• TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE OSTRACISM OF THE UNIONIST FREE- TRADERS. A, QUESTION of vital import to the future of the Unionist Party has been raised during the past week. In their speeches at Glasgow Lord Cromer and Lord Balfour of Burleigh both referred to the fact that Mr. Balfour, as the leader of the Unionist Party, had declared that there must be no ostracism of the Unionist Free-traders, and both, in effect, asked whether he would be obeyed. Lord Balfour of Burleigh laid special stress upon the statement that an extreme section of Tariff Reformers in South Nottingham had declared that unless the Unionist candidate, Lord Henry Bentinck, would agree to vote for a ten per cent. duty on all imports, and not to vote against food-taxes, they would run a candidate against him. [We may say incidentally that we are glad to note a statement in the Yorkshire Post to the effect that it is authorised to contradict entirely the assertion that, "in response to pressure by the Con- federates Club, Lord Henry Bentinck has promised to support a ten per cent, general tariff and not to oppose the putting of a tax on imported corn and foodstuffs."] The alleged attempt to coerce Lord Henry Bentinck- for daring to entertain Free-trade views, though of a very moderate character, has been followed by an incident which is even more significant. On Wednesday the Morning Post gave great prominence to a paragraph beaded "Free Trader as Conservative Candidate. An Incredible Report." The paragraph in question is as follows :— " Considerable surprise has been created in Unionist circles by a report to the effect that a Unionist Free Trader has been selected, with the consent of the Conservative Central Office, as Unionist candidate for West Nottingham. In connection with the affairs of an adjoining constituency it recently came to light that there exists within the Unionist Party a small but powerful organisation which is determined that the Fiscal policy recently confirmed by the party at Birmingham, and clearly defined by Mr. Balfour, shall not be jeopardised by the selection of new candidates who are not prepared to support that policy. We have reason to believe that if the report to which we have referred prove well founded this organisation, of which the membership and resources are stronger than is generally realised, will not hesitate to take the steps necessitated by the situation. It is difficult to believe that, after the appeal which has been made to Tariff Reformers to work for the unity of the party, the Central Conservative Office would allow any grounds for this report to continue to exist. That the Central Office should wittingly endanger the unity of the party by forcing the organisation to which we have referred into an attitude of necessary and active hostility to an official candidate is, of course, out of the question."
The meaning of this is, of course, perfectly clear. The extreme section of the Tariff Reformers, represented by the Confederates Club, are determined to purge the Unionist Party of the last trace of Free-trade, and to treat the holding of views in the slightest degree opposed to those of the Tariff Reformers as rendering a man as incapable of standing as a Unionist candidate as if, for example, he were a Rome-ruler. The advocacy of Tariff Reform is to be the absolute, the essential, test of Unionism, and the party becomes in fact, if not in name, the Tariff Reform Party. The paragraph we have just quoted was followed up by another under the same heading on Thursday, in which the Morning Post again states its refusal to credit the report "in so far as it implies that the consent of the Central Conservative Office has been obtained to the selection of a Free Trader as candidate for any constituency in the Unionist interest. But," it continues, "the powerful organisation to which we referred will, it may be surmised, require some authori- tative guarantee as to the views on Tariff Reform of Captain Morrison, the adopted candidate for East Notting- ham, who is reported to be a Free Trader." We are not aware of the exact nature of Mr. Morrison's views on the Fiscal question, but we imagine it is an open secret that he is not in full sympathy with the Tariff Reformers. Though he has not taken any active part in the Unionist Free-trade movement, he is not prepared to allow the Tariff Reformers to dictate his political opinions. If we look a little more closely into the matter, we shall see how veryhigh is the demand made in the case of Mr. Morrison. Here is no instance of the central body attempting to impose a Unionist Free-trader, or at any rate a Unionist out of sympathy with Tariff Reform, upon a local association. There is no allegation, as far as we know, that Mr. Morrison is anything but the duly selected candidate of the local Unionist organisation. He is, in fact, in the strictest sense the official candidate. Therefore what the Tariff Reformers are asking that the central body should do is to veto the local selection, unless Mr. Morrison will come to terms with the Tariff Reformers. But what is this if not the exercise in its extremest form of that ostracism which Mr. Balfour repudiated at Birmingham in the name of the party ?
