MR CHAMBERLAIN AND AUSTRALIA.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12647, 6 January 1904, Page 2

MR CHAMBERLAIN AND AUSTRALIA.

Mr Chamberlain has declined for the present to accept Mr DeakSn’s invitation to visit Australia. We regret that he has found it necessary to do so, while we can appreciate the reasons which have led to this decision. Mr Chamberlain is fighting a lone hand at present.. He has arrayed against him all the talents, while those from whom be might reasonably look for assistance are prevented from one cause or another from taking any. effective part in the Struggle. It is essential that ho should be on the spot while the issue is in doubt. When the country has been sufficiently educated, when it has decided either to accept or to refuse Mr Chamberlain’s scheme, it will he possible for him- to undertake the long absence which a visit to this part of the world would involve. After all, most of the fighting must be done in. Great Britain. It is there that old ideals and old prejudices have their chief stronghold, and it is there that the victory must he won.

It is curious to read the criticisms which Mr Deakin has been subjected to both by English and by Australian papers. It is very loudly asserted that he is anxious to make political capital out of Mr Chamberlain’s visit, and that his offer was made with a view of strengthening his own political position. There is, of course, just' a colour of truth in this assertion. Mr Deakin’s position is uncommonly awkward, and he must make up his mind before long to one of two alternatives. He must either resign, or he must seek aid from one of the two other parties which divide the new Parliament. Now, it is quite conceivable that Mr Deakin believes that his resignation would mean a severe blow to Mr Chamberlain’s policy in Australia. He may believe that neither Mr Reid, whose convictions are against anything like Protection, nor the : Labour party, who have no thought for anything but raising the rate of wages or lowering the hours of work, would give the same assistance to Mr Chamberlain’s cause as he himself would do if properly supported. And from that point of view he was perhaps justified in appealing to Mr Chamberlain, believing that a visit from that statesman might have the effect of introducing a new line of party cleavage which would leave Mr Deakin in a much stronger position. There was no great harm in that view, it seems to us, and we regret that Mr Chamberlain cannot at present leave England. It seems to us that the Australians are in want of some educating on the wider aspects of Imperial policy, and that Mr Chamberlain is the only man living who could hope to effect the desired change in Australian public sentiment. However, Mr Deakin will have for the meantime to fight his own battles. The present position cannot be maintained, and future developments will be looked for with interest.