New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5131, 3 September 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1877.

The article, “Greater or Lesser Britain,” by Sir Julius Yogel, in the July number of “The Nineteenth Century,” is likely to command much attention. It will be praised for its general ability, its moderate tone, the care with which opinions have been gathered, and the skill with which they are used : but it will share the fate of previous essays on Confederation, and be declared to be far from practical. “Greater” Britain is, for Sir Julius Vogel’s purpose, the enormous State which the British Empire would be, if all the colonies were confederated with the mother country—constituent parts, with consultative powers and defensive obligations, so far as legislation affecting themselves, or the safety of the whole federation, might be supposed to be concerned. “Lesser” Britain stands for the Empire, if so it could be called, when each colony had become an independent State; when all might be indifferent to England’s fate; if she were at war, and some of them even. hostilely engaged against her —when, in fact, ; the now colonies would be not only independent but “foreign” countries. The article may roughly be divided into two parts : one dealing i with the political influences that have been, and that ought to be, brought to bear on the general question; the other sketching, or suggesting, conditions of possible federation. We will at present refer to the first part only. Sir Julius Yogel has, throughout his writings, and his speeches on the Confederation question, shown Conservative, or even Tory, tendencies,, which are not : able in the light of his general political views and actions. He seemed a few years ago to be strongly influenced by the Protection craze ; and because of that influence he had an antipathy to the Manchester school of free-traders. That school appeared to be politically represented by Mr. Gladstone; and as Mr. Gladstone’s Government was, not effusive respecting Confederation,! it seemingly became to Sir Julius Yogel the embodiment of a force tending to national disruption. The Conservatives, when they got into office, were effusive respecting Confederation. The readers of “ Greater or Lesser Britain ” will find, in quotations, abundant evidence on each point. The Liberals did, in effect, tell the colonies, “If you want to separate, we have no desire to hold you.” But there was nothing offensive in the telling, and there was much that was natural, if not politically necessary, in what was told. The colonies have, most of them, rights of self-government. Whether or not those rights weretoosoonconcededinsome cases, is of no importance. Englishmen of this generation have, for good or for ill, the notion thac they can manage their own affairs ; and in these colonies, they would assuredly ere now have secured the right and the power to do so, whatever the central power desired. • There would not be involved, probably, in any one case, a desire to use self-goverment as a means towards independence: possibly, all recognisable desire would be in the opposite direction. But, inevitably, as the colonies came to feel their powers and. used them not unwisely, thoughts of independence came also : harshness and injustice from the Central Government, were not needed to force their growth, though harshness and injustice were occasionally applied. A liberal Government would naturally regard self-govern-ing colonies as communities entitled to keep in view a future of national independence : a Tory Government would just as naturally regret the concession of self-government, and desire that the type Crown-colony should be persistent, that all developmental tendencies should bechecked, or, if such checking proved to be impossible, that any dependence tendency should be carefully fostered. In short, there exists in the traditions and the instincts of each of the great English political parties, enough to account for' the opinions of each as regards the future of the colonies ; and there is no very valid reason for holding up Mr. Gladstone and Lord Kimberley as traitors to the cause of British greatness,' on the ground of their thinking that the colonies might come to wish for, and be entitled to claim, independence, or for regarding Lord Beaconsfield and the Earl of Carnarvon as pattern-patriots because they -have not such thoughts—perhaps, only because the expression of such thoughts is avoided. Sir Julius Vogel correctly says that Lord KiMBERr, ley “administered the Colonial Office not without exerting authority, but exerting it in a manner that indicated his aim to fit the colonies for a career of independence,” while the Earl of Carnarvon “administers the department not only without a thought to such a change," but he constantly gives recurring evidence that he considers-the colonies permanently bound to the Empire.” Our view is that union, so long as it is possible, is desirable ; but that a 'forced continuance of union would not, in conceivable circumstances, be submitted to by some colonies, and could not bo contemplated by the Imperial Government. We do not recognise the evils, which are

