LORD HARTINGTON AND COLONIAL POLICY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5258, 30 January 1878, Page 3

LORD HARTINGTON AND COLONIAL POLICY.

(From the O'vU Service Gazette.) We bad recently occasion to comment upon the surprising lack of interest in, if not actual active hostility to, the great principle of maintaining the unity of the Empire hitherto shown by many cf the Liberal leaders—in their general want of sympathy with the vast territories of the outlying portions of Great Britain, which are growing with such wonderful rapidity into importance as bulwarks and buttresses of her future power. It might have been hoped that, after the experience of Mr. Gladstone—ins coldness towards the colonies constituting one of the causes of tile disastrous disruption of his party —ids successor iu the Liberal leadership would have exldbited a greater appreciation of the momentous character of the colonial question, and taken a broader and more comprehensive view of its influence, at least in furthering the interests of his .party, if not from the higher and more patriotic* motive of promoting the future greatness and prosperity of his country. Lord Hartington’s recent uttex-ances in Scotland, however, disappoint this expectation, Tiiev are char xcterised by a chilling coldness and narroxv want of sympathy toxvards the colonies, which are quite out of harmony with tbs expectations of Englishmen, and which will never commend themselves to the feelings of the people of the Empire at large. We readily accept the truth of Lord Hartington’s language, when he says, that, in expressing the sentiments he does, “he knows he shall be accused of what he believes is called ‘ parochialism.’” It is this spiff of “ parochialism.” unfortunately so prevalent iu the minds of leaders of great political parties in this country, which, if continued, may some day lead to the verification of Frince Bismarck’s sarcasm, that England is tm pouioir fini". Indeed, it is a remarkable proof of the singularly parochial and insular spirit which dominates the minds of tho-e xvho, being members of a great empire, can yet limit their views, as Lord Hartington does, to the survey of the interests of one integral part of it only, when lie speaks of “an attempt to dazzle and to seduce the people of this country by leading them away from that which, after all, is the cause of their true greatness and prosperity—that is, the happiness and contentment of these islands.” Are we, then, to accept Lord Harrington’s curt definition, and to regard the British Empire as bounded and limited only by these islands ; and their happiness and contentment alone the objects of the fiduciary care of its Government ? Is there not a vast colonial portion of it also spreading over every quarter of the habitable globe, equally requiring its attention,, and claiming its sympathy and regard ? If this, as it undoubtedly is, be tne fact, is it not the bdunden duty of the leaders of public opinion to remember, and to recognise the principle that the “ happiness and contentment of these islands” is deeply and ixidissolubly mixed up with the prevalence of similar sentiments in “ Great Britain beyond the seas”? Is it by opening their eyes, and extending their mental vision to the corapre : hension of the idea, that by this alone the future position of England among other nations can he maintained and preserved, that they can lay claim to be, not merely parochial politicians, hut leaders of a great party, and real statesmen. We cannot help feeling a sincere regret that Lord Hartington has not more frankly and unreservedly embraced the conception of the importance of advocating more Imperial views on the colonial question. It is not necessary to approach it by “ a system of intrigue and a system of statecraft,” such as he so seveiely condemns ; but if he desires to win the confidence for his party of the great bulk of the people, and to identify himself with the true interests of England, we strongly recommend him to shake off the trammels of a cold, nnsympathiring creed toxvards the colonies — which has led to sum thing very like the advocacy of disintegration among many of those with whom he has close political ties and associations—and to throw himself generously and unreservedly into the support of those principles of colonial policy which are of Imperial importance, and which,by promoting the permanent union of the Empire, are the true sources of bringing future contentment and happiness to the people of these realms.