The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1907,

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2034, 20 March 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1907,

When doctors differ who shall decide? There appears to bo a vast difl'oronco of opinion between the political doctors in regard to what might still bo termed tho Imperial Zollvoroin question. Almost at tho same time that Mr. Austen Chamberlain was speaking in England in favor of a Commercial Union of tho Empire, Lord St. Aldwyn was expressing himself at Durban in terms of opposition to any scheme of colonial preference, which he says is impracticable. Having regard to tho long and distinguished I services of Lord St. Aldwyn, when as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach he occupied tho position of Chancellor of tho Exchequer, and his. necessarily intimate knowledge of tho subject on that ac> count, his pronouncement ought to carry some weight, for in his official capacity as Chancellor he was looked upon as one of the soundest financier* that a British Cabinet has contained On that account, too, his utterance cannot fail to cause some little surprise, for if it means anything at all, it moans the foremost nation of the earth cannot arrange her own fiscal .policy without reference to other nations. One can readily understand that any immediate settlement of the matter on the lines suggested by Mr, Joseph Chamberlain, might be im practicable until treaty obligations with other nations had been fulfilled' but to say that they are impracticable without any qualification of the expression, as Lord St. Aldwyn appears to have done, is to say what is destined to cause surprise and to admit Britain’s weakness as well. If he had said that the arrangement would be inconvenient for a time, cue could readily understand it, for Britain has in her extension and colonisation schemes made so many compromises, and entered into so many treaties that only those who have had tho run of the Treasury, Foreign and Colonial Offices’ documents could possibly say with anything like authority how the nation would be affected by the proposal to erect a protective ring fence round the Empire. When Mr. Joseph Chamberlain made this proposal (now modified to a preference to tho colonics, but really tho same thing), he, too, was in a position to know what he'was talking about, and he has the reputation of possessing enough shrewdness to prevent him committing himself to any proposal that could be afterwards dubbed impracticable. But now we find that the scheme to which he not only committed himself, but actually made the leading feature of an election campaign upon which he and his party had to stand or fall, is so characterised by one of Britain’s loading Chancellors—one, too, who, if wo remember rightly, sat in the same Cabinet with Mr. Chamberlain j before his elevation to the Peerage. It is clear that the doctors have differed, and both being eminent men, it is not easy to decide between them. Common sense, however, always dictates a course in such circumstances, and that course is usually to let them fight tho battle out between themselves until such time as time itself provides the solution, which it seldom fails to do; but in a matter like this which closely concerns the welfare of tho nation and her individual

units in all parts of the globe over which the tricolor flag floats, it i» scarcely a subjoct that can bo loft to be sot'tled by a duel even though the combatants are of a distinguished order. A potent reason for this is the fact that tlio colonies aro not only asking for preference, but have some of them set the example to the Motherland in granting her preference in trade by a differential tariff as against foreign nations. The fact that they have done so gives them the right to demand reciprocity with-

in the limits of treaty obligations, and if that demand is disregarded or brushed aside with a bald explanation that it is simply impracticable and nothing more, the position will

nob be so satisfactory as it is at present. Once sow the seed of dissension within any organisation, no matter how stable that organisation may be, or whether it be large or small, and there is always the grave danger of disintegration. Empires are no exception to this rule, and their strength lies in their unity. It will be a deplorable - day for Britain when anything arises that may cause the unity at present existing, to be destroyed or relaxed, and in this very question there are possibilities that may lead to dissension, for common sense again dictates that that can best be preserved by mutual favors, and in no respect can favors be granted that so closely affect tlie integral atoms of tlio nation as in the matter of trade. It may be interjected that this is a selfish view to take of tlio matter, Possibly it is; but it must not be forgotten" that human nature has to be dealt with as the njain factor, and who will deny that human nature does not contain a large modicum of selfishness when patriotism lies dormant.