very- real and terrifying ,to Sir Julius Vogel, that do, or may, result from the absence of an official' declaration that the colonies shall'remain parts of the Empire; and ,we believe - that such a -declaration blight tend to cause disruption, which would be a great evil, though separation might be a good. “Ifit is meant to retain the colonies,” asks Sir Julius, “ can any words do justice to the folly and the wickedness of training the people to a false belief as to their future institutions, of teaching them to expect that for which they ought not to look; of leading them along a path at some point of which the destiny they are taught to believe in must be overthrown?” But is not this the language of short-sighted—or shall we say, devoted l —Toryism? Have not the true-blue spectacles through which the writer looks, shortened or made not clear his political vision? If it is meant that the mother country would use all the force necessary to prevent a colony separating from the Empire, we recognise “ the folly and the wickedness” of not saying so very plainly. But that is not meant. Even Lord Beaconsfield would not dare to make Queenscliff or Manly a Besika Bay, pending the development of an agitation for independence on the part of Victoria or Kexv South Wales. It is useless to write that “ A settlement one way or the other should be arrived at, so that the nature of their future position should be made known to these communities.” No such “settlement” can have binding force. Lord Beaconsfield cannot live for ever : even Toryism is subject to some change. If those who call themselves Conservatives, and who rule by virtue of the influence of publichouse keepers, could retain office for another generation, they might justly repudiate, if so minded, any “settlement” of the future of the colonies which Lord Beaconsfield might now decree ; and there is not a British colony in which it would not be perceived to be an absurdity, if the Legislature now chose to resolve that in the next generation there should not be liberty to secede from the Empire. Of necessity, the union between the Australasian colonics and Great Britain will continue just as long as it is to the interest of each that it should continue—unless, as we have said, Great Britain should come to believe that the throats of 100ton guns can more clearly utter the wishes of colonists than can colonists and their representatives ; and that is a belief which can never find utterance. “ If the union is desirable, it should not be open to question,” says Sir Julius. But what is there that is not open to question ? What is now the political condition of Europe; as compared with that which existed a few years ago, when men who were really above their fellows in power of out-look, were puzzled by the gravity of the question, “ What will happen when Louis Napoleon dies ?” Who will undertake even to hint a perception of the changes that will be the outcome of the war now being so fiendishly waged round Plevna and in the Balkan passes? Permanency has no place in politics : that which to-morrow it is deemed, in verity, politic to do, will be' done, or be striven after, hero and elsewhere. And, surely, England, of all countries, is the least likely to begin scratching chalk lines over the world, and declaring that they shall not be erased or overstepped. That the colonies are now loyal, in the truest sense of .the word, is a fact: that they may continue so is, with us, a hope. They may continue loyal in a sense, though not in the sense that will remain true while the majority of the colonists have, and love to cherish, “ home” associations. Those associations must be greatly weakened,in the next generation ; though there may still be a loyalty springing from consanguinity, and a material nexus begotten of reciprocal interests. But a declaration that the future of the colonies must not be questioned, because Dbwning-Street had decreed indissoluble union, would certainly be met by indignant protests from the colonists of to-day ; and the colonists of thirty years hence, xxninfluenced by sentiments that now have force, would not heed the paper existence of such a declaration, in the presence of a conviction that separation had been made necessary by acts of the Imperial Government, or had become so in the interest of themselves as a people. As a proposition, we see no reason why loyalty on the part of the colonies, to the fullest extent that loyalty is possible, should not be consistent with a recognition that any colony may become an independent State. We are satisfied that assertions of Colonial Office power, whether made fussily or firmly, xvill not tend to foster the feeling of loyalty. A mother does not suppose that training her son to recognise that he will, if he lives, have interests separate from those of his father and herself, is training him to do that xvhich will bo a wrong to them and to himself; a father does not ordinarily suppose that by forbidding a son to think that he can ever occupy an independent station, he xvill ensure that that son xvill best be trained to act for the good of both. So, admitting that Confederation might be a great good, to be sti’iven for, even if it xvere but vex - y remotely possible, we still must dissent from Sir Julius Vogel’s opinion, that assertiveness on the part of the Colonial Office would be the best means of leadingup to the grand “ Greater Britain ” of which he has drawn so glowing a picture.