The Week at Westminster
THE event of the first week in Parliament after the
reassembly of the House of Commons has been the enunciation of the protectionist policy decided upon by a majority of the Cabinet. Mr. Chamberlain's speech has been overvalued, and it may be that he overvalued the scheme himself when he acclaimed it, in a passage which everyone respected, as a realization of his father's hopes. What made the speech a success was not the convincing nature of its economics nor its lucidity— indeed it left many essential details obscure—but its attunement to the temper of a House of Commons, which' more and more clearly is bent on experimenting largely with tariffs of some kind, without caring very much of what kind. For instance, it is remarkable that the plan of a low general tariff with a forecasted superstructure of higher specific tariffs was almost lyrically received by Mr. Amery, though he and the high protectionists have always contended that the only effective method was a high general tariff with a substructure of lower specific duties. Upon methods, therefore, the moderates have beaten the die-hards, for it is quite clear that the high protectionists will not oppose the Government's scheme. * * * *
The Free Traders are few in the House ; for the adher- ence of Socialist Members to Free Trade is more oppor- tunist than intellectual in many cases ; but after all there is some reason for the consistent victory of the Free Trade cause from 1906 to 1931 ; and the Cabinet's "agreement to differ" allowed Sir Herbert Samuel to put the economic reasons during Thursday's debate. An admittedly restive audience appeared less impressed by his arguments than astonished at the logical consequences of an " agreement to differ " of which most of them had approved. How any of them could have expected Sir Herbert Samuel to be content with making a perfunctory defence passes comprehension. He had the clearest duty to explain fully why he and his friends had not bowed to the majority of their Cabinet colleagues, and, as Sir Donald Maclean pointed out on Monday, the " agreement to differ " dates from November, 1931, and not from January, 1932. The only economic deduction to be made from Sir Herbert Samuel's speech is that the economic case for the Government's proposals will have to be made out in the House of Commons instead of taken for granted. It is only fair to Conservative Ministers to add that the Government's policy is not theirs alone ; and that among a Cabinet of twenty, it is supported by two Liberal and three Labour Ministers.
* * * * The best speech of the first day's debate was made by Major Elliot, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Major Elliot was probably speaking his own mind when he observed that the prospect of tariffs was passed over by their critics with resignation, and that the practical thing to do, after making the tariff proposals as watertight as possible, was to pass on to problems which must be solved irrespective of the fiscal system of the country. Many of the rank and file during the debate were clearly conscious that neither tariffs nor free-trade by themselves could guarantee pros- perity. The second day's debate gave Mr. Runciman an- other personal triumph. There can be no doubt that he has an unrivalled ascendancy over the present House of Commons, because both his position, his manner, and his prolonged business experience make him something new in the way of Ministers. He went straight to the most promising justification of the Government's pro- posals, namely, that they are an essential part of the * * * * The proper political deduction to be made from the debate was illustrated by the further discussion on the Socialist Vote of Censure last Monday. The significance of that vote was that the majority comprised both optimistic and pessimistic supporters of the National Government because both realized that the test of the " agreement to differ " lies in the future. That was the only timely sentence in Mr. Baldwin's historical meanderings, so wittily traversed by. Lord Winterton. It was the substance of Sir Donald Maclean's justification of the dissentient Ministers' decision to remain in office. The temper of the House pursues the following line of argument with general approval. First, no one really wants the National Government to break up. There are certain exceptions to this feeling outside the House but they have no reflection in the Cabinet and little in the House of Commons. The making of the "agreement to differ" is, therefore, justified. It will succeed if the dissen- tient Ministers, recognizing as they have that they cannot stop tariffs, concentrate upon House of Commons work in endeavouring to make tariffs less objectionable. The grounds for hoping that this condition will be fulfilled lie in Sir Herbert Samuel's alternative proposals ; and in Sir Donald Maclean's promise to observe Ministerial responsibility. The "agreement to differ" will, the argument continues, fail if dissent is the prelude to the dissentient Ministers putting themselves at the head of a campaign to organize cumulative resistance to the policy of their colleagues. The future, therefore, of the agreement must be difficult, but it may not be hopeless. * * * *
The House is determined not to become absorbed in tariffs ; and was given a lead in the right direction by Mr. Baldwin on Tuesday night when he pointed to the abiding problem of unemployment. The " means test " has caused many storms at question time, though it appears that the changes in Unemployment Insurance have one the whole worked smoothly. Shanghai finds the House anxious but restrained. The Town and Country Planning Bill passed its second reading, and the Children's Bill will be taken this week. Mr. Chamberlain added to his forecast that the revenue estimates would be realized an assurance that retrenchment would reach the total contemplated last September, defence of the pound. This justification, of course, can only stand on the view that the pound is not yet safe and ought to be made safe. It is therefore a direct challenge both to optimists and inflationists, and, it is hardly too much to say that the fiscal controversy has really become a currency controversy. Ought sterling to be stabilized ? Mr. Runeiman answered yes ; because only so could sterling become a new basis for the exchange of goods, i.e., a basis for any trade at all whether free or not. This argument consolidated moderate opinion in the House, and this House is moderate in opinion, though the efforts of new members to express it during the debates have not so far been impressive. Indeed the best expression of it was the cold disapproval which greeted a bitter personal attack by Sir Henry Page Croft upon. Sir Herbert Samuel. There were some good speeches for the Opposition, notably from Major Lloyd George. The division itself found the Liberals about equally divided ; but both the division and the debate point to the undoubted fact that tariffs are going to be tried by this House of Commons (which means that they will be tried over a number of years) whatever be the Opposition.
Previous page
