TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BALFOUR AND THE UNIONIST FREE- TRADERS. THAT Mr. Balfour is sincerely anxious to maintain the unity of the Unionist party we do not doubt for a moment. He has no desire, that is, to proclaim that adhe- sion to the Protectionist doctrines as preached by Mr. Cham- berlain and his supporters is necessary for all loyal party men. On the contrary, he has declared in the most solemn and formal way that agreement with Mr. Chamberlain's pro- posals must not be considered as the test of party loyalty. In other words, the Prime Minister has laid it down that a Unionist is not to be considered a bad party man because • he continues to be a Free-trader. But though Mr. Balfour has at heart no desire to drive the Unionist Free-traders out of the party or into a position of isolation or revolt, he has, unfortunately, done a great deal to produce the very result which we all so greatly desire to avoid. Mr. Balfour's refusal to give any answer but one of peremptory denial to the very moderate and reasonable request of so faithful a member of the Unionist party as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the senior Member of the House of Commons and the most loyal and devoted of Conservative leaders, cannot, however good the intention, but act as a force tending towards disruption. The Free-trade Unionists see Mr. Chamberlain insisting on the need of discussion— he stated only a few weeks ago : "It is because it is of immense importance that I ask the House to join eagerly in the discussion to which I invite them " (Mr. Chamber- lain, May 28th)—and find that it is perpetually thrown in their teeth by the Protectionists that they are afraid of discussion. Yet when they ask for discussion, and ask for it in the place where discussion is specially appropriate—i.e., in that great deliberative assembly, the House of Commons —they are told by Mr. Balfour that "no useful purpose" would be served thereby. They are told also, no doubt, that if they will propose a direct vote of censure they can have a discussion, but such a vote of censure they naturally cannot agree to help and further. They do not want to take up the position that no one who shares Mr. Chamberlain's views has any right to remain in the Unionist party, as a vote of censure supported by them would imply. They merely claimed the right to make clear their own position, and to hear from the other side a statement of theirs. Such a claim is not an act of war, but rather of party loyalty, and deserved to be, and should have been, treated with consideration.
Mr. Winston Churchill's letter to Thursday's Times brings out well the false position in which Parliament as well as the Unionist party is placed by the refusal of Mr. Balfour to allow any discussion which did not take the form of a pitched party battle. He points out how specially unfair it is to the Unionist Free-traders to forbid them the use of Parliamentary debate. "It is easy," he urges, "to see why Mr. Chamberlain does not desire a debate, and why the Free-traders seek one. In Parliament they meet the Protectionists on even terms. Information can be demanded, figures can be challenged, facts can be examined and com- pared. Argument in the House of Commons costs no money, requires no machinery. It is an equal battle, fought under fair rules in a twenty-foot ring. In the autumn it is expected that these advantages will disappear. Vast wealth is always at the disposal of Protectionist leaders. Political organisation is the child of wealth. Mr. Chamber- lain's speeches are read by every one. Few among the Unionist Free-traders have access to the public at all except from the platform of the House of Commons and the notice which is taken of its debates. Stave off debate by any means, in spite of pledges, appeals, or taunts,' till the Session be over, and, the cause of Pro- tection will have escaped its most dangerous peril." The absurdity, nay, the humiliation, involved in ac- cepting this view is well hit off by Mr. Churchill. "The great question of the day may be argued in the Palace and in the coal-hole. Every chamber of commerce may debate it. Every public body may pass a resolution. It is on the agenda of the Eton Debating Society. It is in order in the Parliament of Peckham. But there is one place in the British Empire where it is taboo.' The Housenf Commons, most interested, most concerned, most responsible, is to be gagged and smothered by a cynical and ingenious abuse of its own procedure." That is the literal fact. For the first time in our history Parliament is not allowed to discuss what the whole nation is busy debating, and what fills every newspaper !
It is, however, useless to regret Mr. Balfour's decision. He has pronounced his judgment on the appeal made to him, and we can only hope that he has not also pronounced the doom of the Unionist party. It remains to consider what the Unionist Free-traders should now do in order to prevent the break up of the party, and to make the nation understand that there is no reason why a man should not be both a Unionist and a Free-trader, and that those Unionists who are doubtful as to the wisdom of Mr. Cham- berlain's projects need not assume that they must either leave their party and join the Liberals, or else submit unwillingly to the Colonial Secretary. The Free-trade Unionists must insist with all their might that Free-traders have every right to remain in the party, and that they intend to do so. Nothing will further this object better than organisation, and we are therefore delighted to note that under the leadership of Sir Michael Hicks Beach the Free-trade Unionists have formed themselves into a body to be known as the Unionist Free-Food League, and that they intend to organise their section of the party through- out the constituencies. The offices of the Free-Food League are at 15 Victoria Street, S.W., and we have no doubt that before long some general announcement of policy will be made to the pblic. Meantime we hope that all Unionists who are also Free-traders will communicate with the secretary of the League in order that he may be able to get into touch with Free-trade Unionists throughout the nation. The Free-trade Unionists constitute' a far larger portion of the party than is generally supposed, but to make their influence on the party felt it is essential that they should be in communication with each other. No doubt the activity of the Free-Food League must to some extent tend to widen the breach in the party, but the blame for that must rest with Mr. Balfour rather than with Sir Michael Hicks Beach and his colleagues. If their mouths are closed in Parliament, they have nothing left but to appeal to the country.
Before we leave the subject we must not forget to point out one fact of great importance. It need not be supposed that Mr. Balfour's refusal to allow the Unionist Free- traders the open discussion they asked for is a proof that he has gone over entirely to Mr. Chamberlain. We think that instead the reverse is true. If Mr. Balfour had become a convinced convert, he would know that the split could no longer be avoided, and he would have declared himself at once. If, however, he has not been converted, and still believes it possible to induce Mr. Chamberlain to abandon his project or part of it, we can understand, though we still should not be able to agree with, his desire for silence. We have always believed, and still believe, that when the final split comes, it is quite conceivable that Mr. Balfour will not be found in agreement with Mr. Chamberlain. Of course we may be completely wrong, but we shall not believe in Mr. Balfour assenting to Mi.. Chamberlain's policy, and to the consequent disruption of the Unionist party, until the event occurs. He made, we believe, a huge mistake on Wednesday when he refused to allow discussion ; but though wrong in fact, we believe, as we have said at the beginning of this article, that his desire was, and is, to avoid a rupture in the Unionist party.
Previous page
