TOPICS OF THE DAY.
UNIONIST POLICY. THE speeches made by Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Boner Law at the Albert Hall announce in fact, though not in so many words, that the extremists among the Tariff Reformers have prevailed over the moderates. The wise pledge given by Mr. Balfour before the last General Election as to a Referendum is not to be repeated at the next election. It may be remembered by our readers that we suggested as a compromise, in regard to the question whether the fiscal policy of the Unionists should be referred or not referred, that the Unionists should take the fiscal cherry at two bites. We proposed that at the next election they should not pledge themselves to submit the whole of their fiscal policy, with the consequent delay, but should merely declare that that part of their fiscal policy which was obviously capable of injuring them at the polls should not be carried into effect without a direct appeal in some form or other to the electors. The result of this would have been to set free to vote Unionist an enormous number of men who, though they are in accord with the rest of the Unionist policy, are not willing to agree to the taxation of bread, meat, and dairy produce in any shape or form. Unhappily this tactical suggestion—we are perfectly willing to agree that it was nothing more than a tactical suggestion, though we venture to say a very sound one—has also been rejected by the Unionist leaders. There is to be no differentiation between that part of Tariff Reform which has to do with the taxation of manufactured imports and the taxes on food. We must add, however, that the Unionist leaders have pledged themselves that any sum raised by the food taxes, which are to be low in amount and halved in the case of Colonial food in order to give an Imperial prefer- ence, are to be earmarked and the money derived there- from is to be used to lower the taxation on tea, coffee, sugar, cocoa, &c. Liberal Free Traders or pseudo-Free Traders, for we can hardly give the honoured name of Free Trader to those who are determined to break up the Customs union between Britain and Ireland and to put into the hands of the Irish Parliament the power of Protection by means of bounties and the manipulation of Customs duties, will no doubt ask us what we are going to do now, and whether we really propose to support a party which is pledged to food taxes. We will tell them at once and without any circumlocution. We do. We intend to support the Unionist Party in spite of the withdrawal of the Referendum pledge, to support it loyally and to the very utmost of our strength. Further, we intend to do everything in our power to induce other Free Traders to do the same. We regret the decision of tho Unionist leaders, but that will not deflect us by one hair's-breadth from our purpose of getting rid of the present Govern- ment and of safeguarding the Union by placing a Unionist dministration in power. The task has become more difficult, but not the least less urgent. If the Unionists were ten times more Protectionist and also ten times more given over to food taxes than they are, we should say the same. We have got to make a choice of evils, and the evils are so infinitely greater on the Liberal side of the account that it is without the slightest hesitation or misgiving that we make our choice. Indeed, paradoxical and open to misunderstanding as it may seem to some of our readers, what we are deploring in the food taxes at the moment is not the taxes themselves, but the fact that they will be mis- understood and will make a Unionist and Tariff Reform triumph not a certainty, as it would have been, but a gamble. When we asked for a Referendum on the Food Taxes we were not thinking of the fiscal side of the matter at all, but purely of tactical considerations. We had abandoned any idea of converting the Unionist Party to our economic views. All we wanted to do was to teach it how to win. Having made our protest, the Unionist leaders may feel sure that we shall not be so foolish as to injure the cause we have at heart by any further complaints that our advice has not been adopted. In such a crisis as the present we are not going to run any risks of injury by disunion. The die is cast, and we must all fight for the Union and good government with a united front. Before, however, we leave the fiscal side of the Unionist programme, and leave it, as we hope, for good during the continuance of the Home Rule crisis, we may point out the tremendous responsibility that has been undertaken by the extreme wing of the Tariff Reformers in refusing to allow Mr. Balfour's referendum pledge, even in the modified form we have suggested of a reference only to food taxes, to be renewed by the party. If we win by a large majority at the next general election—and nothing but a large majority will make the Union really safe—then, unques- tionably, those extremists will be fully justified.—Remember we are not arguing now on the economic merits, but solely upon the best means of saving the Union.