The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1907. THE IMPERIAL FAMILY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3763, 25 April 1907, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1907. THE IMPERIAL FAMILY.

The Imperial Conference to which New Zealand sent its Premier, appears to be remarkable for the decisiveness with which colonial statesmen state their views, the uncompromising attitude they take in matters of moment to the Empire and their success in convincing the Ministers of the Crown in England that they have not attended the Conference as children who are to be controlled and “ managed ” by Father John Bull! Mr Balfour, ex-Prime Minister, and now leader of the House of Commons’ Opposition, was happy enough in his reference to the ‘ ‘ audacious attempt ’ ’ of Britain and the Colonies in binding into one Empire communities that were unhampered and untrammelled in their individual systems of government. Its true parallel was the constitution of a family. Of course an ‘ ‘ audacious attempt ” to found an Empire that already exists is peculiar, to say the least. Mr Balfour probably intended to convey the idea that, although the Empire, scattered as it is, is one and indissoluble, it is not so much a family of grown-up sons who are capable and willing to run the family affairs with their father, as it is a family of scattered children who know their father a good deal better than he knows them. The British Prime Minister has not opposed the “audacious attempt” of the colonial statesmen in their demand to be treated as having as loud a voice in Imperial affairs as himself, and on this basis the chances that an Imperial Conference may have the best results are rosy. It is not obvious to the ordinary student of the cabled doings of the Conference, what particular means should be taken to make a closer union between Britain and the colonies of mutual advantage to both. Mr Chamberlain is reported to have written that there is only one way, —trade preference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Asquith, specifically states in his Budget that there was no social reform that could be instituted at Home that would not be dearly purchased by the sacrifice of freetrade, so it is dear, if tjjjs is the

attitude of the British Government that the ‘‘only way” mentioned by Mr Chamberlain would be a lop-sided preference. Freetrade being the basis of all Knglish foreign policy, it follows that the sacrifices to be made to still further unite the Empire must be made by the colonies. That is to say, Britain allows colonial products in free. She also allows the products of every other nation in free. In the schemes for uniting the Imperial family the colonies may show a preference for British goods, while Britain continues to show no preference for colonial goods. The obvious way out of the difficulty is, of course, Imperial freetrade. If the Empire is to be a family, none of the members of the family should charge other members tor the privelege of belonging to it. Freetrade relations between all the colonies and the Homeland would result in a combination strong enough to resist every outside trade aggression particularly if tariff walls were still erected between the colonies and outside nations. This would, however, destroy the community of interest between the Old Land and the colonies, seeing that Britian would still continue to be an open market for the world.

No doubt these Colonial Conferences in London concentrate the attention of Horae statesmen on the achievements of the selfgoverning colonies which unhampered' in legislative matters have effected reforms that have not been attempted in the Mother country. Accepting the self-governing colonies as equals for the purposes of conferring on Imperial matters, Britian may accept as worthy of copy achievements that have resulted advantageously to the colonies. In the Chancellor’s Budget, he states that the most important reform is the granting of Old Age Pensions, and although there is no yrovision to institute the scheme at once, it is promised that before long Britian will follow in the steps of New Zealand and- other advanced countries. It is unquestionably due to the larger publicity given to colonial matters and a truer conception of the Imperial idea that British statesmen are awakening to the fact that the largest class at Home is the poorest class, that it is the class that permits the richest class to live, and is the class that is the most deserving of relief, not by indiscriminate charity which is destructive of grit and independence, but by the granting of priveleges that are bare justice. The disposition of British Ministers and the Colonial Office to prevent the publication of more than the barest outline of the deliberations of the Conference is in effect an admission that the Conference is potent for reform. In fact, hide-bound Torryism is frightened of the Conference, as was shown when the Prime Minister of Australia proposed to remove the shackles of the Colonial Office from the wrists of the selfgoverning colonies. There can, of course, be no family happiness when the father of the family deputes a hoary-headed and ignorant nurse to undertake the duties not understood by her and regarded as rather a bore anyhow. If the said nurse in a fit of red tape says that the northern territory of South Australia is the correct place for the reception and breeding of Japs because they are our allies, and of Hindoos because they are our fellow subjects, it is high time that colonial statesmen, not only objected, but had the privelege of cutting adrift from the apron strings that bind them. The idea is prevalent at Home that in order to do any work in a tropical country, the workers must be brown, black or yellow. This idea is the result of Indian experience. India has millions of black folk who naturally do all the hard work. Because white men do not work hard in India is the reason why alarmists at Horae warn immigrants not to go to Queensland sugar plantations. The fact that white navvies work nine or ten hours a day in Queensland during the hottest weather and work much more effectively than Kanakas is an answer to the contention that whites are unable to last at hard labour in tropical Australia. Tens of thousands of British men live for long hours daily in stoke-holes, which is infinitely hotter than the hottest day in the sugar plantations. The safety of tropical Australia and incidentally of sub-tropical Australia and New Zealand lies in their ability to attract white labour and their power to keep coloured peoples out. If the Colonial Conference in London does nothing else than clear away the cobwebs that persistently hang to the minds of Britons about the colonies, and induce, not a trickle of immigration hut a broad river of it, it will do great work. There is no need for lies about the colonies and it is unlikely that the colonies’ most trusted and eminent statesmen would tell anything but the truth about the countries they come from. The point is that some great Britons appear to regard the truth as a danger to the people, and the colonials’ fight for publicity is therefore of the utmost importance. The suggestion for the establishing of a permanent office in London to bridge the gaps between the Imperial Conferences by keeping the members of any coming conference posted on matters of Imperial importance is a good one, if the personnel of any such office is not dependent on that kind of political influence that exults in giving flabbiness a billet. After all, it is a little difficult to make British statesmen and the Home people see the colonies with the eyes of a colonial, I and it is for this' reason that the

educative influences of an Imperial Conference largely composed of colonial statesmen is so valuable. If it could be arranged that Home statesmen by actual contact with the colonies could see at first hand the importance of the colonies, no doubt this would do more to ‘ ‘ cement the Empire ’ ’ than anything else. In the meantime Home statesmen see us from Downing Street. The te’escope they use is dim. Indeed, close examination might demonstrate that the lens is missing.