •elected for the occasion was “ Our Colonial Empire.” Let us add that this topic was suggested by the secretary and directors of the institution. That Mr Forster, speaking to an Edinburgh audience, should have payed the way for a favorable hearing by the employment of a little judicious flattery was pardonable under the circumstances. “Without Scotch colonists,” he cries, “where would have been our Colonial Empire ? And whatthis Empire is to bo in the future depends not a-little upon Scotch energy and action.” After this complimentary exordium he thus defined the object of his address—“l wish to try -to answer the question— * What will become of our Colonial Empire, if we in the United Kingdom do our duty ?’ .... What is to be the future relation between our islands and those regions of the earth to which we have sent, or are still sending colonists ?” As he subsequently points out, this question does in fact resolve itself into two questions. First: Should the Mother Country look forward to a separation, more or less remote from the Colonies, or to a continued connection with them ? And next, if to a continued connection, upon what terms ? In a word, is the Colonial Empire to last; and, if so, by what means ? And these problems, Mr Forster sets himself resolutely to answer. Fairly enough he sets forth the idea which underlies the Goldwin Smith theory, and which undesignedly pervades the Blinds of those even who are antagonistic thereto, that sooner or later the Colonies must and will become independent nations. “We do not pretend to deny,” writes the London ‘ Times,’ “ that the time must come when they will no longer require our aid, and when it will be better for both that they should set up for themselves,” And long before Professor Smith propounded the policy of separation, Mr Arthur Mills, in the preface to his well-known “ Outlines of Colonial Constitutions,” expressed the opinion that the universally admitted aim of .British statesmen was to ripen the constitutions of the Colonies “to the earliest possible maturity, social, political, and commercial, and to qualify them by all the appliances within the reach of the parent State for present self-government and eventual independence.” There is not any doubt of the favor in which the views indicated by Mr Helps were at that time held. The extreme nature of these views was but the reactionary result of former excesses in the contrary direction. The American Colonies had been held in such cast-iron bonds that theyl were driven to rise in arms against the mother country, and when they threw the good China tea into Boston harbor, they at the same time castoff at once and for ever the Imperial yoke; Canada, driven also to the verge of desperation, rose in rebellion, and although the ridiculous fiasco of Papineau and his companions came to a most inglorious conclusion, it was nevertheless so far successful that it led to the rectification of the abuses under which the Canadian colonists suffered, and brought about the mission of Lord Durham, which eventuated in the extension of all the powers and privileges of selffovernment to the distant possessions of the impire. By the Liberal party in England the bold but judicious counsels of Lord Durham were hailed with approbation, as tending to promote the unification of the Empire, and, as a natural consequence they Were denounced by the Conservative party, who even then predicted that future disintegration must and would follow their adoption. It yet remains to be seen whether the latter prediction is fated to be verified ; and here we find ourselves entirely in accord with Mr Forster, who, referring to the vaticinations of the ‘Times,’ says “This is one of those anticipations—one of those prophecies which fulfil themselves. Ideas are the rulers of ,the world : first or last, they realise themselves and become the facts of history.” The passage that follows is so pregnant with meaning that we give it here unshorn of its fair proportions:—

