TOPICS OF THE DAY
MR. BALFOUR'S SPEECH.
1TR. BALFOUR firmly believes that we ought to IVA_ place a series of small taxes on food. He also believes that the people of this country are so benighted in their ideas that they are not inclined .to bear any taxation on food, however small and however beneficial. But Mr. Balfour is a leader of the people. He tells us so himself in terms of the utmost plainness. Therefore Mr. Balfour must follow the people, and refuse to adopt the policy in which he believes,—i.e., the policy of taxing food. Was ever a conclusion more lame and impotent drawn by a statesman of great intellect and unrivalled political experience from his survey of a great national crisis ? The people ought to be saved, and I know how to save them, but they don't like being saved, so I must not, of course, attempt to save them.' That, it is hardly an exaggeration to say, is the attitude of Mr. Balfour,—of a man on whom all that was best in the nation once looked as a fearless leader, a politician whom it could trust, not to speak smooth things, but the things which he believed in and which at any rate seemed true to him.
Needless to say, personally and as Free-traders we have no cause to object to Mr. Balfour's attitude. Its weakness will do the cause of Protection, of taxes on food, and of taxation as a wealth-making machine infinitely more harm than would have a fearless and straightforward policy. Mr. Balfour's dubitations and sophistries no doubt make it impossible to look to him for any support against Mr. elrinherlain's attempt to control the Unionist party, but at the same time they leave the majority of his party halting between two opinions, and sicklied o'er with the pale cast of a thought which is timid and half-hearted. He leaves the Unionist guns open to capture, but at the same time he has, we realise, partially spiked them. But though, as we have said, we are glad, as politicians, that he has shown so little courage and so little sense of • the maxim that on a great and burning question it is absolutely essential for an effec- tive politician to be clearly and definitely on one side or the other, we cannot help a deep feeling of personal chagrin at Mr. Balfour's failure. Sunt lacrimae rerum, and, being mortal, we cannot but grieve at the overthrow of a personality in many ways so attractive as that of Mr. Balfour. We are using no hyperbole,—an overthrow it is. Whatever else may happen, Mr. Balfour's day as a great British statesman is over. No turn in the political kaleidoscope can restore to him the confidence of the country. A moment's reflection will show that this must be the case. What supporter of the policy of preferential duties, and their necessary corollary, taxes on food, will care to follow Mr. Balfour, the man who believed in that policy intellectually, but would not adopt it for fear it might be unpopular, instead of Mr. Chamberlain, the man who, right or wrong, had the courage to advocate a cause, whether it was popular or not, because he believed in it ? At the same time, no Free-trader can ever again feel any confidence in the Minister who has admitted that he has no real faith in Free-trade, and asks nothing better than to be driven physically from a position which he has intellectually abandoned. It is true I hold the fort at present,' he seems to say, but I have in spirit gone over to the enemy, and if I thought they were strong enough to hold it, I would at once haul down the flag. Mr. Balfour has, in fact, forfeited the confidence of both sides. To neither can he appeal as a guide or a leader, and from his distracted and impotent grasp the insignia of leadership are already falling. Significant of much, and also not a little pathetic, was the incident which occurred when Mr. Balfour, with shrill vehemence, oratorically- stamped his foot and proclaimed himself the leader of his party. "A man," said Mr. Balfour, "who, however un- worthy, is called upon to lead a-party, must lead it, and so long as I am in that position I mean to lead it. (Loud and prolonged cheers, cries of What about Joe ? ' and some interruption)" Poor Mr. Balfour. In those cries of- "What about Joe ? "—or "What price Joe ? "according to some versions—is to be found the verdict of that part of the nation which Mr. Balfour expects to lead. The Unionist Free-traders cannot have as a leader a man who clearly does not believe in Free-trade. The Protectionist Unionists will not have as a leader a min who is afraid of his own opinions, while, waiting ready to lead them, is one who possesses "will like a dividing spear," and in pursuit of his great object- " Who knows no doubt, who knows no fear."
