TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH AND THE BY-ELECTIONS.
R. CHAMBERLAIN was delighted with the result of the by-elections,—so his chief organ in the Press informed its readers on Wednesday. If so, Mr. Chamberlain is either very easily pleased, or must have given up all hope of getting a general mandate from the oountry for reversing our fiscal policy. Mr. Chamberlain knows that if his mixed policy of Colonial preference and general Protection is to succeed, he must sweep the country. But can any one who looks at the figures of Dulwich and Lewisham calmly and soberly, assert that they give the slightest indication that this is what he is doing? When a party is going to sweep the country its majorities are doubled, not halved, as they were in the case of Dulwich. Consider for a moment what it would have meant if Dulwich and Lewisham had been wrested from the Con- servatives. It would have meant nothing less than that the Protectionists were going to be practically swept out of existence, and that not more than a hundred Chamber- lainite Members would be returned to the House of Commons. If the Liberals had won those two Tory strongholds, and the same proportions in victory were to prevail elsewhere, the Liberals would be about to score a greater success than even the Unionists did. in 1900. But no reasonable Free-traders expected any such result. What they did expect was a substantial reduction in the majority owing to the split in the Unionist party, and in this expec- tation they were not disappointed. In the case of Dulwich the reduction was more than they had a right to expect, considering the heavy poll; or at any rate, more than would be required to defeat Protection if proportionate reductions in the majorities of 1895 were made through- out the countrv.—As we have stated elsewhere, on the basis of the Dulwich figures a hundred and thirty-three seats would be won by the Liberals.—In the case of Lewisham the majority was no doubt not reduced as much as we had, a right to expect, yet even here it was substantial. The Conservative candidate did worse than in 1892 by 402 votes, and on a very much larger total poll. Yet 1892 was a year in which the Liberals obtained a majority in Parliament. To regard the elections as encouraging to Mr. Chamberlain because they were not won by the Free-traders would, then, be a very great mistake. They afford no evidence that Mr. Chamberlain is converting the country, but, on the contrary, very clear evidence that he is doing nothing of the kind.
• But though we are not in the least perturbed by the result of the elections, we admit that Lewisham, at any rate, shows that the Free-traders might do better. In our view, the lesson to be derived from it is that the Free-trade Unionists must take up a firmer attitude and show a bolder front. The trend of the elections indicates that in the future the official Conservative candidate, whether he calls himself a retaliator, or a "progressive Balfourite," or what not, will in reality be a Chamberlainite. But this means that the Free-food Unionists must not be content with an attitude of negative opposition, but must boldly assail the Government candidates. Now if this is the lesson for the Free-food Unionists, there is also one for the Liberals. They must be willing to make terms, and fair and reasonable terms, with the Free-food Unionists, and in return for a general support throughout the country must do their best to secure their seats to the followers of the Duke of Devonshire. That the rank-and-file of the Liberals will be willing to make such a compact we do not doubt ; and a letter signed " Z." published in our correspondence columns—the source of which we cannot, however, further indicate—shows that some of the ablest of those in a position of authority are also willing to arrive at an understanding. In truth, as soon as the Duke of Devonshire can persuade his colleagues and followers —as to his own thoroughness we have no misgivings whatever—to take the necessary plunge of direct oppo- sition to the present Government, we feel sure that a concordat can be arrived at. The Liberals naturally cannot act till the opposition of the Free-food Unionists is proclaimed. When that is once placed beyond doubt, an agreement will follow as a matter of course. -Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Leeds was oratorically a very remarkable performance, but it raised no fresh points for discussion and advanced no new arguments. One practical announcement, however, was made by Mr. Chamberlain, and this deserves special notice. We had better give it in his own words :—" We [i.e., the Tariff Reform League] are going to form, we have gone a long way in the direction of forming, a Com- mission—not a political Commission, but a non-political Commission of experts—to consider the conditions of our trade and the remedies which are to be found for it. This Commission will comprise leading representatives of every principal industry and of every group of industries, repre- reatatives of the trade of India and the Crown Colonies and the great self-governing Colonies. It will invite before'it witnesses from every trade, and it will endeavour, after hearing all that can be said, not merely in regard to the special interests of any particular trade, but also in regard to the interests of all the other trades which may be in any sense related to it—it is going after that Co frame a model tariff. You know the principle I laid down at Glasgow was that we should have a tariff averaging 10 per cent. (a voice, Not enough ') on manufactures, and that that tariff should be arranged so as to put the highest rate of duty on the imports which have most labour in them as compared with partly manufactured goods the importation of which does not deprive us of so much employment." We need hardly say that we welcome this decision to construct a model tariff. We have always felt that there was no danger of the country accepting Protection so long as they could see it plainly before them, and this we shall get in Mr. Chamberlain's model tariff. If the model is fairly set before the country, the consumer and the taxpayer will know exactly what is proposed, and how various interests will be affected. Whether Free-trade witnesses will care to give evidence before an unofficial Commission remains to be seen. We should imagine that they would hardly think it worth while to do so ; but that will, of course, in no way prevent the preparation of the model tariff. In fact, it would probably be better that the Protectionists should be left to themselves to formulate their demands. We want to see their whole case, and not a case modified here and there in a perfunctory and half-hearted way to meet Free-trade criticisms. Let the Protectionists make their model as perfect as they can from their own point of view, and when they have completed it, place it before the ,country. Then we shall know where we stand, and shall be no longer fighting shadows. You cannot show satisfactorily how Protection will affect trade when you do not know the rates at which it will be levied, or the exact articles on which it will be placed.
Before we leave Mr. Chamberlain's speech we must notice his open and complete failure to meet Mr. Asquith's challenge to produce an industry destroyed by Free-trade. It was, no doubt, very mortifying for Mr. Chamberlain to be " held " on this point after all his jeremiads,—so mortifying, indeed, that we may almost excuse his want of courtesy to his opponent. The fact, however, remains that Mr. Asquith challenged Mr. Chamberlain to show him an industry destroyed by Free-trade, and that Mr. Chamberlain, when he was forced to deal with the chal- lenge, could only reply by calling Mr. Asquith a lawyer, and talking vaguely about the scores of trades he could name if he liked that have suffered, and the hundreds of mills that have been closed or diverted to different purposes, owing to Free-trade. The British public are slow, no doubt ; but unless we are mistaken, the significance of Mr. Chamberlain's failure to come to the scratch on this point will not in the end be thrown away upon them.
Previous page
