TOPICS OF THE DAY

THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE ON THE FISCAL QUESTION.

" You smiled, you spoke, and I believed,

By every word and smile deceived. Another man would hope no more,

Nor hope I, what I hoped before.

But let not this last wish be vain, Deceive, deceive me, once again."

To be once more bamboozled and confused by a series of verbose platitudes,—that is apparently their constant prayer. Mr. Balfour may heap ambiguity on ambiguity, sophistry on sophistry, evasion on evasion, but they never seem to have enough. When they ask for the bread of a simple answer and receive the stone of an unintelligible oracle, they do not turn away in disgust, but merely ask for yet another statement. Hope seems to spring eternal in their breasts. If they can only get one more declaration out of Mr. Balfour, they will surely be satisfied. Somehow or other, even at the eleventh hour, the Prime Minister will turn out to be a sad, good Free-trader at heart. That is their pathetic belief.

For ourselves, we have never varied in our belief that Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour are really at one on the Fiscal controversy, and that the Prime Minister, when the necessity for action arrives, will declare himself openly on the side of his late colleague. The history of the deputation of Tariff Reformers in the House of Commons to Mr. Balfour ; the fact that the answer to that deputation has never been published ; the subse- quent private negotiations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Chamberlain; the incidents connected with the abortive Vote of Censure on the adjournment ; and finally, the speeches of last Friday, Saturday, and Monday,--all combine to confirm that belief. In our opinion, indeed, Mr. Chamberlain's unrepudiated inter- pretation of Mr. Balfour's speech settles beyond all possibility of doubt that the Spectator has been right throughout in its political diagnosis. Let us hasten to explain that we take no special credit for this, and claim no wonderful prescience in the matter. The reason why we have proved right, and so many Unionist Free- traders quite as capable as ourselves of forming political judgments have proved wrong, is very simple. They have gone wrong because they tried to form their judgments by studying Mr. Balfour's words, and by seeking to obtain from him verbal explanations and verbal assurances. We have gone right because we have looked at Mr. Balfour's deeds rather than his words, and have discarded the attempt to obtain guidance from the Prime Minister's utterances, public or private. A skilful dialectician like Mr. Balfour finds it easy by means of the artifices of the orator to confuse men's minds as to his exact position on the Fiscal controversy. If we look, however, at his actions rather than his speeches, the interpretation of his intentions in regard to the Chamberlain policy is easy enough. A year and a half ago we gave a list of the acts which convinced us that Mr. Balfour was not opposed to, and did not intend to oppose, the Chamberlain policy. This list we now reprint in substance, with one or two additions caused by recent events. Mr. Balfour's pro-Chamberlain acts are :—

(2) Mr. Balfour's parting from his Free-trade colleagues in the Cabinet without any expressions of good wishes in 'regard to their defence of Free-trade.

(3) The appointment of Mr. Austen Chamberlain to be Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. [Mr. Austen Chamberlain is not only Mr. Chamberlain's son, but has expressed himself as being in entire agreement with his father's Fiscal views.] (4) The filling up of the other Ministerial vacancies caused by the withdrawal of the Free-traders with men who, like Mr.- Arnold-Forster, Mr. Lyttelton, and Mr. Arthur Lee, are well known to be ardent Chamberlainites.

(5) The sanction—not less real because tacit—given by Mr. Balfour to attacks made by Mr. Chamberlain's organisation, the Tariff Reform League, on the seats of Unionist Free-traders, attacks made solely because they were Free-traders.

(6) The refusal to protect Lord Hugh Cecil from the attacks of the Tariff Reform League by insisting on the withdrawal of the Chamberlainito candidate, even though Lord Hugh Cecil is admitted by the Whips to be a loyal follower of the Prime Minister, though a Free-trader.

(7) The withdrawal by the Chief Whip, after pressure exercised by Mr. Chamberlain—whether directly or through his associates is immaterial—of the leave originally granted by him (the Chief Whip) to members of the Government to help a Unionist Free- trader, Mr. Bowles.

(8) The letters of encouragement sent by Mr. Balfour at by- elections to candidates who supported the Chamberlain policy in its entirety.

