[To THE EDITOR OF VIE "SPECTATOR."]
Si,—As you say in the Spectator of July 9th, I have not forgotten Mr. Balfour's letter to Mr. Chamberlain. But I am far from thinking that your interpretation of it as imply- ing "Mr. Balfour's personal agreement with the Chamberlain policy is justified by its language. More especially is it necessary to remember that this letter was written when the controversy (at least in its public aspect) turned, not upon a Protective tariff, but upon a readjustment of existing duties simply for an Imperial object.
(1) What does Mr. Balfour say ? He lays stress on what appears to him the impracticability of Colonial Preference ; and this is, of course, the fundamental objection to it on the part of many staunch Free-traders, who would be willing to some extent to subordinate their Free-trade convictions to larger considera- tions of policy, should their doing so promise to unite the Empire. But this is the visionary part of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme ; and should he ever come into power, it is upon this point of practical application that it will inevitably break down. Colonial Prefer- ence is nothing else than the glamour of Imperialism that digni- fies Mr. Chamberlain's predatory campaign. Mr. Balfour tells Mr. Chamberlain that he considers a policy of Colonial Preference impracticable, though, were it practicable, he would not be averse from making concessions to this Imperial idea. No argument here in favour of a Protective tariff; nothing that can rightly be construed as approving in anticipation Mr. Chamberlain's later developments : his Commission of experts, his 10 per cent, on manufactured goods, and so on.
(2) Moreover, did not Mr. Balfour observe in a significant phrase the strange circumstances of Mr. Chamberlain's resigna- tion, implying that he on the one side, and Mr. Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton on the other, were leaving him at one and the same time through disagreement with him and with one another on the same subject ?
(3) Of course, Mr. Balfour had to say something : could he say less ? The passages which you have quoted appear to me, when
read "in a calm hour," to be, though polite, yet colourless, so far as they do not lay stress on this impracticability of Colonial Preference.
(4) If I am not mistaken, Mr. Balfour has since stated that he believes that there are other methods of federating the Empire than by Fiscal union. I do not remember the precise occasion ; your readers may. At Manchester he has stated his conviction that this country would never tolerate "even a small duty on food" "as a mere fiscal and financial expedient "—that is, I suppose, for purposes of Protection or revenue—though ho thinks that this may be a prejudice from the point of view of "the Chancellor of the Exchequer's armament." What conclu- sions are we justified in drawing from all this ? That Mr. Balfour approves in the abstract of Fiscal union with the Colonies "on fitting terms," and that he holds the same opinions as Mr. Lecky expressed in "Democracy and Liberty" about "the exaggerations of Free Trade." But was Mr. Lecky a Protectionist ? Mr. Balfour then goes on to plead for moderation, and ends by stating that "it may be that those who most desire fiscal union [with tho Colonies] may be forced reluctantly to come to the opinion that neither Colonial sentiment nor British sentiment is prepared to make the necessary changes." He reasserts what he has already said about the impracticability of the proposal. Again, nothing about Protective tariffs of 10 per cent. on manufactured goods. Could he have spoken in less encouraging language to "the raging, tearing propaganda," admitting that he had to avoid giving offence to the Protectionists and keep his Government in power ?
(5) But to pass from Mr. Balfour's written and spoken words, in which he has never (that I know) given any countenance to the essential activities of the Tariff Reform League (since the establishment of which, be it observed, he has drawn tighter the ties of party loyalty), and to come to the rest of your article. You speak of "undeceiving" Mr. Chamberlain. But does Mr. Chamberlain believe that Mr. Balfour is with him ? No more, I think, than in his heart he believes that the Colonies are with him, in spite of his so confident public language about their offers to this country. (What the Protectionists generally may think is not to the point: it is, of course, to Mr. Chamberlain's interests to represent his own policy as an extension of the Prime Minister's.) To speak plainly, I do not think for one moment that Mr. Chamberlain was deceived. Rather I think that he deliberately chose a policy in which, when fully developed, he knew the Prime Minister was unable to follow him. But I admit that this depends upon one's conceptions of his personal aims.
(6) If Mr. Balfour be a Protectionist, I suggest that very difficult problems at once arise as to the manner of Mr. Chamber- lain's outburst at Birmingham ; his reported advocacy of Welsh Disestablishment as a policy for the Conservative party (which looks as if he is preparing for a bribe) ; the language you have quoted about Home-rule from a Protectionist journal ; the Wharton amendment, which was ex hypothesi gratuitous, and simply brought the Government into immediate danger ; the statements made in the House by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Gerald Balfour ; and so on. But if Mr. Balfour be a Free-trader, one can understand his wishing to keep the Duke of Devonshire in the Cabinet, and his passing grievance at failing to make his intentions clear to him.
(7) Let me ask why, as a Protectionist, did not Mr. Balfour declare at once for Protection ? It is surely inadmissible, if he was "Mr. Chamberlain's artful associate," to reply that the time was not opportune. If they were at one, times and seasons were in their hands. To argue that Mr. Balfour is simply yielding to the exigencies of time implies that no other tactics could have been adopted by the two leaders, which prima facie would appear an unwarranted assumption. (I do not think this contention is weakened by the outbreak of the war.) Meantime, as days goon, I believe that there are not a few Conservatives who are moving away from Mr. Chamberlain, and so Lord Hugh Cecil has ground for hoping that the Conservative party will never be a Protec- tionist party. As I bring these criticisms to an end, let me recall to the Spectator that it is a remark of Mr. Balfour's own that " I dis- believe because it is simple' commends itself to me as an axiom."
—I am, Sir, &c., BALFOURITE.
Previous page
