THE WORD “COLONIAL”

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4340, 9 November 1921, Page 1

THE WORD “COLONIAL”

AND THE ROYAL COLONIAL INSTITUTE. SHOULD IT .BE ELIMINATED ? * I have been disappointed (writes “Britannicus” in the London “Financier”) that the promised contributions from Canadians adverse to the .word '“colonial” have not come to hand; I have, been able to secure, however, a .further opinion from Mr ,T. E. Donne, Secretary,. Npw Zealand Government Offices in London. It will be observed that all the views published to date have been in flavour of the word, as I hope that next week, having given the “pro” side full space, that the “con” folk will rally to. the charge. Mr Donne’s, views are ,as follows : — The indication given by Lord Chelmsford that there is a thought in certain minds that the word “col-, onial ” shouldi be eliminated from the title of’ the Royal Colonial Institute is writes Mr Donne, a question solely for the consideration of members othat institute and no concern of mine, as I have not the honour to be one of them and I ’cannot, therefore, in that connection, make any comment. His Lordship is, however, also reported to have stated that “the term ‘colonial’ has never found great favor in the Dominions,” and on this aspect of the general question I am. as a colonial, entitled tp take issue with him. .

For 50 years I resided in New Zeaand during that time made a number of; visits to Australia, (travelling more than once between Brisbane in the east and Perth in the west. I have also travelled in Canada, and during my residence in New Zealand and the visits referred to I did not onceNhear or read of any taking exception to being so termed. The title is regarded as an honourable one, with very fine traditions, in each of the oversea parts of the Brit-, ish Empire, but there appears to be in this country a generally mistaken impression in regard Ito the application of the word, and, this was exemplified in a striking manner during the visit of the bowling team from New Zealand, which has just terminated. At one township near London a circular let’er was addressed to the local bowlers, which contained this happy, and, from the point pf-view of a colonial, humorous suggestion—- “ The New , Zealanders are very loyal. They do not like being referred to as colonials. If you desire to please them play ‘God Save tne King’ as often .as you can.” May I digress to add, en' passant, that the frequent playing of the National Anthem by the local band so bucked up the colonials that they gave the bowlers referred to a good “dressing down.” The word colonial convoys to the minds of those who know the colon-, ies a man who has battled hard

against the .adverse conditions of a rough life in helping to bring order and discipline into being from the cliaos of primitive conditions. The man who was born in wild lands oversea was not propelled into a life of ease from a gilded springboard, bu.t had tp take an aoitiye pari in the actual work of 1 pioneering. Tn 1820 New Zealand was an unimportant “colonial possession.” Today it is an important factor in the* world of affairs, its Prime Minister having, during the last, month or so, been engaged with other Prime Ministers of the British Empire in considering discussing, and deciding policy questions of the greatest im-, port to all Britons. The development which has effected such a material change, not only ,as regards New Zealand, hut also in. Canada and Australia, has been brought about by “ colonials,’ ’and /they are naturally proud of their achievements. Canada was, I think, the first to acquire the title of Dominion, then on the confederation of States, Australia became a Commonwealth, and later New Zealand was granted a charter of Dominionship. I well remember the circumstances in connection , with this. Sir Joseph Ward, who was then Premier, had returned From Lon-, don, and the local newspapers announced that he would at a public meeting make an* important announcement in regard to the status of New Zealand/ Thei Town Hall was crowded with people, who were in a condition of eager anticipation Jo hear the news. When the Premier announced that from a certain date New Zealand would become a Dominion there was absolute silence. The statement .was received with cold indifference until a voice rang ou: saying What is the matter with Colony ?” It is doubtless correct to term one born in New Zealand a New Zealander and one born in Australia an Aus-, tralian, although since the war the English press seem to prefer the less formal and more friendly term “Aussie.” That course, however, Oofc '•no't provide a general term which would embrace men born in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Smith Africa .unless one adopts an acrostic and refers to them conjointly as C.A.N.S. Two sections. of! them could be referred to as D.ominionites, the Australians as Commpnwealthers’, and. 'the South Africans as Unionists. The New Zealanders and Australians could also bei termed AntHpodeans. 1 think, however, that I •should not like to be called a “Dominionite” nor an Antipodean. I might feel like the Southern Irish man who told an Orangeman fiddler to play ‘Boyne Water,’ to see whether his blood could stand it.” ’ Pelmanism will naturally cause people who are of opinion that the Royal Colonial Institute should change its title to consider whether the Colonial Office shoudl not also follow suit, and amend its appellation

and adopt one which does, not contain the vzord colonial. Perhaps the Gov--ernment would call it “The Distinguished Office that Administers thd Political Affairs of the Oversea Portions of the British Empire which are not under the Adminictration ofi the India. Office.” In conclusion, might I seriously add .that, as one who was born and brought up in the colonies, and who knows may thousands of? other colonials, I have never once heard pf any exception being taken by them' to the appellation pf “Colonial.”