If, then, it is to be the prevalent idea in the minds of English-speaking men at Home and abroad that each Colony must become an independent nation when it has become powerful enough to protect itself, we may at once try to reconcile ourselves to the inevitable; give up the hope of continuing to girdle the world with our possessions • strive to convince ourselves that this hope is a foolish dream, that this boasted rule is but a vain show a sacrifice of the reality of power to the pretence of prestige, and coneentrate all our endeavors in the attempt to propitiate the new nations, and to obtain from them friendly consideration, as one by one they assert their independence, or, as it were, take up toeir nationality. But suppose that, in place of this Idea, there comes to prevail another and very different idea—namely, this: that our Colonies when strong enough to be independent, will yet be stronger, more rich, more intelligent, able to be hotter, if still in union with ourselves ; that their inhabitants will have greater opportunities, a wider scope, a possibility of a higher career, if continuing our fellow-countrymen; that in order to fulfil all the duties of free and civilised and self-governing men they need not cease to be British citizens; that they may have all the advantages of a nationality without disowning their allegiance, and that as they increasem strength and power so also shall we. I say, become the prevalent idea, then this will be the idea that will realise itself, and our Coloeml Empire may and will last. In truth, a complacent feelinghad grownup and been stimulated by numberless adventitious aids, that, after all, it would be best to let the Colonies go. The old policy which based the strength of Britain on her “ ships, Colonies, and commerce,” was by general consent abandoned or ignored, so far as the Colonies were concerned, and people were taught to believe that much was to he saved whilst > nothing would be lost by the severance _of the connection which hound the Colonies to the Mother Country. The arguments, as stated by Mr Forster, are briefly these The loss of the Colonies, it was said, would in reality he a gain, because it would relieve the British taxpayer of a large pecuniary burden; because, also, it would make wars with other nations less likely to occur and less difficult to wage, or would, in fact, ' 'dimmish the danger to England both of war and in war. And on behalf of the Colonies, it was urged that the severance of their connection with the Empire wdCdd increase their safety and diminish tfieiFufirdens, that it would prevent their heihg involved in wars in which they were

not interested, would stimulate their material progress, and, by training them to selfreliance, would fit them to occupy their proper position in the world as independent nations. But even allowing the force of all these arguments, we are met at the threshold with the serious difficulty that they are not applicable to those Colonies which more especially possess large powers of selfgovernment. The British taxpayer, who is so persistently told that he has to pay his quota for the maintenance of the Colonies, must have been a little surprised to learn that by the latest published Official Returns his contribution was of the infinitesimal order. In 1872-3, the entire amount drawn from the Impierial Exchequer for the support of Colonial institutions in British North America, Australia (including Tasmania and New Zealand), and South Africa was no more than L 372,451, and of this sum Llso,ooowas expended in Nova Scotia, principally for the Imperial station at Halifax, and L 40,000 on the convict establishment maintained for Imperial purposes in Western Australia. Virtually, therefore, only L 160,000 is chargeable against the Colonies. As against this small item let us take into account the comjxftercial benefits derived by the old country from this connection. And here we know that we have to combat a very popular fallacy. It is commonly supposed that the trade between England and her Colonies would not be affected by a severance of the political ties whereby they are now united. It is, we think, only necessary to glance at recorded facts to dispel this illusion, for as such we regard it. Accepting Mr Forster as our authority we find that the exports from Britain’in 1874 were in value—“To Australia, including New Zealand, more than L 20,000,000 ; France less than L 30,000,000; British North America more than L 10 ,000,000; the United States less than L 33,000,000; the Cape and Natal about L 4,700,000 ; China less than L 5,000,000. Taking in each case the last recorded Census this return shows that the colonists at the antipodes took each of them in that year an average of LlO worth of our goods; while France took less than 17s per head. The average to the States was rather more than to France, but less than 17s 6d per head; while to our North American possessions it was more than 535. Again, the imports into Great Britain from the North American, Australian, and South African Colonies for the five years ending 1874 were, in round numbers, about L 148,000,000, and the exports to them about L 142,000,000. Other imports from foreign countries for the same period were about L 1,350,000,000, and exports to them about LI, 125,000,000. These seven millions of Colonists cannot then be considered bad customers of the British people. The import from them is about 11 per cent., and the export to them about per cent, of the import and export to and from all foreign countries.” These are facts which outweigh any possible theory upon the subject; and they tell greatly in favor of the retention of the outlying Provinces within the Imperial circle, by which alone can their commerce be retained also. So important is that commerce regarded, even by those who fail to perceive its value as a factor in the Colonial problem, that recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst deploring the falling off in the foreign trade of Britain, took heart of grace again from the consideration that this falling off was largely counterbalanced by the improvements in the exports to the Colonies.

The benefits derived from the Imperial connection by ourselves is another loranch of the question, and as Mr Forster h:is mainly dealt with the matter from an English standpoint, we shall endeavor in a future article to show how, in what manner, and to what extent we are affected therein.