19 MARCH 1904, Page 13

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE CASE OF FREE-TRADERS WHO ARE SUPPORTERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. [To TEM EDITOR Ow THE " Elnecramos.1 desire to answer the two questions put to me by your correspondent "A. W. G." (Spectator, March 5th) and also, with your permission, to make a very few observations upon the political developments which have taken place since you published my previous letter, three weeks ago.

I sin asked by "A. W. G." to explain why, if the policy of the Government is not a policy of Protection, Protectionists support the Government and the Government supports Protectionists? The first of these questions is susceptible of a very simple answer. All, or nearly all, the Protectionists have always been strong Unionists. What is there in recent developments which should induce them to withdraw their support from the Government and give it to the party of Home-rule? Of course n addition to this. I am quite prepared to admit that as in October a number of Free-traders believed that the Government was moving to Pro.. tection, so a number of Protectionists may well have hoped the same; and they are naturally reluctant to abandon a hope so pleasing to them.

The second question raises, I admit, a point of difficulty, and I regret that it has not been found possible to adopt a somewhat firmer line with Protectionist candidates ; but it must be con- sidered that it has never been the practice of political parties to reject the support of those who are prepared to adopt the party programme, even although on matters outside that programme their views may not be in accord with those of the official repre- sentatives of the party. An obvious instance occurs to me. At a time when the policy of the Unionist party was—by the admission of all of us—Free-trade, Mr. Chaplin held office in several Governments. During that period he was advocating a most rigorous and impracticable system of Protection; but it was rightly considered by the leaders that so long as Mr. Chaplin accepted the programme of the party his fiscal eccentricities in no way disentztled him to party support. The same principle applies here. If and when a General Election takes place in which the real issue is Free-trade or Protection, then I admit at once that no Government could accept the support of Protectionists and yet pose as a Free-trade Government. But—thanks, I believe, mainly to the influence and the efforts of the Free-trade sup- porters of the Government—it has now been specifically arid authoritatively declared by Mr. Balfour that at the next General Election the Government will not present to the country the issue of Protection.

I will conclude with a very brief reference to the events which took place in connection with Mr. Pine's Motion in the House of Commons. Those events you, Sir, call "the triumph of the Chamberlainites," but I have some difficulty in understanding why. What happened was this. An amendment expressing approval of the fact that the policy of the Government did not involve Protection and a tax on food was put down,—it is under- stood with the approval of the Government. This amendment the Protectionists—admittedly a strong body in the Unionist party—not unnaturally declined to support. Some of the Unionist Free-fooders also seem to have had doubts about supporting Mr. Wharton's amendment, though what reason can be given for their doubts except their recently developed affection for the Opposition I do not pretend to guess. In these circumstances, Mr. Balfour declined, and rightly declined, to risk the safety of his Government on this amendment. He made, or rather reiterated, in the course of the debate his statement that the policy of the Government does not include Protection or food- taxes in terms so definite as to be incapable of being misunder- stood: Why does the mere fact that the House of Commons was not permitted to express approval of this announcement turn it into a triumph for the disappointed advocates of Pro- tection and food-taxes ?

Mr. Winston Churchill's statement that the Government, by simply negativing Mr. Pine's Motion, which was really one of "No confidence," affirmed the contrary of Mr. Wharton's amendment, is so erroneous that it is difficult to understand how any one acquainted with the forms of Parliamentary proceedings could put it forward. The substance of the victory remained with the Free-trade Unionists. The triumph of the Protectionists was on a matter of form only.

A FREE-TRADE SUPPORTER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

[We cannot agree with our correspondent, though his reasoning is as ingenious as it is courteous. A view of the facts will soon show how utterly untrustworthy are the barriers against Protection upon which he relies. Mr. Balfour's pledge that the next General Election shall not be fought on the issue of Protection v. Free-trade is quite futile, for the very good reason that he has no means of enforcing it. Mr. Chamberlain on the one hand, and the Opposition on the other, are agreed that it shall be fought on that issue, and we see in the case of every by-election that the electors on both sides always endorse that view. Whatever Mr. Balfour may say, he and the small minority of the Unionist party who adopt his paradoxes in lieu of principles will find themselves wholly unable to keep the question of Protection or Free-trade out of the Election. In truth, one need only consider what portion of the Unionist party it is which controls the Government to realise that the Government should receive the support of no genuine Free-traders. The control of the Unionist party and Government is now vested in the Protectionists. That is a fact which we should have thought must be patent to all since the withdrawal of the Wharton amendment on the demand of the Protectionists.—ED. Spectator.]