NELSON'S YEAR AND NATIONAL DUTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12853, 29 April 1905, Page 1 (Supplement)

NELSON'S YEAR AND NATIONAL DUTY.

[by THE RIGHT HON. J. CHAMBERLAIN.] This is Nelson's year! Now, if ever, it 'becomes Britons throughout the world to consider what is the nature of that Empire which Nelson won for us; what is its worth, what are its 'obligations, how it can best be maintained, and what we ourselves are doing, to make it a living force and to prolong its glorious traditions.

In considering these questions we must always bear ill mind that the Empire was won and kept, and can only be maintained, by sacrifice. It Joe., not- follow that the. sacrifice \yill not be .uany times repaid in its effect on the chaiacter of oil nation, on the civilisation ol the world, and even in its material results in opening to our commerce and to -peaceful eutcipri.se vast legions of the globe, which would otherwise have made 110 progress or would have made it under different influences and in different hands.

But it is tine »lint throughout its whole history, its possession has involved continual sacrifice, both individual and national, and thai, it he great problems which from time to time, it has raised had been treated by those who had to deal with them ill a huckstering spirit, with sole reference to present loss 01 gain, there would be 110 Empire to discuss, and Nelson's work would have been rendered useless. Fortunately men have been content to sow for others where they could never expect t<- reap themselves. Where governments have often failed to rise to the occasion, the saving spirit of our race has produced the men. who. as administrators and soldiers, pioneers and missionaries, or even as commercial adventurers, have thrown themselves into the breach, and, frequently at the cost of their own lives, have kept flying their country's flag, and have maintained its influence, till even the most spiritless of governments and the most timid of statesmen have been compelled to support their efforts. The result to-day is what we call the British Empire, a stirring name, which, however, fails adequately to express tho great idea that it represents, and which, by a false analogy, misleads many of our countrymen and prevents them from appreciating the obligations which are imposed upon ho present generation. We think of the Persian or the Roman empires in the past, and of the German and the Russian empires in the present, and possibly do not sufficiently grasp the distinction between these and our own. In some respects clearly we have the advantage over any othei combination to which the title of empire has been given. The area and population under our flag ate immensely larger; the total wealth is immensely greater; the general contentment o: the several States is more assured. No one doubts the loyalty ot our self-governing coloniesthat is to say. heir fidelity to all the obligations that they have undertaken; but we have 110 right to extend the term to lWponsibilities wlicli they have not. yet accepted. They are constitutionally independent of the control which has been exercised from the centre over the component parts of other empires. They have in recent years been more than loyal. They have gone 'beyond the bond. They have given us their sympathy and material support when wo had 110 constitutional right to claim it. and their affection fot the Motherland—combined with the influence of common ideals and the exigence of common interests—lias borne fruits of which we may well be proud. No man would wish to exchange such results for the enforced tribute or unwilling subordination on which other empires have rested: and if the United Kingdom had no rivals in the world, and no possible enemies among those rivals, wo might rest satisfied with the slender tie of sentiment which now constitutes our only bond of uuion.

Are we -s ise, however, to count upon the millennium, and are we not bound by most ordinary considerations of prudence to include among the possibilities which should govern our policy some great world-disturbance such as that which, in Nelson's day. threatened our very existence? Is our Empire in a position to meet such a crisis? If it comes can sentiment- alone, expressed in a spasmodic effort, take the place of organised preparation and avail to save the British Empire from humiliation and destruction?

. The other empiies of which we have spoken have then at least this advantage over lis, that their whole powei and resource* can, in any case of sudden and overwhelming danger, be directed, according to prearranged decision, to secure (lie safety of the Commonwealth.. No imperially-minded statesman in Great Britain, or in the colonies, where happily there arc none other, has denied the vital importance of this problem. What are we doing in Nelson's year to secure its satisfactory solution? Is our contribution to be confined to the proof that we have so tar degenerated from the great example of the past that, now that we are more numerous, more powerful, more educated. and richer than at any preceding period of our history, the very idea of any sacrifice has become so hateful to us that we will not respond to the offers of our sister States to secure closer union—we will not even discuss them, because their acceptance might, under circumstances extremely improbable, lead to a temporary rise of 2s a quarter in the price of corn? Prince Bismarck declared that the Empire of Germany was made by blood and iron. That is true, but it is not the whole truth. The Empire of Germany was created as the union of Italy was accomplished, and as the great republic of the West was preserved, by the undving resolution, the brilliant couiage, and the magnificent- self-sacri-lice of those who in their several countries had a. living and inspiring faith in the virtue* or the union for which they provd themselves to be "content to live. and. if need be. content to die."' Is our faith le.-s instant and less sincere, or must we confess that we are no longer able in England to do our dutv—when it is accompanied by «ny risk or by am* sacrifice?

I will not. and I do not believe it. If there be apathy and indifference, i;. must be because those of lis upon whom in all parts of the Empire has devolved the duty of presenting this doctrine of Imperial patriotism and union have been feeble exponents of (he cause, and have, therefore, failed to bring its importance home to our countrymen. We must have failed to make clear its urgency and to impress on our hearers the fact that now is' the appointed and the creative time—that now we have an opportunity that- we may never have again, and that in these early years of the 20th century the future policy and the future fate of the British Empire are being decided.

Ido not wish to be misunderstood. Ido not pretend that commercial union with the colonies, or the recognition of the principle that the component parts of an empire should treat each other more- generously than they treat the stranger outside the gates, would bv themselves sive to us all the organised union that we desire. But I do say that it. would be the first .stop in the desired direction. Carlylc says: "Do the. duty which lies nearest thee, which thou knowest to be a duty. Thy ..eco.id duly will already have become clearer. Preference may lead ultimately to free trade in the Empire—it- is at least an advance towards it. Commercial union has in oth-T cases preceded political organisation.- A scheme of common defence mav follow the dcvelooment of common interests.

In any ease the friendly discussion of proposals made bv our fellow-subjects abroad, and the readiness to consider them with an open mind, and with a sincere desiie to adopt them if they are r.ot entirely unreasonable. will bring us* nearer to them in true sympathy, and will secure for the proposals which we may in turn have to put. forward a, more favourable hearing. On thp other hand, can anyone believe that we are promoting Imperial union when, in pursuit of party advantage, our politicians alienate one great group of colonies by impugning their motive and discrediting their humanity because they deal in their own way with conditions of labour of which we have absolutely no experience? Or, do we serve the interests of this country, or eucourage the colonial loyalty of which we profess to bo assured, by sneering at the enthusiasm of

those colonial statesmen who are striving to devise means of strengthening the links ■that bind us, and who show the sincerity of their belief in the efficacy of their own proposals 'by setting us an example and by voluntarily conceding advantages which it lies with us to increase by a friendly readiness to reciprocate? It is to the people and not to the politicians that I appeal in this great argument "The people." said Burke, "are generally ill the right, though they sometimes mistake their physicians. - ' Let them put asi.ie their party advisers on both sides and judge their case for themselves.—From the Gutlook.