How is Mr. Balfour going to meet this demand ? Will he stand firm and refuse to yield to the Confederates Club, or will he give way and direct the central body to force Mr. Morrison to make his peace with the Tariff Reformers, or else withdraw from him the right to call himself the official candidate ? Surely he cannot, if lie is to act in the true interests of the Unionist Party, and with a proper sense of his own self-respect, refuse to maintain the anti- ostracism pledge which he gave at Birmingham ? In saying this we are not unaware of the great difficulty in which Mr. Balfour is placed owing to the essential antagonism towards his leadership which it is well known is felt by a large number of the Tariff Reform extremists. They distrust Mr. Balfour as a leader, and many of them think that the only sound policy is to force him to break utterly with the Unionist Free-traders • by some such action as is contemplated in East Nottingham. But even if Mr. Balfour were to think it possible to revise or withdraw his pledge against ostracism, and were to declare himself , reluctantly obliged to prevent the rupture of the party by doing what the extreme Tariff Reformers declare he must do, he would not save the situation. The Unionist Free-traders have hitherto been extremely patient, and have refused to split the party by the running of third candidates, hoping always for reunion on honourable terms. If, however, the ostracism contemplated in East Nottingham takes place, and the precedent is created that no man, even if chosen and accepted by the local organisation, can be allowed to stand as a Unionist candidate unless he will pledge himself to the Tariff Reform programme, the only course open to the Unionist Free-traders will be to take measures for the protection of the cause they hole dear. Iu other words, Mr. Balfour by yielding to the .Tariff Reformers will not avoid a split in the party. If, on the other hand, he refuses to yield, we are by no means sure that the threatened rupture will occur. The extreme Tariff Reformers are, we venture to think, much better at threats than at action. For example, they threatened Mr. Balfour with all sorts of dire consequences before the signature of the " Valentine " letter; but subsequent events have shown that if he had refused to sign that unhappy document, the insurgents would have been unable to carry out their threat to prevent his re-election to the leadership of the party. In spite of their annoyance, they would have found that he was the only possible Unionist leader in the House of Commons.
Should Mr. Balfour. once more allow himself to be coerced under a misapprehension of the true situation, the prospect for the Unionist Party is dark indeed. If, however, Mr. Balfour maintains a firm front, and shows the nation how weak in reality are the extremists among the Tariff Reformers, a very considerable step will have been taken towards the reunion of the party. In many ways the moment is favourable for reunion. A large body of Free-traders feel, as we confess we do, that the determination of the present Government to engage in vast expenditure, or at any rate in laying the founda-. tions for vast expenditure in the matter of old-age pensions, has made them inefficient and untrustworthy guardians of the 'Free-trade cause. Far-reaching Socialistic schemes involving the annual outlay of millions of public money are absolutely incompatible with the maintenance of Free- trade,—are, in fact, nothing but a short cut to a tariff. These considerations, coupled with the extreme unsoundness of the Government's Irish policy, with their dangerous and revolutionary attack on the House of Lords, and with their designs in the matter of education, though they have not weakened the faith of Free-trade Unionists in their principles, have necessarily made it far easier for them to co-operate with those whose main political business is opposition to the present Government. A wise leader should not, then, find it difficult to make a truce between the Unionist Free-traders and the main body of the party under which, while the Fiscal: question was laid aside for the time, a vigorous attack on the Government should reunite the whole party.
We do not, of course, mean by this that the Tariff Reformers should be asked to abandon their principles any more than that the Free-traders should abandon theirs. We fully realise that the Tariff Reformers hold their views as conscientiously as their opponents, and must not be 'asked to make any compromise in regard to them. What, however, they could do, and we could honourably do, would be to agree to the appointment of an impartial Commission to inquire into the whole Fiscal question, and further, to agree that pending such inquiry the party shall temporarily reunite on its old basis. Though we con- sider that this would be the most satisfactory basis for- reunion, we are not prepared to say that it is the only basis. For example, it is conceivable that it might be possible to agree that in a certain number of constituencies Unionist candidates with Free-trade views should be selected, while in others the official candidates should be Tariff Reformers. The Unionist Free-traders would, no doubt, in that case be obliged to contest only a comparatively small number of seats for the Unionist Party. We venture to think, however, that they would be far more likely to win back seats from the enemy than would the Tariff Reformers. Throughout Lancashire and Cheshire the only hope of winning back seats for the cause of the Union is in many instances to be found in the candidature of a Unionist Free-trader who would have the support of a united party. Such Unionist Free-trade candidates would not merely poll the Unionist vote, but would get also a great many votes from moderate Liberals who are disgusted with the policy of the present Govern- ment, but who, in spite of that disgust, would in no case vote for, but always against, a Tariff Reformer, even though opposed by a member of the Labour Party. Again, Unionist Free-trade candidates would, as a rule, secure also that large body of balancing electors who, as the last Election showed, make the question of Free-trade and Protection the deciding point in politics. To put the matter in a' nutshell, there are a very large number of seats once held by Unionists, but now by Liberals, which can only be regained for the cause of the Union by Unionist Free-trade candidates, and unless those seats are won the Unionist Party cannot be returned to power.
We sincerely trust that in writing what we have written above we have said. nothing that may seem harsh or unjust to the Tariff Reformers. Nothing could be further from our thought than to indulge in language that could be deemed provocative. The situation is far too serious fin- that. Our only desire is to point out the very grave peril in which the Unionist Party stands owing to the action which is being taken in the case of Mr. Morrison, and to endeavour to find, a remedy. With a vast scheme of old-age pensions pending, an Education Bill which may possibly prove extremely objectionable in character, and further, with the prospect of a determined attack on the House of Lords, the time is essentially one for Unionist reunion, as long as reunion can be obtained on sound and honourable terms,—terms, that is, which will not involve the abandonment of their principles by either section of the party. •
Previous page
