THE' DUTY OF FREE-TRADE UNIONISTS.
OTTR article of a fortnight ago on the duty of Free- trade Unionists has been received in some quarters with a good deal of doubt and misgiving. Probably the majority of Free-trade Unionists are of the opinion of a correspondent whose letter we publish this week,—that is, they agree with our view, and realise the necessity for making no sort of compromise with the Protectionists. There are others, however, who, though quite as staunch in the cause of Free-trade, are perplexed and alarmed at the notion of opposing Protectionist Unionists, and of acting a consistently hostile part towards a Unionist Government. They are convinced. that Protection is a terrible evil, but for the moment they cannot see their way to opposing Unionists, even though Protectionists, and so helping Liberals, even 'though those Liberals oppose Protection. We desire to express all possible respect for those who thus Seel pain and difficulty in making up their minds to act against old friends and to help, even in- directly, old enemies. Again, we do not for a moment suggest that they are anything but right in adopting "deliberation and consideralion" as their motto. Though we have made up our own mind and have chosen our course, and without misgiving, we fully realise that it is easier for the conductors of a newspaper to do so quickly than for the private individual. The reason is plain. A newspaper at a moment of political and national crisis is obliged to adopt a definite line, and without delay. Unless a feeble recourse is had to the attitude of Mr. Facing-both-ways, an immediate and clear decision is required. For the Spectator, then, there was little or no difficulty in coming to a decision. The clear and simple issue was joined of Protection v. Free-trade. The Spectator had in the past, and with especial emphasis during the last six years, proclaimed itself in favour of Free-trade, and of Free-trade quite as much in the interest of the Empire as of the United Kingdom. Those respon- sible for its policy could not, therefore, hesitate in expressing the view that it was the duty of every Free- trader to make the policy in which he believed effective. The choice of helping Free-trade or Protection was presented, and prompt action was required. Naturally we resolved to do all in our power to oppose Protection. But such a decision could not mean merely talking about Free-trade, and doing nothing to defeat Protection. It must mean a vigorous attack on Protection, and accordingly we have opposed, and mean to oppose, Protection and Protec- tionists whenever we encounter them, and to leave no stone unturned to defeat the policy of burdening the poor and sowing discord in the Empire.
We have troubled our Free-trade Unionist readers with this personal explanation, not because we attach any undue importance to it, but for a definite and special reason. We want them to realise that though they are private individuals, the same necessity for definite action will come to them. It was forced on us at once ; but though it will come to them later, it must come. They will, that is, have sooner or later to decide how to vote and use their influence. When they decide, we predict, and with the utmost confidence, that if they are convinced Free-trade Unionists they will, and can, only adopt one policy,—the policy we have adopted of opposing Protection at all points, and of doing our best to turn out of office an Administration which proclaims itself as opposed to Free- trade. The moment they are called upon to act their duty will become perfectly clear. This was, in fact, what happened in the case of our leader, the Duke of Devon-, shire. Most naturally he clung to the hope of keeping the Unionist party intact, and tried his hardest to con- vince himself that a rupture might be averted. In order to. avoid precipitate action, he remained in the Cabinet after the other Free-traders had left it. We ventured to assert that his position could not be maintained, that he would soon find himself called upon to leave the Cabinet.- This, as we all know, was what actually happened. When Mr. Balfour's speech obliged the Duke to ask himself the definite question, " Can I remain in office, and so help to support a Protectionist policy ? " only one course was open to him,—i.e., to deal the strongest blow he could to the anti-Free-trade Cabinet. The Duke's case is a lesson- and example to all Free-trade Unionists. They will gain nothing by putting off the inevitable decision to oppose the present Government, for that goal they must reach, whether they take one long stride or a hundred short steps.