—If, however, our fears prove true, and we are either beaten as a party or our majority is small and precarious, heavy indeed is the responsibility which will rest upon those who have insisted that the question of food taxes must not be postponed till the people could be directly consulted, but must be forced to the front. We do not believe that among educated Unionist Free Traders explanations will often be demanded as to the choice we have taken in the matter of political evils. Still we may spare a little space to re-state our position here. Let us consider what will happen if the Liberals win at another General Election and the present Government remains with power to continue on its present course. In the first place Britain will be called upon to force Ulster under a, Dublin Parliament, with the certainty that Ulster will resist and that there will be wholesale bloodshed. To deny to the North of Ireland the principle of local autonomy which is to be set up in the south means that the men of Belfast must be shot down not by tens but by thousands. That is what the Home Rule Bill means in practice, since the Liberals will not fit their wretched scheme with the safety valve which alone would prevent civil war if it is passed—the safety valve of allowing the north-east counties of Ulster to remain outside the Bill. That is what is going to be done in the name of allow- ing the will of the local majority to prevail ! As sinister and as paradoxical is that which is to be accomplished on the economic side. In the name of Free Trade the Customs Union between this island and Ireland is to be broken down, and, further, Ireland is to be endowed with the power of fostering local industries by bounties and other Protectionist devices. Finally Ireland, while possessed of complete power over domestic legislation, is to receive a tribute from this country of many millions a year. At the same time Irish members, to the number of forty-two, are to interfere in all our domestic concerns, though it will be quite impossible to exact any responsibility from them for the votes given. Their constituents, the men who have sent them to Parliament, will not care in the least how they vote on matters of finance or upon domestic Bills within the purview of the Westminster Parliament. As long as Ireland is not touched what will the elector in the County of Cork know or care about the action of the Member for Cork who votes at Westminster ? Never in the history of the world have men been placed in such a position in a deliberative Assembly as will be these forty- two. The Irish members will be like the broker's men in a house on which an execution has been levied. But hitherto the man in possession has not been called into the family council and asked to decide on all the domestic problems of the household. When the choice is between such evils as these and the evils of Tariff Reform, can any sane man doubt which way his choice should go Even on purely economic grounds can there be any hesitation in the choice made by the good citizen ? Let him not suppose for a moment that he is going to main- tain the policy of free exchange by sacrificing the Union and supporting the Liberals. During the last seven years they have dealt blow on blow to the policy of free exchange and all that goes with it. Except in the matter of imports free exchange has become to the Liberals the accursed thing. How long the foreign section of the policy of Cobden and Bastiat is likely to last is shown by what is proposed for Ireland. Tariff Reform may be a bad. system of taxation, but " Oh, ye gods ! what call ye site values taxation," and all the other predatory devices of Mr. Lloyd George's system ? Even if there were nothing else in the account, no one who was not governed by names rather than things could say that the Liberals' fiscal system was more in accordance with the principles of freedom and free exchange than that of the Unionists. It is the uni- versal experience of mankind that Protection grows wherever expenditure is profligate and the burden of taxation great. But what have the Liberals been doing during the past five years but piling up taxation and heaping millions on millions of fresh imposts on the back of that ultimate taxpayer who is always the poor man? Do the friends of sound finance really think that their place is among the Liberals ? Look at the Insurance Bill. Things are bad enough in that quarter already, but what are they likely to be when we get the full consequences of the monstrous folly and injustice with which Mr. Lloyd George has handled the question of medical benefit ? A worse case of legislative and administrative blundering and bungling has never been witnessed. To vote for the Liberals is an endorsement of that act of political crime. It is, however, as unnecessary as it is painful to go through the present Government's record, whether in the making of laws or in their execution. Whether the question be the Marconi contract or the handling of the Indian balances, we find the same story of carelessness and ineptitude. The Government are stale, cynical, indif- ferent, and demoralized, and the sooner they make way for men who, even though some of their fiscal views may be mistaken, are at any rate not the slaves of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the better for the safety and welfare of the United Kingdom.
Once more we say that it is without doubt or hesitation that we choose not merely the side of abstract Unionism, but of the existing Unionist Party in the struggle that is before us. We implore all those who read these words to do the same. If not, and if out of wounded amour propre, or out of a regard for abstract economics they either by abstention or by voting help to bring about a Liberal victory, they may find not only their hands red with the blood of Ulster, but may find that a sacrifice so terrible has been made in vain. It may well be that in the name of Free Trade they will have brought about the reign of Protection. On the other hand, if they secure a Unionist victory, even in the name of Protection, there will still remain many chances that no breach will after all be made in the Free Trade embankment, or that, if it is made, the water will not flow through it. If we dwell further on such con- siderations, however, we may lose touch with that absolute sincerity which is essential at a moment like the present. Let us assume that a Liberal defeat can mean nothing but the immediate advent of Protection and of food taxes. In spite of that, and as infinitely the lesser evil, we choose the Union, and urge all Unionist Free Traders and all non- party and moderate men to give their support to the Unionist Party. The boat must sink if she is not trimmed, and the only way to trim her is by leaning to the Unionist side.
Previous page
