CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE TARIFF PROBLEM.
MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD has proved a good friend to the Unionist Party and also to Mr. Baldwin. His bold and. frank statement as to the issue which must be put before the country may do, and we think does, credit to his political sincerity and candour ; but it unquestionably makes it very much easier for Unionist Free Traders like ourselves to sink our fiscal principles for the time and vote for Protectionist candi- • dates, or at any rate abstain from voting for anti-Pro- tectionists. It will be remembered that what smashed Tariff Reform in 1905 was the fact that the Unionist Free Traders either voted for the Liberals or abstained from helping those with whom they agreed, except on the one point of the Tariff. They were enabled to do this because the Unionist Free Traders, largely owing to the action of the Spectator, obtained a pledge that their support, active or passive, for Liberal candidates would not be used to carry Home Rule. The Liberal leaders very wisely and generously agreed that votes given solely on the fiscal issue should not be counted as votes against the Union, a matter deemed essential by the followers of the Duke of Devonshire. We, the Spectator, obtained a written pledge to that effect from the Liberal headquarters. -Mr.- Riling-ay_ MacDonald, has decided otherwise. He has declared-, that the issue. is not Protection , or Free Trade, but Protection or the Labour policy as a whole, including, of course, the Capital Levy. In other words, he will do nOthing to set :Unionist voters _free to vote against Protection: They are told in effect by him that every vote given against Protection will be a vote for Socialism. Needless to say, the Unionist Free Traders are not going to vote down one set of economic fallacies in order tO secure the triumph of another set, which they regard with even greater aversion. • But though the Unionist Free Trader cannot in these circumstances take action which will further the cause or Labour, he is placed in a very difficult position. • He is-con- fronted with the de-sper- ate dilemma of " Protection or a Capital Levy." But he Wants neither. What shall he do ? It seems to Us that in these circumstances he is entitled to ask that the essential principle of Unionist Democracy should be applied to the problem now before the country, and that it should be applied by means of the Referendum or Poll of the People. That, as we explained last week, affords a way of getting at the will of the majority on a particular project of legislation without breaking up the Unionist Party and so risking the paralysis of its powers on a dozen different issues of first-class importance. For that grace we are entitled to ask Mr. Baldwin. He may indeed be said to have anticipated our request, for in his speech at Manchester he used with very great emphasis the words "Let the country decide." But it can act with the certainty of an authoritative decision only by means of a Poll of the People.
• As long as the principle of the direct consultation of the voters is accepted we have no desire whatever to press for a reference of the Tariff Bill to the country before a General Election. We asked for that sequence last week solely because we thought it would be con- sidered the fairest plan by the Protectionists. Personally, however, we should, from many points of view, much prefer that there should be first a dissolution on the general question and then—provided that the Tariff Reformers obtained a victory—the submission of a specific Tariff to the voters. This is unquestionably the proper way to use the Referendum, as the Times very rightly pointed out in its leader of. Monday. The question, it insisted, must be asked in respect of a particular, not a general or abstract, proposal—on a question to which the answer " Yes " or " No " can be given. You can say with the requisite precision whether you want a particular Bill passed or rejected, for it contains- a definite scheme of action. You cannot say " Yes " or " No " to an abstract question, such as "Are you in favour of Protection or of Free Trade ? ". To answer that kind of interrogatory the wise man can only say "It all depends. upon what, you mean by. ' Protection ' and .` Free .Trade,' and by the methods it is proposed to apply them: Tell me that and I can decide which way to answer, but only then."
Not till a Tariff has been worked out and placed before the voters can the country decide, as the Prime Minister very honourably and sincerely says that they must be allowed to decide. Therefore our time schedule should he : (1) Dissolution on the general issue ; (2) framing of a Tariff ; (3) submission of the Tariff Bill to a Poll of the People.
Before we leave the subject we have one more word to say. If we get the Referendum on the Statute Book, it will be there not temporarily, but for all time, not merely for the Tariff, but also for the Capital Levy and all Other issues of primary importance. Surely the Unionists, the Liberals, unhyphenated and National, and all the groups opposed to Socialism, will see the advantage of the democratization of our Constitution in this respect. It will make us masters in our own House, and will free us from the tyranny of minority rule. Remember that but for the Referendum Switzer- land might at this moment be prostrate beneath the weight of a Capital Levy..
Previous page
