THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1903. THE CHAMBERLAIN POLICY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12281, 27 May 1903, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1903. THE CHAMBERLAIN POLICY.

The recent political utterances of I Mr. Chamberlain differ fundamentally from the ordinary platform statements of party leaders in that they take a more momentous meaning the more they are considered. It is easy to say that he is drawing a red herring across the trail of local politics and to attempt by such figure of speech to belittle the intent of the strongest of colonial Secre- ( taries of State. But it is only by a ! stubborn refusal to consider the great Imperial question which he has placed before his countrymen, in Britain and Greater Britain alike, that any man can avoid the conclusion that a problem of the most important and far-reaching character has been presented to us. One thing at least is certain: that Mr. Chamberlain has made or marred his reputation as a statesman by the stand he is making. He will either be remembered in Imperial history as the man who first gave authoritative voice to a practical idea of comrner-

cial federation among the British peoples or as the man who mistook altogether the signs of the times and -wrecked a brilliant career byventuring into dangerous and uncharted channels. Before his fate can be predicted, however, a fierce political battle must inevitably ensue over the policy which he has forcibly enunciated. For although

he is being assailed in many quarters he is finding strong support in others, and has already initiated a cleavage in Home politics which, under favourable conditions, must extend to every part of the British Dominions. Such an imperial question has never before been presented to the British world. Yet though it demands a. complete reversal of fiscal methods that are rooted in the undisturbed habit of two long generations, it has been led up to by an Imperial movement of which we are about to test the strength. Roughly summarised. Mr. Chamberlain's policy is that the Motherland shall favour her colonies fiscally against all others, and that the colonies shall favour the Motherland fiscally against all others. We have already pointed out how seriously this may affect our trade and industries, for it would be utterly false patriotism if we blindly took a step intended for our mutual benefit without carefully examining all its risks and possibilities. But while the

subject should oe most cautiously weighed and inspected from every point of view we need not allow its consideration to be hampered by any misconception of the fiscal principles dominating the Commercial policy of Britain. There can, we think, be no doubt whatever that the fiscal principles of Cobden—we can go further and say without qualification the fiscal faith of Cobdenwere indissolubly connected in his mind with the international idea. It was his firm and unwavering conviction that the blessings of free trade would be so evident to the nations who were theoretically beating their swords into pruning hooks that in a very few years the free ports of the United Kingdom would be reciprocally responded to by the free ports of an enlightened and harmonious world. That the Britain of the day had almost a monopoly of exportmanufacturing, and feared no rivals in her industrial arts, and needed cheap bread more than any other industrial assistance, undoubtedly facilitated the triumph of his doctrine, but did not consciously affect that greatest and most whole-headed of doctrinaires. But we cannot imagine that a man of Cobden's genius and character, when sixty years of experience showed him nation still set against nation, commercial rivalry still edging national animosities and his country struggling alone to uphold a fiscal principle which had absolutely failed to cross a single national frontier on the face of the earth, would refuse to reconsider his dogmas or would deny the possibility of the inherent truth they contain, being only expressible for the time being in terms of fiscal reciprocity. The doctrines of Cobden are the doctrines of Britain. He was too completely an Englishman, in spite of his noble belief in the dawning brotherhood of all men and nations, to conceive any . policy for his country which he thought might injure her or which could be strange to the national ideal. As she may modify these doctrines, he would have jpodified them, ii it could be shown that they wrought for her injury and not for her highest good. This is the position assumed by Mr. Chamberlain, and so far we may all most heartily agree with him. Therein is contained the essence of the whole contention. Is Britain bettered or injured by keeping an open door to trade rivals who refuse open door to her, by separating herself completely from fiscal reciprocity with her children and allowing any attempt they may make to encourage her trade to be smothered by_ foreign Powers ? Iss Greater Britain wise to make no fiscal difference between the peoples who light side by side ir common quarrel and those who at worst are bitter enemies and at best are only neutral 1 Is the Empire soundly advised if it makes no national attempt to do what every other nation* under the sun persistently and openly does to encourage inter-State trade rather foreign trade 1 Possibly reciprocity may be costly. It is very certain that whatever the ultimate results mglit be such a policy, would have to be paid for. But is it worth it? Would the gain counterbalance the loss ? And on this score we may say at once that every other nation, and every local group of our own people, believes and acts on the belief that commercial federation is as necessary to unity of political purpose as military federation. Whenever Germany acquires territory, the German Custom wall rises around it. Similarly with France, with the United States, with Paissia, with every one. Only Britain persists in allowing within her heterogeneous Empire, as within her own borders, tne same trading rights to all other nations as she claims for herself. This would be well enough if as a result the manufactories of exclusive nations languished while her own flourished like the green bay tree. But this is not so. We do not make any debatable statement when we point out that American and German rivals, sheltered from her competition within their own lands, have emerged to contest her manufacturing supremacy, not only in the markets of the foreign world, but in her own colonies and in her own manufacturing cities. If we are so different to all other peoples that rules which apply to them do not apply to us, well and good. But if we are there is at the very lefst good reason* foi considering whether Imperial reciprocity\ would benefit the Empire as a whole. If it would Mr. Chamberlain's policy is a patriotic one and worthy of hearty support.