6th Nov.
Unfit comparatively recent years it was believed bya nearly all thoughtful men that the larger dependencies of the Crown, as soon as ever they should arrive at political maturity, would sever their connection with the mother-country. It was supposed to be the unmistakeable lesson of history that the gradual disintegration of Greater Britain was inevitable. 'I'v this theory the past notorious apathy of public opinion in England, in all matters relating to Colonial affairs, was, doubtless, in great measure due. Doubtless when men thought about the Colonies at all and of their ultimate separation, it was with 'a sense of bitterness which would easily account for a multitude of sins of the indifferentist sort. Meanwhile other causes have not been wanting. The internal political problems which public opinion has been called upon wrestle with have been problems of the first magnitude, England has been very fully ocoupied domestically, and the task of readjusting the machinery of government to vow and rapidly expanding economic forces has been, and will continue to be, absorbing. Nevertheless, after making all due allowance for preoccupation, it remains true that the "oak and acorn" theory of colonisation has had much to do with indifference to, and consequent ignorance of, the needs of an ever expanding Empire. The number of thonghtfal men who cling to that theory is, we believe, rapidly diminishing. With the passing away of the Manchester school its ablest exponents have disappeared. John Bright was the lust great political leader who used his influence to bring about disintegration. We doubt if any great political leader would dare to do so, openly, vow. Party differences dissolve before a great and growing national sentiment. Lord Rosebery is as good an Imperialist as Lord Salisbury. "No one in authority talks of separation as Lord bring once did. The Times never mentions the matter. Ihe Times did, once, our readers will remember, "Nhat was nearly thirty years ago.
True it is that the remnant of the old-fashioned Radical doctrinaires continue to "clack" in odd corners; true it is that there are men like Professor Goldwin Smith who still preach in Canada and elsewhere the fatal doctrine; but it is no longer true that the majority of thoughtful meu consider separation inevitable. On the contrary, a complete change has taken place in the philosophic attitude towards this great question. Political thinkers are pointing out that the changes wrought by steam and electricity have put an entirely new face ov the matter; and. as far as the "desirability of the policy of consolidation versus the policy of disintegration goes, aver that in view of the menace to [civilisation which the spread of the coloured races constitutes, the further political disunion of the Anglo-Saxon race would be little short of a world calamity. How to avoid it is the most important problem of modern times. Upon its solution depends, according to some thinkers, the safety not only as a nation, but of The chief danger to civilisation is said to lie in the enormous masses of semi-civilised, semi-barbaric peoples which are united under the flag of Russia. Hardly less dangerous, in the minds of maw, seem China's four hundred millions, Only a united Greater Britain seems at all able to cope with opponents of such weight.
Whatever our opinion may be as to these theories, it can hardly work otherwise than well for the world that the civilizing forces at present united under the British Crown should be knit and welded together by every tie of interest and sentiment that the ingenuity of statesmen or the genius of poets can possibly forge. Tennyson healed the wound in Canada's loyalty inflicted by that famous utterance of the Times. Kipling is doing a great work in his own strange way. Much has been done, much more will require be done, But the outlook is not without hope. Public opinion at home is rapidly awakening. Of this we have, from time to time, abundant proofs. 'I'he most recent is the formation in the House of Commons of a Colonial Party of which the home papers lately gave some account. Sir Charles Dilke, one of the most prominent members, disapproves of this title being given to it. "It is not a Party," he says, in an interview described in Black and White, "itis, and will probably be-termed he House of Commons Colonial Conference or Committee" We disagree with sir Charlesasto what it will probably be called. Busy people have not time to denote it by such a mouthful as that. But we accept his statement of what it is, and approve its aims. "Tt will endeavour," he goes on to say, "that the House shall take increased interest in Colonial questions, and will see that they are adequately considered, and not neglected in any case." Persons who pride themselves on taking what are called practical views (which generally means in such matters mere short-sighted demand for immediate results); persons who do not see the good of any sowing that does not yield the following day; ostrich politicians as they have been feel sceptical about this uew departure in politics. Pessimists will doubtless predict trouble between the Conference and the various Agents-General, but this Sir Charles Dilke assures us ab initia will be studiously avoided. To arouse and increase the interest taken in the Colonies; to inform public opinion on! Colonial questions; to keep the House of Commons alive to the importance of Colonial problems; these are the objects of the newly formed Party. As one of a number of straws which show the way of the wind we are inclined to regard the new departure as among the more hopeful signs of the times.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.