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.
