TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE GENERAL ELECTION AFTER NEXT. T4ORD GOSCHEN in his recent speech accused Mr. Chamberlain of indulging in a gamble with the food of the people. That his scheme no doubt is ; but it is also a gamble with the fortunes of the Unionist party, which, after all, belong no more to Mr. Chamberlain than does the work- man's bread. How great the gamble is can best be realised by considering the statement which is made by Mr. Chamber. lain's supporters throughout the country. They tell us that Mr. Chamberlain knows that as the result of his appeal for taxes on food he must lose the next General Election. He realises, that is, that under present conditions a great rebuff for the Unionists at the polls is certain. But this prospect of certain defeat does not move him, for he expects to win the General Election after next by a great majority. Now this attitude, we hold, is one which is most unfair to the Unionist party. It may suit Mr. Chamberlain, in his enthusiasm for Imperial Protection, to run great risks, but it is ruin to the party, which, after all, as far as the great bulk of it is concerned, existed before Mr. Chamberlain, and will survive him. But putting these considerations aside, it is also extremely bad elec- tioneering to contemplate an immediate defeat in the hope of a victory in the future. Of course all sorts of argu- ments can be adduced in favour of drawing back in order to leap the further, but these, we venture to assert, are based on false analogies. There is nothing more im- possible than to predict the course of distant political events. That the Unionists, if they go to the polls in their present distracted and disunited condition, will be beaten soundly we do not doubt. But after that great event has taken place, and the Opposition are installed in power, no one can possibly say what will happen, or on what issues the next appeal to the people will be made. The only thing that can even be said to be probable is that the issues will be entirely new,—issues which are now undreamt of either by leaders or people. Who could have foreseen when the appeal was made to the country in 1895 that the next General Election would be fought on war issues ? Again, who in 1900 could have predicted that at the next Election the people would be asked to decide between Free-trade and Protection ? Therefore to say now that the Free-trade issue will be before the country at the Election after next is not merely pure guesswork, but guesswork which runs contrary to experience, for experience teaches that it is very greatly the exception for two successive Elections to be fought on the same issue. Mr. Chamberlain in his sanguine, impulsive way may determine that the Election after next shall be contested on his projects, but there is not the slightest reason to think that he will be able to secure such an event. Every- thing, indeed, is likely to work against such a repetition of the issue. In the first place, the party officials are almost certain to be opposed to it. They will very naturally be afraid of a cry that has brought them disaster once, and may bring it again. " Once bitten, twice shy " appeals to electioneerers quite as much as to other men. In order to realise this fully, we have only to project ourselves in imagination to the period just after the next General Election. Until Mr. Chamberlain placed his new project before the country, and so split the Unionist vote, it was pretty generally admitted that the dying away of the war issue and the Home-rule issue, the un- popularity of the Government owing to administrative failures, the swing of the pendulum and the desire to give the other side a chance taken together made it certain that the Ministry would. be defeated when they went to the country. But if we add to this that the Unionists are divided in every constituency, as, granted that Mr. Cham- berlain obtains an appeal on the preferential duties issue, they certainly will be, how is it possible to avoid the conclusion that there will be something in the nature of a political "land- slide " ? Unionist seats will be tumbling down in every direction, and everywhere the Unionist poll will show a great falling off. In these circumstances, and human nature being what it is, is it not certain that the local leaders will blame Mr. Chamberlain for their discomfiture ? They will argue, and with no little show of reason :—‘ While we were on the old Unionist lines, and before Mr. Chamberlain interposed with his schemes, we got a good. sound Unionist majority. The moment we adopted his plan we got instead a thundering licking. Thank you, we are not taking any more Chamberlain at present.' That after the defeat to which Mr. Chamberlain and his friends look forward with such pleasure and confidence remarks of this kind will be plentifully made, not only by election agents, but also by defeated candidates, will surely not be denied. Whether justified or not by the facts, all the Unionists who are beaten at the next General Election will blame Mr. Chamberlain, and will feel that but for him they might still be Members of Parliament.
Of course it may be urged against what we have been saying that Mr. Chamberlain is wrong, that his project will not bring defeat at the next Election, and that he will not have to wait for his victory till the General Election after next. To that we can only reply that we are taking the supposition of Mr. Chamberlain's most eager supporters, not inventing a theory of our own. Apart, however, from this, it may be urged that though Mr. Chamberlain will be beaten, he will only be just beaten, and that there will be nothing in the nature of a clacicle. The other side may come in with a narrow majority, but the thick-and-thin supporters of Mr. Chamberlain's schemes, it may be alleged, will be more numerous, and will have shown people that their cry is a good one at the polls. Of course that is conceivable, but in our view it is not an event which is likely to happen. For the reasons we have given above, we believe that the Unionists cannot fail to encounter a great disaster if the issue at the polls is that of Protection v. Free-trade. Personally, we believe that in most of the great popular constituencies the Unionists are pretty equally divided on this matter. We will assume, how- ever, that there are not more than five hundred Unionists in each constituency who will refuse to vote in favour of taxing the food of the people. But, remember, Unionists who feel strongly about the question of Free-trade will not be content to grumble, or even to abstain. If they see one candidate who wishes to tax the food of the people, and another who does not, whatever may be his views on other matters they will support the Free-trader. But such a transfer of votes will be quite enough to produce the electoral " land-slide " we have been describing. That the Free-trade Unionists will be balanced by Liberal advocates of preferential duties is clearly a delusion. In spite of what Sir Charles Tennant and Mr. Brassey say, we doubt if Mr. Chamberlain will get the support of a couple of hundred Liberals in the whole country. Electorally, indeed, his party is at its strongest at the present moment A General Election cannot increase it; indeed, on the contrary, is almost certain to decrease it.
It is possible, no doubt, that Mr. Chamberlain may ultimately come to realise the considerations which we have set forth, and may decide to abandon his policy. We do not think it likely, however. At present he is evidently full of enthusiasm for his scheme, and' it is apparently making a great deal of head- way. Besides, Mr. Chamberlain is sincerely devoted to his scheme, and would regard it as a matter of prin- ciple to press it forward. We may feel well-nigh certain, then, that Mr. Chamberlain will not abandon his scheme till he has got the verdict of the country upon it. With Mr. Balfour it is different. Though we regret his attitude on the whole question, we fully admit that he is in no way committed. He could without loss of political honour at any moment declare the scheme impracticable. Our own belief is that he will ultimately do so,—that, in fact, Mr. Balfour, when the final struggle comes, will be found on the Free-trade side. We admit that we have no evidence to produce to support our belief ; it is only an instinctive notion; but nevertheless we believe very firmly, that when the inquiry is over Mr. Balfour's acute and powerful mind will lead him to the opinion that "tariffs for- revenue only" is the only sound working principle in public finance, and that though in theory you may be able to produce certain moral, political, and social results by taxation, you cannot do so in practice. But be this as it may, of one thing we are sure. If Mr. Chamber- lain really wants to succeed, he must think about the next General Election, and not the one after next. His scheme is of a nature that will not bear defeat. If it is beaten once, it will never be able to regain strength. And it will be beaten at the next General Election : on that we are all agreed.
Previous page
