berley, had, as was probably his intention, paved the way for that annexation, which could not have been avoided had Mr Gladstone's Government remained in office. Enough was done, at any rate, during the existence of that Government, to remove from the Liberal party, as a party, the stigma of being indifferent to the prosperity of our Colonial Empire, or averse to its extension.
Indeed, since that period the school of anti-colonial politicians would seem to have so far died out, or at least to have shrunk from the advocacy of opinions evidently out of harmony with the spirit of the nation, that on a very recent occasion, when a dinner was given at the "Empire Club" to the Canadian Prime Minister, Sir J. A. Macdonald – the most eminent of living colonists – Lord Derby himself is reported to have commented upon the fact that the above-named school had practically ceased to exist, and that men of all parties appeared now to be agreed upon the value of her colonies to Great Britain, and to vie with each other in the expression of the patriotic desire that the relations between colonies and mother country might be drawn closely and still more closely together. In view of this remark, which drew cheers from an appreciative audience, what has Lord Derby himself done to promote the object which "men of all parties" have in view? It may be conceded that Lord Derby is a cold-blooded man; that from him no enthusiasm upon any subject is to be expected; and that it would be contrary to his nature and character to take any bold and vigorous steps in the direction of an active colonial policy. Nay, more, it may be admitted that the advantage which Lord Derby has enjoyed of viewing every important question of the day from the point of view of a Cabinet Minister of both political parties, has not diminished but increased that constitutional difficulty in making up his mind, which has been so fatal a blemish to his career as a statesman. The want of decision is one of the greatest wants with which a politician can be afflicted, and it is a want painfully conspicuous in the present Colonial Secretary. But there are some questions upon which this failing becomes a positive crime against the country, and of little less than this has Lord Derby been guilty in his colonial administration. Of what use is it to mouth out high-sounding commonplaces at colonial banquets, or to make ostentatious declarations of regard for the interests of our colonies, if the utterer of such spurious patriotism neglects those interests again and again, slights the wishes and wounds the susceptibilities of colonists upon every occasion, and absolutely embarrasses and prevents that development of colonial resources, and extension of colonial power, which but for him would infallibly have taken place?
Again we say that, although Mr Gladstone's Cabinet as a whole must be responsible for what has been done, a Colonial Minister who knew his duty and had the courage to do it, would have been able to prevent the mischief. But what has Lord Derby done? Has he ever raised his voice in defence of colonial interests? Has he ever shown to our colonies that in the office in Downing Street their views would find support, their legitimate aspirations encouragement, and their desire to draw closer to the mother country would be appre-
