1156 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V 
21. Tt must not be forgotten that this is a subject in which 
the interests of the Colonies and of the Mother Country are 
identical. British statesmen have long aimed not only to 
limit more and more the expenditure incurred for the defence 
of distant Colonies, but to withdraw more and more from all 
ostensible responsibility for their defence ; and they would 
probably see any honourable method of adjusting the present 
anomalous relations with no less satisfaction than we should. 
22. Nor would the recognition of the neutrality of the self- 
governed Colonies deprive them of the power of aiding the 
Mother Country in any just and necessary war. On the 
contrary, it would enable them to aid her with more dignity 
and effect, as a Sovereign State could, of its own free will, 
and at whatever period it thought proper, elect to become 
a party to the war. 
23. We are of opinion that this subject ought to be brought 
under the notice of the Imperial Government. If the proposal 
should receive their sanction, they can ascertain the wishes 
of the American and African Colonies with respect to it, 
and finally take the necessary measures to obtain its recogni- 
tion as part of the public law of the civilized world. 
Comment at the time was generally unfavourable; the 
leading papers, such as the Argus and the Daily Telegraph, 
condemned the idea as impracticable, and the matter went 
no further, for no other Colony moved in it. In the Naval 
Bill debates of 1910 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was accused by the 
Opposition of denying the doctrine that war with Great 
Britain meant war with the Colonies, but the accusation was 
wholly unjust and unfounded. He only asserted that in 
any war it was for Canada to decide how far she would 
actively assist Great Britain; Canada, of course, would 
resist any attack on herself with all her strength! The 
doctrine is quite logical and fair so long as the Dominions 
* Cf. House of Commons Debates, 1909-10, pp. 1732 seq., 2952 seq., 4139 
seq.; 4316 seq., 4413 seq., 7528 seq.; 1910-1, pp. 57 seq. ; his speech at 
Montreal, October 10 ; Montreal Herald, October 11, 1910. See also Ewart, 
Kingdom of Canada, pp. 59,364; The Kingdom Papers, pp. 7, 8, 48-52 ; 
Parl. Pap., Cd. 5745, p. 117 ; below, Part VIII, chap. iii. Here may be men- 
tioned the precarious position of the arrangement of 1817 for the limitation 
of armaments on the great lakes, which has not been at all carefully 
observed of late by the United States, in the view of Canada ; see Canadian 
Annual Review, 1909, p. 626; 1910, p. 618; The Round Table, i. 317-9.