Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JANUARY 17. 1931 THE EMPIRE’S FUTURE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 17 January 1931, Page 6

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, JANUARY 17. 1931 THE EMPIRE’S FUTURE

IN the course of a recent examination of the causes of the World War, we came by chance upon a passage in a hook by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, written after his visit to the United States in 1922, which is worth quoting. Sir Arthur’s name is usually associated with spiritualism, but he was primarily a great lover of the British race and Empire. This is the passage to which we refer:

I wonder how many Americans in their natural exuberance at victory won have reflected what would certainly have occurred had the leaders of their people held on in patience, or with passive resistance, for a decade or so—(at the time when they were contemplating rebellion, during the years preceding the war of independence, which began in 1775). —The Liberal party in England would, the moment they got into power, have redressed their grievances, and henceforth the Empire would have been contented and whole. There would have been no war of 1776, no war of 1812, no war of 1861. for the freedom of tliQ slaves could have been effected by fair purchase as in the rest of Britain’s possessions. Then, as the most populous must always govern in any democratic system, America would quite naturally and peacefully have become the centre and chief guide to all the scattered English-speaking nations, with the four home countries as part of the huge, world-wide confederation which might have stopped all war and ushered in the millennium. . . . To speculate on the might-have-been is always interesting to minds such as that of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Neither is it altogether unprofitable, since it may be helpful in shaping the future. If, as Sir Arthur suggested, the American colonists had been able to exorcise the patience which was so much to bo desired, it is highly probable that things would have fallen out much as he surmised; but not altogether so, for there would not have been much incentive to found the Australian, South African, and New Zealand colonies, if the American colonies and the whole of the North American Continent had remained under the British flag. It was the loss of the American colonies which caused the expansion of the British Empire in Africa, Australia and New Zealand; so that to-day the English - speaking peoples cover a larger portion of the globe than probably they would, if the rebellion of 1775-1782 had not been successful. Furthermore, if what are now the United States of America had not rebelled when they did, and if the British Empire had expanded along the lines indicated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, how long would the Americans have remained part of the Empire? If they had developed socially and intellectually as they liavo done, would there not have come a time when they would have lost their loyalty to the British Crown, and for one cause or another, or upon this or that excuse, have demanded separation and absolute independence? As a matter of fact such trains of thought are idle, and can lead to no positive or logical deductions, except such as may apply to the future welfare of the Empire. And one of those deductions indubitably is the necessity there is for the maintenance of a good understanding between the British Empire and the United States. That their close co-operation in the future is possible, is illustrated by what has taken place in the past, as witnessed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself, and described by him in these words: Upon 291 h September, 1918, standing on the top tread of an up-ended tank, I saw the 27th and 30th Divisions of tlie American Army helping the Australians to break the Ilindenburg Line, while my brother in high command in the third British Army Corps, which was advancing on the ieft.

There is little doubt that, in similar circumstances, should the ideals of tho English-speaking peoples be menaced in a similar manner, they will be found acting together as they did in 1918. It is not necessary for any political union to exist between tho Empire and tho United States, in order for them to cooperate in defence of their common

ideals: it is merely necessary for them to preserve between them that good understanding which is naturally created by those ideals, the principal of which are a love of fair-play in international politics and a belief in the inherent right of a nation to determine its destiny within its own borders. The colonising success of the British race is without a parallel in the history of the world, and though that success has depended on many high qualities —the spirit of adventure, love of the sea, the pioneering spirit which seeks to penetrate into the unknown, the fortitude and affection of British women which impelled them to accompany their menfolk across the seas to make homos for them in the wilderness —nevertheless the supreme factor in promoting the success of British colonisation has been Britain’s recognition of the fact that if colonies are to flourish they must manage their own affairs. Britain’s guiding and protecting hand is seen in the early history of every British colony, then a measure of self-gov-ernment is extended, and finally complete independence under the British Crown. It is as though the Mother Country, enlightened by human experience, has perceived that, as with children, so with colonies, when they have become of age they must manage their own affairs; by which means she has built up a family of young nations which in the day of her trial and stress, have proved by their deeds the gratitude they feel towards her for care and trouble in their upbringing. And if the eldest of those children—America—has behaved on the whole ungratefully towards the Mother Country which gave her birth, at least she partly atoned for her short-coming by the action which she took in 1917, when she threw the weight of her wealth and her man-power into the scales against the tyrant Kaisers. But the principal duty of the British Empire is with the British Empire, not with countries outside its limits. Many of its members are still in the infantstage of political development, and the great task is to preserve the Empire’s unity and integrity while those immature members are developing their complete manhood. That unity, it is evident, is not merely political, but must be economic; but just as the political unity of the Empire is elastic, so must be its economic unity. The statesmen of the Empire fully realise that truth. The recent Imperial Conference, barren of results as it seemed, showed clearly that the spirit of political unity was more alive than ever and that, in spite of the British Government’s narrow outlook, the Dominions’ delegates fully appreciated the value of co-operation, botli politically and economically. How could it be otherwise!? It was not Little Englanders like Mr MacDonald and Air Snowden, who made the Empire; how, therefore, could they be expected to value its political and economic unity? The Premiers of the Dominions are in a different position. They appreciate the latent greatness of their own countries, and realise what a united British Empire means to-day, and what it will mean half-a-century hence, when the white races within its borders will probably totai more than one hundred million people, occupying countries of vast extent and enormous wealth.

Surely the story of the nations contains nothing more romantic than the British race’s colonisation of waste places of the earth. The British Commonwealth of Nations, which has resulted, is unique. But will it endure? We believe it will, provided those ideals to which we have referred —love of international fair-play and recognition of every independent nation’s right to manage its domestic affairs —are maintained. We will say more: that so long as those ideals are upheld by the two great branches of the English-speaking race, their good understanding will endure, and consequently they will have nothing to fear from the rest of the world.