The reason for our declaration that Free-trade Unionism can have only one end—i.e., strong and uncompromising opposition to the present Government — is easy to expound. It is that the question of Free-trade is a question absolutely vital to the Empire and to the nation. On lesser questions there can be, and ought to be, sup- pression and compromise. On the question of Free- trade v. Protection no compromise is possible, any more than on the question of the Union or Home-rule. One must be either for it or against it. It is one of those essen- tial questions which necessarily determine political action. To illustrate this fact, and also to show the utter futility of half-measures and of " opposition firm but not pressed too far," it is worth while to repeat a story of the Duke of Devonshire current at the time of the Home-rule split, which, whether it actually took place or not, is a most useful parable. It is said that at a small gathering of prominent Liberal Unionists the question was being dis- cussed whether, instead of simply voting against the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's first Home-rule Bill, the Liberal Unionist Members should not walk out in a body. This plan, it was urged, would injure Home-rule, and yet not commit the Liberal Unionists too far or seem too hostile to the Liberal Home-rulers. The Duke of Devonshire listened in silence while this course was urged on the meeting with great force and ingenuity by several members of the party. For a time it looked as if the meeting was going to be converted and the plan adopted. At the last moment, however, the Duke of Devonshire intervened with a short but most pregnant remark : " It seems to me you men want this Bill to pass ! " In an instant the meeting recovered itself. The Duke's colleagues saw that they must come to a definite decision. Either they wanted the Bill to pass or they did not. If they did not want it to pass, they must, since it was a vital question, oppose it with all their strength. The Duke's jet of common- sense settled the matter, and it was unanimously decided to vote against the second reading.
Now we would ask all Free-trade Unionists who are in doubt and difficulty at the present moment a similar question. " Do you want Protection to pass ? " The answer will, of course, be "No!" Next, we would ask: "Do you consider the question a vital one, and so one requiring the sacrifice of other interests ? " Here the answer must be "A vital one!" Considering the sacrifices required from a politician who declares himself a Free-trade Unionist, there can be no such thing as a Free-trade Unionist who is not in deadly earnest. But in that case, and granted the Free-trade Unionist does not want Protection to pass, can he possibly refuse to make his opposition effective? And how can he make his opposition effective ? Not by refusing to speak out; not by letting it be understood, if he is in the House, that he could not go quite so far as to vote against the Government ; not, if he is not in the House, by refusing to vote against a Protectionist candidate at an election. To make one's opposition to any policy effective one must be prepared to take action. To stand purely on the defensive is ruin. The essence of defence is the counter-attack, and the counter-attack pushed home with all possible vigour. Therefore, we call upon all Free- trade Unionists to show their colours, to organise, and to let it be known that they are not going to die without a struggle, and that in that struggle, since they can expect no quarter, they will give none. Above all, let them remember that they are Unionists as well as. Free-traders, and show that they mean as before to keep both banners flying. Because at a moment of crisis and peril, and in order to avoid a great disaster to the Empire, they may think it right to support Liberals, they do not thereby surrender their Unionist principles.
We can only touch very shortly to-day on another difficulty which troubles many Free-trade Unionists,—the difficulty that if they act as we urge they must, they will be called upon to help Home-rule and other causes which they detest. Our answer is that this fear is a delusion, and one which will disappear when those who now hold it get in touch with the facts. To begin with, there is not the slightest risk of any man supporting Home-rule by voting against Protection. Home-rule is dead, and none of the real leaders of the Liberal party even pretend that it remains a vital part of their prooramme. The rank-and-file have almost fez,- gotten that Dthe Liberals ever professed it. And what makes it certain that there will be no revival of Home-ktile- is the fact that the Irish Nationalists are all Protectionists, voted with the Government last Session, and will vote for it next. The Liberals are not now in alliance with the Irish ; but, unless we are greatly mistaken, we shall very soon see the two sets of Protectionists united in accordance with their sympathies. We doubt if there is a single genuine Free-trader to be found 'among the Nationalists. The other bogeys, such as Pro-Boerism and Socialism, will, we believe, fade as quickly in the light of facts. The next Liberal Government will not be dominated by ex-Pro-Boers, but by men who, like Mr. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Haldane, are sound Imperialists. As for Socialism, that now belongs to the other side,—for nothing is truer than that Protection is a form of. Socialism. But in any case the great issue of Free- trade v. Protection will eat up all others. If the present Government is defeated—as it will be—and their opponents come in, they will come in, not as Home-rulers or any- thing else, but as Free-traders. It will be a Free-trade Government, and its mandate will be to guard Free-trade, and no Free-trade Unionist need bate one jot of his Unionism by helping to place it in power. When Pro- tection is defeated, the beaten and dejected portion of the Unionist party will be only too glad to welcome back the Free-traders whom it drove out at the bidding of Mr. Chamberlain. In a word, no Free-trade Unionist is asked to abandon his Unionism when he is asked, as we ask him, to make his opposition to Protection effective by opposing it at every turn.
Previous page
