COLONIAL CONFEDERATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 26, 22 July 1871, Page 5

COLONIAL CONFEDERATION.

[From the London Standard.] The able and interesting letter from " J.V." on the subject of Colonial Confederation re opens a question of the gravest possible concern to the people of this country at a season when it may very properly be discussed, pace Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen. We all know what is the usual fate of motions respecting the " colonial question" in Parliament. Opened generally by some member of more zeal than knowledge, without any pre-concert with those who are really acquainted with the subject, and without any definite ideas or aims, the colonial debate runs one invariable course. The mover is found to have got up his case with so little cunning that he falls an easy victim to the simple traps laid for him by the official persons connected with the department The speakers are found to be possessed of a wonderful unanimity in regard to the matter in hand. Their enthusiasm for the integrity of the empire is only surpassed by their interest in the speedy development of colonial self-dependence. Their joy over the present unity almost equals their rapture over the prospective disunion. Nothing can be more effusive than their regard for the colonies —nothing more earnest than their desire that the colonies should effect a happy separation. As for the Minister responsible for that department, we all know the stereotyped answer which is made to the mover of a colonial resolution. To express deep sympathy with colonial aspirations —to profess ardent attachment to the colonies for their own sake—to enlarge upon their moral value to the mother country, and to conclude with a prayer that they may go in peace when the time for departure has come—all this is " common form" in the mouth of the Colonial Minister. The speech of Mr R'natchbull-Hugessen on Friday night has been delivered about a dozen times within the last two or three years, and with precisely the same effect. The resolution, intended to call in question, if not to censure, some act or indica-

tion of policy on the part of the Government, is dexterously turned into an occasion of Ministerial triumph. The mover declares that his purpose has been effected in the assurances which he has drawn from the Government, and is glad to withdraw his motion. Everybody agrees with everybody else that the question is one of great interest, that it is extremely desirable to preserve the integrity of the empire, but that it is politic to lei the colonies go if they please ; and so the debate ends.

That the colonists should continue to be dissatisfied with these discussions must be set down to their obstinate tendency to cling to the English character in spite of all the generous suggestions and liberal invitations so frequently made to them by some foreigners. . The colonists would certainly have demurred to accepting " self-government" if they had had any idea that it meant separation. Why should there be any disintegration ? That is the question. The colonists do not want to separate ; why are we to be always putting the idea of separation in their heads? As our correspondent, " J.V.," himself a colonist peculiarly well qualified to speak on this subject, reminds us, the age is one of federation and union, not of separation. Every other great nation is employed in cementing and consolidating the connection between its members. Why should Great Britain be the one exception ? It is the deliberate opinion of the British people that they are better for being " disestablished" as a a great Power, that their magnificent dominion ought to be resolved into its constituent elements ? Surely the time is come when Great Britain should decide what she is to be—an insular kingdom, sunk necessarily into a third-rate power, or the central member of a great Anglo Saxon Confederation. The choice will not be always hers. That which can be done easily and happily today will be impossible to morrow. All the wild and foolish talk which we hear from ministers in parliament—all thosp loose suggestions about separation may bear fruit earlier than any of us expect. Is it then decided that the British dominion is to be broken up as soon as it pleases any one of our outlying possessions to declare its independence? Of course,. if one colony goes, other colonies will follow. There is a contagion in disloyalty, as in loyalty, and the day may come when the colonists will believe what is too frequently preached to them. And let us understand one tbing clearly. Mr Knatchbull-Huges-sen talked the other night of substituting for " faithful dependents" " powerful and loyal allies." This is the vainest of delusions—the most hazardous of speculations. The colonies, if they separate at all, will certainly not do so in goodwill, but in more or less of anger. That is inevitable, because they do not desire separation, so that when it comes it will be forced upon them. The ill feeling thus bred will certainly grow in the process of years. A centrifugal force, instead of a centripetal, being at work, the result must be that each succeeding generation will carry the colonies further away from the parent stock. The work of building up again a friendship between two members of the English race, if hereafter desirable, will have to be commenced anew, amidst all those difficulties and risks which have been encountered in the case of the United States.

Surely it is the duty of British statesmanship, its first and most important task in these days, to avoid this result, if possible—to retain the fidelity of the colonies while we have it—to keep them not as " faithful dependents" only, but as integral parts of the empire, rather than to dissolve the tie on the chance of its being renewed some other day when we want it It is nothing to the purpose to talk about " ties of kindred and affection." We must have ties of a more substantial kind if the Anglo-Saxon unity is to be preserved. No poJicy can be said to have for its object the maintenance of the British empire in its integrity, which does not aim at some closer and more real union between England and her dependencies than that which at present exists. We have so far acknowledged the principle that there is strength in confederation as to have gone to great pains to effect the political union of some of our American colonies among themselves. Why should

not the process be extended so as to include England and all the colonies? Why should it be good for British Columbia to join Canada, when it is no good for Australia to join both, and all to join Great Britain? This is a question our posterity will ask, when future Alabama difficulties spring up, demanding apologies and bribes from England, between her and the Australian Eepublie or the Kingdom of New ZealandWhy did not British statesmen, when they had the opportunity, make us one aation ? What if the people of England themselves should ask some day of their rulers, What have you done with that vast domain which was ours? Why are we cooped up and confined to prey on one another in these narrow islands, when we had one whole continent and large portions of two others to fill and to cultivate as our own estate ? It will be hardly reckoned a satisfactory answer that in those days the Government was busily occupied in putting down murder in the county of Westmeath and in passing a Ballot Bill. The one necessary step towards effecting a real union between England and the colonies, and preserving the empire, is confederation. It is this matter which our correspondent " J.V." discusses with much force and fulness of knowledge. He has even sketched out the outline of a Federal scheme which is to embrace the whole British dominion The details of such a scheme we need not now discuss; but it is certain that unless the necessity of confederation in some form or other is acknowledged by our statesmen, and unless their minds are seriously directed to grappling with the problem, the thing will solve itself in a manner which cannot be beneficial to the British people. The main propositions on which the argument for confederation rests seem to us to be absolutely irrefragable, unless we are prepared to say that the unity of an empire is no element in its strength—that the maintenance of one common feeling of nationality extending over the world is no part of the greatness of a people. It is a denial of human reason to pretend that the colonies, if made absolute and inseparable provinces of the empire, would not be the better and stronger for the process. It is equally absurd to maintain that England herself would not benefit by thus extending her borders over the vast territories -which for the present call themselves English, but over a large extent of which since the new colonial policy has been on trial, the roll of the British drum is heard no longer, nor is the gleam of a red coat visible.