[To THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR -1 SIR,—Writing with some knowledge
of the views of the rank and file of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons, I have no hesitation in saying that there will be very general agreement with the substance of your article, under the above heading, in your last week's issue. Be it understood, there is no question of the loyalty of the party to their distinguished leader. They value his leadership too highly to dispute his decision. The party remains united in their resolve to follow him. The assumed breach in our ranks, which has induced some of our opponents to consider the occasion opportune for an appeal to the electors, does not exist. The solidarity of the party in the House of Commons is, however, of less import than the opinions held by Unionist members in the con- stituencies. There is no doubt that during the last ten years, since Mr. Chamberlain made his famous pronouncement, the opposition to the so-called Food Taxes has strengthened rather than weakened among the working classes, on whose votes the return of the Unionist Party to power largely depends. It may be—indeed I hold it is—quite possible to defend these duties on economic and Imperial grounds, and to obtain the assent of an educated and sympathetic audience ; but if the prejudice against them is too strong and too deep-rooted among the bulk of the electors to secure support for candidates who advocate them, the chances of the Unionist majority at the next election must be seriously jeopardized. Mr. Bonar Law's statement: " We do not propose, if our countrymen return us to power, to impose Food Taxes," will be everywhere welcomed, and will be repeated from many a platform. But the leader's words cannot be quoted apart from their context or from the condi- tions attached to them ; and it is to those conditions that numbers of the electors, who might otherwise support Unionist candidates, will take exception. There can be no doubt that Mr. Bonar Law's speech marks a step in advance and offers a compromise; but something more is needed to restore the fortunes of the Unionist Party. Is it not possible for Mr. Bonar Law to go one step further P That Imperial Preference is most desirable every Unionist admits. Moreover, it should remain a feature—an important feature—of the Unionist policy. But surely there are other means of effecting such a pre- ference than by the imposition of a duty on foreign imported wheat ? The duty proposed is practically of little or no value to Canada, nor to agricultural interests at home. It is too small. If, as Mr. Bonar Law has said, the duties shall not be increased without reference to the electors, can he not say that it shall not be imposed without their consent P The task to be undertaken by a Unionist Government is no light one. Moreover it is urgent. They have to maintain the Union, to repeal the Parliament Act, and to reconstitute the Second Chamber. They have to effect a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, to carry a Land Purchase Bill, and to amend the insurance Act. On all these questions Unionists throughout the kingdom are united. Some delay must arise before the Imperial Conference can be held, and it is very unlikely that the imposition of Food Taxes will be regarded as essential to Imperial Preference. But even if it were otherwise, the delay occasioned, should no action be taken before another election, would not be serious ; and if it were generally and clearly understood that no action would be taken, the defeat of the present Government would be
Previous page
