TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BALFOUR AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN. -w HAT is the exact meaning of the speeches made this week by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain ? That is the question which the country at large has been asking itself for the last few days. For ourselves, we have no doubt as to the answer. The speeches are the cards laid on the table by two skilful whist-players—as the Times truly termed them a year ago—who are playing into each other's hands. Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain are, as we have always contended, unanimous in regard to the Fiscal policy. The only difference is that one, as he has said himself, is the pioneer who goes in front, while the other stays behind to see that the army keeps together, and to persuade or coerce the stragglers. Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain are as much in agreement now as when Mr. Balfour wished Mr. Chamberlain" God-speed" in his attempt to convert the country last autumn, or as when last spring Mr. Balfour blessed the new Liberal Unionist Council which had freed itself from the Duke of Devonshire and his supporters, and was deliberately organised in order to further the Chamberlain propaganda. We know that this view of the speeches is not held by that able exponent of Unionism and Free-trade, the Standard, and we hope most heartily that its view may prove to be the right one and ours the wrong. Feeling so strongly convinced as we do, however, in regard to the incidents of the week, it would be nothing less than a dereliction of duty to let our hopes lead us to adopt a view which our reason rejects.
It is not difficult to set forth the grounds which induced us when we read Mr. Balfour's speech, and before Mr. Chamberlain's speech had brought confirmation of our view, to come to the conclusion that he did not mean to draw back from the edge of the abyss, or to separate himself in any way from the Chamberlain policy. It is true that Mr. Balfour's speech at Edinburgh seems at first sight like a frank repudiation of Protection. When, however, it is looked at more closely it will be found to give no guarantee whatever that Mr. Balfour means to resist the Chamberlain policy ; and nothing but such a guarantee can be of any avail to heal the dissension within the Unionist party. On the contrary, the speech amounts to an en- dorsement of Chamberlainism. What, in effect, Mr.
Balfour says is this If you use the naughty, ugly word "Protection," I shall be obliged to abandon the leadership of the party, though I admit that, even if the naughty word is persisted in, I shall still give that party my whole-hearted support. If, however, you will listen to me, I can show you how entirely unnecessary it is to use that naughty word.' Upon this the Prime Minister proceeds to give a definition of Protection which at once places it outside the sphere of practical politics. Probably no one ever professed to be a Protectionist in Mr. Balfour's sense. Certainly no one, and least of all Mr. Cham- berlain, has proposed a policy so defined during the present controversy. The policy of Protection in regard to which Mr. Balfour smiths his breast, and to which he tells us he can never, consent, is a policy which "aims at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices. The raising of price is a necessary step towards the encouragement of an industry under a Pro- tective system If the industry is encouraged, it is by the raising of prices." This sounds very strong and • uncompromising till we remember that Mr. Chamberlain has always said in language quite as emphatic that he has no desire to raise prices, and that the effect of his Fiscal policy will be, not to raise, but to lower prices. Mr. Chamberlain has never called himself a Protectionist. Instead, he has adopted the name of Tariff Reform for his policy in order to avoid the suggestion of increased prices for the consumer which is attached to the word "Protec- tion." When Mr. Balfour made his public repudia- tion of the word "Protection "he must have known that it would not cause the slightest pain or embarrassment to Mr. Chamberlain, and that the founder or patron of the Tariff Reform League would be able to join quite heartily in the act of repudiation,—as, in fact, he did at Luton. "I also repudiate the name I have no more idea of going back to the Protection of fifty years ago than I should have of going back to the Free-trade of fifty years ago." A moment's reflection will show that Mr. Balfour could never have intended to do anything except repudiate something which Mr. Chamberlain had never advocated. Mr. Chamberlain's policy has been before the country in full detail for nearly a year. He has not enlarged it in any essential since he began, and therefore, if Mr. Balfour had no word of condemnation or discourage- ment for it last year, it was inconceivable that he would suddenly condemn it. After Mr. Balfour had himself repudiated, and given Mr. Chamberlain the opportunity of repudiating, a policy which nobody has ever professed to advocate, he went on to describe his own programme. This, though not expressed with Mr. Chamberlain's completeness or enthusiasm, is a programme which contains nothing antagonistic to the Chamberlain policy. Mr. Balfour is in favour of putting taxation on foreign goods for the purpose of enabling us to negotiate arrangements with foreign countries upon a basis favourable to our manu- facturers. He is also in favour of preventing what he calls "tariff-fed competition destroying a British industry, and ever raising the prices to the British consumer." It is, in truth, all a question of words with Mr. Balfour. If you call a policy Protection, he can have nothing to do with it; but if you call it Retaliation, or Tariff Reform, or preventing the ruin of British industries by "dumping," no man will be bolder in tariff manipulation. That is, if you go to Mr. Balfour and tell him that you want a 10 per cent, duty in order that you may be able to get a higher price for your goods, and so be enabled to work at a profit and successfully meet foreign competition, he will have nothing to say to you, but will treat your proposal as a wholly inadmissible Protectionist demand for raising prices. If, however, you use the proper word, call the foreign competition "dumping," and declare that the inroad of the foreigner on your markets is "tariff- fed," Mr. Balfour will grant you all you ask with the utmost alacrity. He is like the young lady who declared that she could not on any consideration allow her admirer to kiss her, but added that she could not only see no ob- jection to his laying his lips on her cheek, but, indeed, re- garded such action as highly advisable. It is clear from Mr.
