The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 1, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5385, 1 July 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 1, 1878.

Mb. Lowe has been writing to “ Tho Times ” in England on the subject of the future relations between the mother country and the colonies. He is of the same school as Mr. Goldwin Smith, who thinks that colonies are impedimenta to be got rid of as soon as possible; that all the external possessions of Groat Britain, except those held for purely military purposes, are a source of weakness; that they are, in fact, mere foreign dominions, which should no longer be retained. Lord Blackford, in replying to Sir Julius Vogel, in a paper which appeared in the last July number of the “Nineteenth Century,” assumes that the constitutional colonies will be allowed to drift away, and that no effort should be made to retain them. He admits that the ties which now unite them to the mother country are being progressively weakened, and he sees no practical course open for strengthening the common bonds by means of federation or otherwise. The paper by Sir Julius Vogel, entitled “ Greater or Lesser Britain,” advocated federation with great force, and the views put forward by him attracted much attention amongst statesmen and public writers in England. In the April number of the “Nineteenth Century,” Sir Julius returns again to the charge, and replies to Mr. Lowe and Lord Blachfokd. The paper is a very able and interesting one, and ought to be read by all colonists who have a loyal interest in the future of New Zealand.

It is indeed strange that there should be statesmen of the cosmopolitan type in England who would have their country to turn back and relapse into insignificance, at a time too when there is a prospect before her such as was never opened to any nation in the world’s history. Fortunately those cosmopolitan politicians who (according to Lord Beaconsfield, as quoted by Sir Julius Vogel) “are the friends of every “ country save their own,” are few in number. Doctrinaires like Goldwin Smith attract momentary attention by their brilliant paradoxes and plausible essays, but happily, as yet at least, do not permanently influence the national policy. Clever as Mr. Lowe undoubtedly is, and able politician as he has so often proved himself to be, he is too crotchety and too isolated in action to carry Parliamentary support or public opinion with him. The reasons advanced by Lord Blackford are those which would weigh most against such a policy in the minds of average English statesmen He appears to apprehend that in course of time the population of the colonies will be numerically superior to the population in Great Britain ; that the preponderating influence will then no longer be with the mother country, and that the seat of Government might even be removed from London. He fears, in fact, that Great Britain may come to be ruled by her colonies, and he will not run the risk of such a political cataclysm. For twelve years, from 1859 to 1871, Sir Frederick Rogers, now Lord Blackford, was departmental head of the Colonial Office as Permanent Under-Secre-tary. Those who look forward with hope that the colonies of Great Britain will be something more than a number of petty states, weak and isolated, their common origin and language becoming, through jealousies and misunderstandings, a source of weakness rather than of strength, have reason to be glad that Lord Blackford no longer presides over the colonial department in Dowing-street. His policy and that of statesmen like Mr. Lowe was ‘ ‘ liberal” enough in one sense; “By all means, it said, let the colonies have constitutions ; let them manage or mismanage in tbair own way ; give them everything in the shape of self-govern-ment they choose to ask for, only don’t let us incur any responsibility for their sake, and above all let us avoid’ all probability of incurring expense on their account. If self-government make them desire independence, so much the better ; let them go and bo independent ; we shall then be rid of all tho trouble and of the many difficulties with which their existence as colonies for ever threatens us.” The horror of these gentlemen can hardly be conceived when the colonies claim to be living and active parts of the British Empire. Colonists have gone forth from the land of their birth, carrying with them English laws, English customs, English freedom ; free to manage their own affairs they have continued unswervingly loyal to their mother country, and when they have extended her boundaries, and created new States, they desire still to continue to be, and to be regarded as, part and parcel of the great Empire. It is humbly suggested that if these conditions are to be permanent they shall be permitted to have a voice in the management of affairs which concern all alike. “What,” cries Lord Blackford, “be governed in any degree by colonists 1 No, we have governed them, patronized them, treated them with a wise and salutary neglect, and finally have left them to drift —why then in the name of common sense don’t they drift away altogether and leave us in peace! Have we with our liberality created a Frankenstein which shall dog our stops for ever? VVhat is the Empire, what are the interests of iv world-wide civilisation, or of world-wide order, tons now? Leave us in peace with our wealth and our insularityandourmannfacturcs.” How long in effect, asks Sir Julius Vogel of Lord Blackford, do you suppose that your wealth will last after your idea has been realised; how long will your insularity continue to be respected, or your manufacturers enjoy their practical monopoly, after you have abdicated the high position which England has attained, and you havo deliberatelytaken the downward road 2 The history of tho world tells us that no country ever stands absolutely still; it must advance in position and importance, or it must retrogade. Once this retreat has commenced, it rapidly degenerates into a total rout.

