COLONIAL RELATIONS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 28, 5 August 1871, Page 8

COLONIAL RELATIONS.

[lndependent, August 3.] The letter of “ J. V.,’’ published in the London “ Standard,” must have done more to put the colonial question fairly before the British public than all the effusions of the Royal Colonial Society. It is clear and convincing, breathing generous sentiments, and appealing directly to the great heart of the nation. It contains no mere elegant platitudes, and, carefully avoiding the recriminatory tone of the Cannon-street discussions, it boldly sots before the British Cabinet their colonial policy in its true light, as at once out of harmony with the traditions of tlio empire, and fatal to its future prestige. Compared with it either in loftiness of sentiment, in discernment of the signs of the times, or in a far-seeing, but eminently practical sagacity, the speeches in Parliament on Mr Macfie’s motion are poor and shallow. Never, we believe, _ has the question been so fully and fairly stated with the entire absence of idle declamation, aimless theorising, or useless recrimination. And it is just because it appeals to a people practical, yet proud of their national traditions, that we believe it will effect far more good than all the speeches of professed colonial agitators in or out of Parliament. Had Mi Vogel done nothing but write this letter, it is a triumphant vindication at once of his merit as a politician, and his ability to represent New Zealand before the Government and the people of Great Britain. Our opinion, doubtless, will be set down as biassed, as we have all along expressed an unwavering confidence in bis statesmanlike abilities, predicting bis success when othei journals anticipated only <£ shameful failure,” and approving of his mission to America and England as Postmaster-General and Colonial Treasurer. As we predicted, be has attained a most brilliant sue cess to the evident chagrin of those who foretold that for both the policy, and the mission it necessitated, “ we should get well off by being exceedingly well laughed at!” We have purposely waited to see what judgment would bo passed on this letter of “ J. V.” and find that both in this and the neighboring colonies, as at home, it has only elicited the warmest commendations. Its transcendent merit is also emphatically proved by the silence of lier Majesty s opposition press in the colony. No more favorite subject of bitter attack during the recess has there been than the Colonial Treasurer, unless, indeed, we except the Native Minister. Both have been made the subject of the most unjustifiable attacks, and it must be no small gratification to both to be able to point to the success that has attended their unwearied labors for the public good during the recess, carried on amid so much personal obloquy, and persistent misrepresentation. Had they failed, had “ the king party never been so dangerous as the colony , was assured at Timaru, or had we “ been disgraced by Mr Vogel putting his scheme forward in America or England,” as we were equally dictatorially told in Wellington ; these patriotic journals would have burst out into ecstatic raptures, and from one end of the colony to the other the disappointment of our hopes of peace and piogiess, and the loss of our prestige among British colonies at this great crisis in our history, would have been regarded

with the “ I told you so” complacency peculiar to opiuionative, narrow and ignoble natures. The silence, therefore, of these journals we take as an unwilling homage to the policy enunciated by the Government, and the most favorable critique to be expected on this letter to the “ Standard.” The Melbourne “ Argus” can certainly not be considered a too favorable judge where the words or works of the-present New Zealand Ministry are in question. Our readers have seen how ready our contemporary is to believe any disparging statements made against them ; how forward to champion the cause of their detractors! He has especially taken every opportunity to depreciate the Colonial Treasurer, to whom he seems to have taken a particular and inexplicable aversion. His opinion, then, on this letter we looked for with much interest. In a recent issue he devotes a leading article to its discussion. He shows that the speech of the Under Secretary ££ is not the language of statesmanship, but of official pococuranteism” —that “ the policy of British statesmen is a hand-to-mouth policy,” and that “ the work of welding the loosely connected fragments of the Empire into one colossal structure is the noblest and grandest that could occupy the brain of a statesman.” After remarking that “ the present relations with the mother country are not merely unsatisfactory at present, but attended with dangers and difficulties as regards the future,” be goes on to say, ££ These have been pointed out with considerable force in a letter addressed to the £ Standard ' by Mr Julius Vogel, who remarks that if the doctrine is to be accepted, that colonies are at liberty to secede from the empire whenever it suits them, India and the West India Islands might one day think fit to act upon it. Again, as he does not fail to remind the mother country, she stands pledged to defend those colonies in the event of war with the whole of her power, and yet, that war over, any one of the colonies might elect to leave the empire the moment peace was declared ; so that, in such a contingency, England might find herself saddled with an additional expenditure of some millions incurred in fighting for distant dependencies, and at the same time be shorn of territory and prestige by the act of those for whom she had been lavishing her blood and treasure. Referring to the often quoted precedent of the American colonies becoming free in spite of the mother country, Mr Vogel aptly remarks that English statesmen might refer to the United

States for a much better purpose. ‘lf

an example from America is wanted,’ he says, c let the country lake that grand one she set to the world when she refused at all hazards, and regardless of all cost, to allow the Union to be broken up. If a further lesson be required, let it be considered bow' mighty a position Great Britain would occupy if America were still one of her dependencies. Even Spain can afford us a great example, for in the midst of all her difficulties she has never consented to part with Cuba.” The “ Argus” then closes with the acknowledgment, as creditable to his discernment as to bis magnanimity, that “ Mr Yogel’s letter will do much more to educate public opinion at home on the subject of a confederation of the empire than the debate in the Commons on Mr Macfie’s motion, because that letter gives a clear and vigorous expression to the strong convictions of a colonial politician who is thoroughly conversant with his topic, and does not approach it after the dilettante fashion of most of the speakers who took part in the debate referred to.’