Chamberlain's speech that he fully realises the meaning and value of such a distinction. He is perfectly willing to repudiate a word which he has never employed. He will even give up the word "tax" since it has an ugly sound, and call it a "toll." Indeed, he would, we have little doubt, be quite willing to call it a "consumer's bonus" if the name seemed likely to be popular, provided always that the thing so named was in fact "two shillings a quarter on foreign corn, and five per cent. on other agri- cultural products at the ports."
So much for the alleged opposition of view between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain on the Fiscal question. The agreement in regard to Colonial Preference is even more marked. Here Mr. Balfour has made a distinct advance in the Chamberlain direction. Last year he was very doubtful as to the practicability of Colonial Preference. Now he speaks of it with a kind of tepid enthusiasm, and makes the definite announcement that if after the next General Election the Unionists are returned to power, he will summon a Colonial Conference with the practical aim of drawing up a system of Imperial Preference. It is true he adds that when the scheme has been agreed on it must be remitted to the peoples of the various component parts of the Empire at a second and ad hoc General Election. As to the possibility of the tariff thus agreed to proving Pro- tectionist in character Mr. Balfour says nothing ; but we have no doubt that even if prices were proposed to be raised, Mr. Balfour would be able to find a comforting alias for the process, or discover some *method of ex- plaining it away. As might naturally be expected, Mr. Chamberlain hailed this advance in his direction with delight, and spoke of it as a statement more momentous than any that the Prime Minister had hitherto made. His only objection—the only blemish, indeed, that he found in the whole speech—was Mr. Balfour's declaration that it would be necessary to have two Elections before the plan could be put into operation. Mr. Chamberlain is in far too great a hurry for any such delay, and he appeals to the Prime Minister to reconsider this part of his Colonial pro- gramme. The Times, anxious to harmonise even the tiniest discord in the music, points out that there is, in truth, no very great difference between the two statesmen. As it says, "the question does not arise in any definite form at present, as the Conference has not even been called into being." We agree ; but we venture to think that if Mr. Chamber- lain means only one Dissolution, while Mr. Balfour is in favour of two, it will be one Dissolution, and not two, that will in the end find a place in the party programme. In any case, however, we cannot take the Conference suggestion very seriously. It is one of those razors which are made to sell, not to cut. It will possibly prove a convenient cry at a General Election ; but since the Unionist party, ruined as it is by Mr. Chamberlain's recklessness and Mr. Balfour's weakness, is unfortunately certain to be defeated at the polls, the matter is only one of academic interest. At the same time, we confess that if we thought such a Conference would actually meet, we should regard the prospect with the utmost anxiety. We have every desire to see a friendly and reasonable exchange of ideas between our home and oversea statesmen. Such meetings can do nothing but good. But between such useful Con- ferences, and the Conference suggested by Mr. Balfour as a move in the party game, and involved from the beginning in party passion, there is a world of difference. Nothing but evil can come to the Imperial cause from a Fiscal Conference summoned in existing circumstances. It would be an instrument far more likely to weaken than to strengthen the Imperial ties. As to the ultimate verdict of the nation on the great issue of Free-trade and Protec- tion, whether called by that name or by an alias, we feel as confident as ever ; but this attempt to drag the Empire into the party arena is one which we can only view with alarm and indignation.
Previous page