: There was truth in the remark of Count Bismarck,— when England gave up the protectorate of the lonian Islands, and when there was talk in Europe, about , the possibility, of her giving up Gibraltar—the, country; . that “ cedes territory is in lier decay.” The cession of even the. protectorate, of, the lonian Island* wks h6ld to have weakened

the prestige of England in th© ©yes of Europe. The shock to the reputation of Great Britain as a country failing to recognise its duties and responsibility as one of the maintainers of the police of the world, has oven caused, in one mode or other, a far greater pecuniary loss than would be represented by the cost of maintaining a garrison at Corfu. Happily those who might have worked great evil have not now the same opportunity to attempt to reduce England to the level of a rich manufacturing district. The question of the Colonial Empire is one far larger and more complicated than that of dealing with military defences. As Sir Julius Vogel says, the colonies will not join in a federation as unwelcome allies, or on an unequal footing. Statesmen like Loud Carnarvon, and high officials like Mr. Herbert at the Colonial Office, have done much to bridge over the difficulties which must arise in the permanent establishment of a world-wide empire, and at this juncture it is much to be regretted that questions of European policy should have caused the retirement of the ablest and most popular Secretary of State that has ever managed the affairs of the Colonial Office. Colonists everywhere may hope that his absence will not be of long duration, and that meantime his successor will follow in the line which Lord Carnarvon has so distinctly marked out. Very recently we had occasion to draw attention to an able and stirringly patriotic speech delivered in Tasmania by the Governor, Mr. Weld, an ex-Preraier of New Zealand, in urging upon the people the necessity of taking measures for their own defence, and of accepting for their colony its true position as a portion of the Empire. At che same time another ex-Premler of'Hew Zealand, Sir Julius Vogel, was attracting attention at Home by the enunciation of his views of a policy which would unite the whole of the British dominions. However much their views may have differed on subjects of local concern, those who have hitherto presided over New Zealand Councils were loyal and true-hearted men, whose ambition for the colony was great, but who never dreamt of dissociating its interests from those of the Empire, \Ve have unhappily changed our policy now; if the policy of the Premier be really the policy of the Government of which he is the responsible chief, the old loyalty of sentiment is gone. We are asked by Sir George Grey to believe that there is a plot in England to impose upon the colonies taxes for the maintenance of the British fleet; that there is a desire on the part of the Colonial Office to interfere unduly in the management of our local affairs, and to corrupt our citizens by bestowing upon them spurious titles of honor for some ulterior but undisclosed purpose. We are at the same time suggestively invited to consider the question of electing our own Governor, and putting aside her Majesty’s Representative in this colony altogether, as he is now practically put aside as completely as the rigid exigency of law will permit. If all colonial statesmen were like Sir George Grev, there would be an excuse for the somewhat contemptuous attitude of Lord Blacheord and those who share his opinions; but it is happily well understood outside of New Zealand, as well as in it, that our Premier’s hatred to the Colonial Office is of a purely personal character and origin, and with his studied offensiveness to her Majesty’s Representatives!!! thiscolony, is an idosyncracy only, which finds no public sympathy or approval amongst any class of people in the colony