THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7940, 13 January 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1906.

The approaching general election in the Old Country is chiefly interesting to the Colonies in view of the mis-named JPreetrade v. Protection contest which it embraces, and whioh, very naturally, is creating the keenest interest. Mr Joseph Ohamoerlain is the chief fighter for the Unionists, while Mr Balfour is the master strategist and soother, so to speak, of, the publio feeling. The Opposition press may say that "Mr Balfour is a philosopher, a Scotsman, and a metaphysician," but it is. beyond doubt that he is an extremely able statesman, and the evident perfect understnding which exists between himself and

Mr Chamberlain augurs well for the ultimate success of the gospel that is at present being vehemently by the "Missionary to the Krapire." Mr Balfour is certainly a metaphysician of the highest ordor, and as such, alone, be is of tbe greatest value to Mr Chamberlain and the Party. While" Mr Chamberlain, in hard fighting speeches, is making terrific onslaughts upon the enemy, Mr Balfour is drawing the enemy's fire—and an enormous quantity of it—by the fineness of his reasoning on all sorts of questions, including "Secalities," and his unlimited capacity for argument. The result is that no annoys, mystifies and frequently confounds his opposition, all of which is very good indeed from tbe Party point of view. Tbe London Times in commenting recently upon one of Mr Chamberlain's speeches, put tbe position very clearly. The journal mentioned remarked that "tbe policy of the Unionist Party must be fiscal reform, since it would be altogether too ludicrous to put anything else in the forefront after sacrificing so much in order to let the country prepare itself to give a verdict on that question. Unionism must have a positive policy, and much roach unity, if its unity is really in serious danger, by threshing out the differences, not by shirking them The Unionist Party must have a definite policy and a policy with a future. Mr Chamberlain has prop6unded one, and Mr Balfour has gone as far in accepting it as his pledges permitted. There is nu other positive policy in the field, and if those who caunot follow Mr Chamberlain think they can do any good by oalling upon tbe nation to admire abstract Unionism, tbey will find themselves grievously mistaken. What are the timorous ones afraid of? They are afraid of the bogey of Protection, and do not see that it has been cleverly dressed ud by their opponents on purpose to scare them. There is no possibility of reversion to Protection. Mr Balfour does not want it, and Mr Chamberlain does not want it. What is wanted is a modification of our Free Trade system whioh will enable us *;o meet coming dangers and to bind the Empire together. Of course, the Government call that Protection. That is their Party game; but the Unionists who are taken in by their interested shouting of a nickname must be very simple folk. Of course, the Party may lose the battle, but we should like to be shown on what other issue it would be more likely to win. To lose tbe first fight on a novel issue is nothing. It is the common fate of all who have anything to propose that is worth doing But i 9 it so certain that to fight the fiscal battle stoutly would entail defeat? To fight it half-heartedly certainly will, and a Party so fighting will command neither sympathy nor respect. But with employment dwindling and wages falling, with skilled workmen crushed out of one industry after another, and forced into the overcrowded rants of casual labour by tho crushing weight of hostile tariffs, we venture to think that the venerable bogey of Protection is losing its power more rapidly than timid people believe."