(9) The steady refusal by Mr. Balfour for two years to say that he is opposed to the Chamberlain policy, though he has again and again been challenged to do so by men who, like the Duke of Devonshire, have a right to challenge him.

(10) Mr. Balfour's successful action, in spite of a good deal of grumbling amen,' the Chamborlainites owing to the slowness of the pace set by 'Mr. Balfour, in securing the constant support of Mr. Chamberlain and his group. It is as certain as anything can be in politics that such support would not have been forth- coming if Mr. Balfour had not given private assurances to Mr. Chamberlain as to his ultimate action.

(11) Mr. Balfour's action in allowing the interpretation of the Government policy given by Mr. Chamberlain to pass Imre- pudiated. Mr. Balfour allowed Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons and in his presence to claim him as in effect a Chamberlainite without a word of repudiation or protest.

This record of Mr. Balfour's deeds, old and new, against which not a single anti-Chamberlain act can be quoted as a set-off, determines, in our opinion, once and for all, the question whether Mr. Balfour is or is not opposed to the Chamberlain policy. Here, in truth, is the real crux of the controversy. We do not want to know whether Mr. Balfour does or does not call himself a Free-trader. • In the babble of the political auction-room that name has to a great extent lost its meaning, and Free-trade can be made to cover anything, from Retaliation to pure Protection. Mr. Chamberlain, we believe, in certain moods still represents himself as the genuine and original Free-trader. In this welter of false or ambiguous definitions one can gain little true knowledge by asking whether a man calls himself a Free-trader. There is no ambiguity, however, about the Chamberlain policy. Every one knows what that policy is. It proposes the imposition of a 2s. duty on corn, and of a 5 per cent. tax on all meat and all dairy produce, with a preference given to the Colonies, who are to import free. Next there is to be an average 10 per cent. duty (some articles being taxed at 5 per cent., and others at 15 or 20 per cent.) on all manufactured goods, the rate to vary in accordance with the amount of labour required to produce the thing taxed. This combined policy of Preference and Protection is, as we have said, perfectly well understood, and has now been before the • country for nearly two years. When Mr. Balfour is asked whether or not he is opposed to that policy, he always, so far as words are concerned, refuses to give an answer. What are we to say of such reti- cence? How are we to interpret it ? Even if there were no other acts of Mr. Balfour's by which to test his views, surely we should have a right to say to him :— " You cannot be opposed to that policy if you insist on keeping silence in regard to it, although interrogated by those who, as in the case of your former colleagues, have a right to question you. If you were opposed to the Cham- berlain policy, you would certainly say so. With that policy placed before the country as it has been placed, your pecu- liar reticence in regard to it can only have one meaning. A Prime Minister has no doubt a right to have no opinion about a great number of minor policies that are paraded before the country for its approval or objection. He cannot afford to have no opinion on the question which above all others is dividing the nation and his own party." The fact that Mr. Balfour has refused to express opposi- tion to the Chamberlain policy is a great fact, and one that cannot be ignored. It governs the whole situation.

What is true of Mr. Balfour is true of his supporters. It is idle to ask of them whether they are Free-traders or Protectionists. What Unionist Free-traders will have to do in determining how to give their votes at the next Election will not be to try to find out from long and involved statements what are a Unionist candidate's views as to Free-trade and Protection. The one essential question for them to ask will be : "Are you opposed to the Chamberlain policy? and if so, will you make your opposi- tion to it effective ? " If a Unionist candidate answers that question with a simple affirmative, he is deserving of the support of Unionist Free-traders. If he will not answer that question in the affirmative, if he shuffles or palters with it, if, in fact, he will not plainly and openly declare himself opposed to Chamberlainism, he should not obtain the support of any genuine Unionist Free-trader. We would therefore advise all Unionist Free-traders at the next Election to use this simple test. Let them ask the Unionist candidate whether he will oppose the Chamber- lain policy in Parliament and in the country. If he gives any answer other than a plain and unqualified "Yes," let them oppose him with all their strength as necessarily an enemy of Free-trade, and so in fact, though doubtless not in intention, of the nation and the Empire.