Those who have hoped against hope to keep the Unionist party intact, and have believed till the last moment that Mr. Balfour would come down on the Free-trade side of the fence, may possibly still feel confused by the adroit moderation of Mr. Balfour's words, and may still ask-for proof that Mr. Balfour is on Mr. Chamberlain's side, and not opposed to all idea of taxing food. To such persons we would recommend a close perusal of the questions which Mr. Balfour put to himself and answered at the end of his speech. These, though worded with great moderation, leave no doubt whatever as to his position :— "The first question which I put to myself is this:—' Do you mean to come forward and ask the country to reverse the verdict arrived at in the great lawsuit between Free-trade and Protection in 1845 and 1846?' My answer is simple and plain. I regard the controversy of 1846 as of no interest whatever to us now, except
from an historical point of view The second question- I will imagine being put to me is this Do you desire to reverse
the fiscal tradition, to alter fundamentally the fiscal tradition which has prevailed during the last two generations ? ' Yes, I do. And how,' I imagine my questioner going on, 'do you propose to alter that tradition ? ' I propose to alter that tradition by asking the people of this country to reverse, to annul, and delete altogether from their maxims of public conduct the doctrine that you must never put on taxation except for revenue purposes."
TWO other questions, andl only two others, continued Mr.' Balfour, had to be asked. "Will the remedy you propose be complete ? "— " To that I answer it will not be complete, even if it can be tried in its integrity ; and it cannot be tried in its integrity, because I believe the country will not tolerate a tax upon food. And if the last question be asked me, 'Then do you think it is of any value ? ' to that I reply with equal clearness, emphasis, and decision, undoubtedly it will be useful. There have been plenty of occasions in the past, and, believe me, there will be plenty, of occasions in the future, when a British Minister having to conduct a great commercial negotiation will feel his hands strengthened, will feel he is indeed able to represent the interests of the great country whose foreign affairs he has to manage."
Mr. Balfour, then, has abandoned the fundamental principle of Free-trade, "taxation for revenue only,"—i.e., the principle that you have no right to interfere with trade, and forbid men to buy what they want to buy, and that the taking of money out of men's pockets by taxation can only be justified by the need of raising money for the:national expenses. He thinks instead that taxes can be used to make men rich, and that if other nations insist on fining their consumers, we can make amends by fining ours too. But the system of retaliation is not one that can be dealt with at the end of an article. Before, however, we leave Mr. Balfour's speech we may notice one curious point. Though he advocates so strongly those worst of all taxes, taxes not intended to raise revenue, but imposed in the hope of hitting the foreigner, and encourages so openly the taxers of food, he says nothing as to those old-fashioned Protectionists who, like our contemporary the Daily Mail, would like, while strongly condemning taxes on the food of the people, to impose Protective taxation on manufactured articles. Much as we should prefer such taxes to food-taxes, it is needless to say that we should regard them as a very great evil, and should fight against them to the very end. It is, however, satisfactory to find that Mr. Balfour gives no encourage- ment to this notion, and that therefore there is at least one economic folly with which he is not in sympathy. We can only end, as we began, by expressing our deep regret and disappointment at the sorry figure cut by Mr. Balfour at Sheffield. We knew that he would say things, and adopt a policy, which as Free-traders we should regard as dangerous, and which must be fought against at all costs. But at least we expected him to play the man. Instead, he could only exhibit himself before his country- men as a feeble shadow of Mr. Chamberlain. There is a story of a Queen of Spain receiving one of her generals in the presence of the King Consort. "If only I were a man I would myself take a sword and fight for Spain ! " ex- claimed the Queen. "Et moiaussi!" was the shrill comment of the King Consort at her side. One hears - in Mr. Balfour's speech the note of "Et moi aussi !" . If only he were a man he would fight for the food-taxes. Assuredly cc n'estRas magnifigue, and also cc n'est pas la guerre.
Previous page
