The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1905. BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1716, 18 January 1905, Page 45

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1905. BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES.

Mr Chamberlain realised to the full when lie embarked upon his preferential trade crusade the difficulties in the way of a successful issue. His resignation from the Ministry was proof that he did so, for h© must have anticipated from the beginning that such a step would be forced upon him. That he does not under-estimate the difficulties now is perfectly apparent from his letter to the people of New Zealand, through the ‘•New Zealand Times’ which is published in another column. New Zealand had a claim upon Mr Ohamberlain’s confidence on the subject of preferential trade, for the Government of this coldly, with a quick and creditable appreciation of the vast benefits of the scheme to the Empire, held out a helping hand. The measure of assistance lias been cavilled at as not expansive enough, but it was an indication of the feeling of the colony which must have been highly gratifying to Mr Chamberlain and his friends in the Mother Country. It was a proof that New Zealand, at any rate, was with Mr Chamberlain in his patriotic conception of the Empire’s great need in these days of eager national trade rivalry, and a promise that, once a definite scheme of policy should be formulated. New Zealand would be prepared at least to consider it sympathetically. With this in his mind, Mr Chamberlain doubtless gave the readier response to our request for an expression of his personal views upon the prospects of the cause to' which he has linked his name and political fortune. An outstanding feature of Mr Ohamberlain’s letter is its candour. He admits frankly that early success is impossible. He is not carried away by the enthusiasm of the visionary. “ From the outset,” he says, “ I have recognised the greatness of the task which I have undertaken, to persuade a conservative nation like ours to abandon a, policy which it has pursued for sixty years, and which for a long time past has not been seriously questioned.” And ho is content to wait—to continue to impress his views upon his fellow-countrymen, in the full belief that, as he further puts it, “the truth

will prevail.” He has admittedly a groat task before him, and if success attends him, after years of patient endeavour, his reward will be the greater. Though he does not allow a murmur of complaint against his former colleagues to escape him in his letter, it, must be apparent to the reader between the lines that he feels a certain sense of disheartenmont at their lack of earnest support. Mr Balfour has not played a leader's part. Indeed, upon no question in British politics has he brought the •‘nretty Fanny” element of liis character into greater prominence than upon this question of preferential trade. W© believe that his. halting and uncertain attitude upon this vital question will be responsible for his party's downfall at the next election to at least as great an extent as any ether cause. The Dogger Bank incident also, we are- persuaded. lias not added to> his popularity. The British nation was scarcely in the temper for such a calmly judicial course of action as Mr Balfour and Lord Lansdowhe followed in this matter. If the outcome of the International Commission should be in the slightest degree indefinite, the nation will not be slow to visit the blame upon the Government, whoso chances at the polls will fade away to the vanishing point. It must be admitted, therefore, that the stars in their courses hove fought against Mr Chamberlain. We invited him to pen an explanation of the causes chat lead contributed to the party’s losses in the recent by-elections. ‘Mr Chamberlain might well have replied that the unpopularity of preferential trade was not so l much one of these causes as the indecision of the party leader, who so plainly hesitated to support the noliey. He may well he pardoned for thinking so, even if lie does not say it. The letter shows most unmistakably that Mr Chamberlain accepts a rebuff, and his candour in this respect is praiseworthy. He does not delude himself, nor attempt to delude his colonial friends. He is prepared for at least “a short period of opposition,” which will put back the attainment of" the end upon which he has set his heart. The Unionist party has held ? the reins of power for close upon ten years. It is allowable for Mr Chamberlain to> trust that their opponents will have a much shorter reign, but in any case* he cannot expect to see the nation adopt his scheme within the next four or five years. Meantime he will work to bring about the'return of his fellow-country-men to their ‘‘natural and Imperial instincts”—to tiie point of view that “commercial preference is the first step to that closer union on which the future existence- and power of the Empire as a whole entirely depends.” And he can certainly depend upon it that New Zealand is heartily with him in that policy. The patriotism and good sense, as he himself expresses it, of the New Zealand people convinces them of the wisdom of the policy—nay, more, of its complete necessity to the prosperity of the Empire of which they form a part.