[TO THE EDITOR OP TEE "SPECTATOR.")
Srn,—Mr. Balfour's speech at Birmingham confirms the impression that his position on the Fiscal question is a singular one. He is neither a Free-trader nor a Protectionist, neither a Fiscal Conservative nor a Tariff Reformer. He is a Fiscal Reformer.
He cannot be called a Free-trader, for be strongly advocates Colonial Preference. Yet even that he desires in the interests of enlarged freedom of trade. Notwithstanding the recent growth of exports, he is still strangely obsessed by the appre- hension that our foreign trade may be suffocated for want of open markets. Apparently he imagines it to be possible to purchase a large opening of the Colonial markets in exchange for a small restriction of our own. But this is only the first step towards his ultimate goal,—Free-trade within the Empire. All this is quite different from the point of view of Pro- tectionists. It implies the desirability of free exchange and the mischief of restrictive State control. But it contains too much of that essence of Protectionism, the imposition of duties for the purpose of enhancing the profit of producers, to allow us to call Mr. Balfour, except in theory, a Free-trader. The best we can say is that he would "do evil that good might come."
On the other hand, he is certainly not a Protectionist, nor a Tariff Reformer. This is shown by the very remarkable reason he gives for keeping the proposed revenue-duties small. They must be small because small duties " do not interfere with the natural course either of production or con- sumption." Here is the antithesis of Protectionism, the very purpose of which is to interfere with that natural course. The Tariff Reformer believes that his tariff will give workmen more work and better wages just because the natural course of production and consumption will be interfered with, home manufactures being produced and consumed instead of the foreign manufactures, which the tariff will keep out. It is sometimes said to be a malicious untruth that Mr. Balfour disagrees with the Tariff Reformers. But it is true. They differ on a most prominent and important point. The Tariff Reformers do, and Mr. Balfour does not, desire that the ordinary importation of foreign manufactures should be restricted.
Mr. Balfour's ideal seems fairly clear. He would wish to see the British Empire like the United States, a great area of free exchange. But this area would be surrounded by no tariff of the American type. There would be duties, but duties for revenue only, duties too low to divert commerce and industry from their natural path. Add that this great economic unit would wield on occasion a formidable power of fiscal retaliation to extort from foreign countries favourable Commercial Treaties, and would adopt measures in restraint of " dumping."
Such I suppose to be Mr. Balfour's dream; and it is no Protectionist vision. But not only does it seem very remote —doubtless he himself would regard it as far below the horizon—the worst is that he is not on the way to reach it. It is towards a "scientific " Protectionist tariff that his supporters are carrying him. Can so able a man as Mr. Balfour really believe that he is likely to get nearer his Free-trade Empire and its revenue-tariff by a close alliance with the Tariff Reform League in this country and with Mr. Deakin and Sir W. Lyne in Australia ? Does he think the new Australian tariff a step in the desired direction? Is he blind to the plain fact that the Tariff agitation in Great Britain has strengthened, not Imperial Free-trade, but Colonial Protectionism ? Does he expect that if he should succeed in overthrowing the existing fiscal system by the aid of ardent Protectionists, he will be able to keep them to duties honestly intended only for revenue ; that men who will have promised better work and wages and denounced foreign goods in every schoolroom in their constituencies will acquiesce in duties too small "to interfere with the natural course either of production or consumption"? If so, he is a dreamer indeed.
These considerations would alone suffice to prevent Free- traders from assenting to Mr. Balfour's policy, notwithstand- ing its underlying presuppositions in favour of the principle of free exchange. But it cannot be denied, on the other hand, that there is ground for the uneasiness felt by some Tariff Reformers. True, if the defenders of the present system are defeated, the fruits of the victory will go to those who will mainly have won it,—the Protectionists. But under Mr. Balfour's captaincy will that victory ever be won P After all, a Protectionist propaganda cannot be effectively sustained by Free-trade arguments. The strongest electioneering weapons in the armoury of Tariff Reform are the Protectionist ones. But these Mr. Balfour cannot use. Hence his Fiscal speeches often seem to zealous Tariff Reformers cold, vague, and per- plexing. They are, in truth, stiff performances, through which the speaker moves awkwardly and ill at ease. For all the time he has to study to put forward one aspect of his views and keep another out of sight. The result is an apparent want of simplicity, directness, and power, like the walk of a man anxious to hide a hole in his clothes, Mr. Balfour is in the unfortunate position that, while his policy offends Free- traders, his methods of urging it dishearten Protectionists.
Tariff Reformers would do more wisely not to go on trying to force his hand. He is so incomparably the ablest com- batant in the Unionist Party that he must be its leader. But he cannot lead with success if he is driven into a constrained and unnatural attitude. Nothing is gained by compelling him to occasional appearances as an ineffective Tariff Reformer. He should be allowed to expound his policy without reserve, to show not only its notable difference from the present fiscal system, but also with equal emphasis its essential antagonism to Protection. So the policy of Fiscal Reform would nowhere be misunderstood. I do not say it would be a popular policy. But we should be rid of confusion and doubt. The party would be healthier. We should all breathe a clearer air.
Previous page
