of political bodies of which they become the chiefs. This,
at any rate, is the moral which it seems necessary to draw from the correspondence between Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne and Mr. Hatch published in Thurs- day's newspapers. The facts are very simple. Mr. Hatch, who is the Unionist Member for the Gorton division of Lancashire, found that a paper was being circulated in his constituency on behalf of the Liberal Unionist Council pro- posing to form a branch in Gorton. The document—as, of course, was right and natural in documents issued on behalf of the Liberal Unionist Council—was headed as follows :— " President—Right Hon. J. Chamberlain. Vice-Presidents —the Marquis of Lansdowne, K.G.; the Earl of Selborne." The circular thus headed, while asking Liberal Unionist electors in Gorton to become members, points out very clearly what in the opinion of the Liberal Unionist Asso- ciation are the chief items in the policy of the Liberal Unionists. These are stated to be :—" (1) Opposition to Home Rule. (2) Closer union with the Colonies on the basis of Preferential Tariffs. (3) A measure of Fiscal Reform by which the products of those foreign countries which raise a tariff against our manufactures may be prevented from entering into this country, free of tax, to compete with British manufactured goods, and thus to reduce both work and wages." In order to place the matter beyond. all doubt, the suggested " reply-form " issued with the document makes the signatory declare:—" I am a Liberal Unionist, and in favour of the policy of the Liberal Unionist party as set forth on the other side." Considering the far-reaching nature of the Fiscal part of this declaration of policy—it is assumed that a Preferential tariff, and a tariff against Protectionist countries which send their goods to compete with British manufactured goods, the policy, that is, of the Tariff Reform League, it the policy of the Liberal Unionist party—Mr. Hatch moss naturally took an early opportunity of asking Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne whether the document in question was approved by them, and whether the two items in regard to our Fiscal policy represented their personal views, and those of his Majesty's Govern- ment. Mr. Hatch is a Unionist Member, and Unionist Members are being constantly told that they have no right to refuse their support to the present Govern- ment on the ground that its members are pledged to Preference and the policy of the Tariff Reform League. That being so, Mr. Hatch had, it seems to us, a, perfect right to ask whether the two vice-presidents of the Liberal Unionist Council, both of them most important members of the Cabinet, did or did not endorse the views of their Association. We are bound to say that from such men as Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne we should have expected a perfectly clear and straight- forward answer on the points named, and that they would either have said in plain terms that they agreed with the policy put forward officially in their names, or else have frankly disavowed the circular, and have required the Council of which they are vice-presidents to alter its declaration of policy. Incredible as it may seem, they did not take either of these steps. Lord Lansdowne, in regard to the question whether the document had been issued with his sanction, replies in the negative. But in regard to the essential inquiries whether, if it was not so issued, he approved of its contents, and whether the Fiscal items represented his personal views or those of his Majesty's Government, Lord Lansdowne shelters himself behind the following elusive observation : "With regard to the second and third [items], I have to state that my own views with regard to the Fiscal ques- tion have been repeatedly made public, and I do not think that it is desirable to enter into a discussion with you of the large questions raised under these heads." The public will, of course, know perfectly well how to interpret such an answer. Lord Lansdowne would unquestionably have stated his disapproval if he had really disapproved, for he is not a sly or underhand politician. One can only, therefore, regret that party exigencies should have made him give so lamentable an exhibition of political weak- ness and. timidity. No one can object to his backing the Chamberlain policy if he believes in it, but there is something extremely undignified in the spectacle of a statesman of his standing and position not daring to say openly what he feels. Lord Selborne's reply is equally nebulous and equally weak. He tells us that he has not was entirely remodelled in the spring of this year, that he played a considerable part in the transactions which resulted in the Free-traders being driven out of the Liberal Union Club, and that he then assumed a new position and a new responsibility as vice-president in the new Council. He goes on to refer Mr. Hatch to his speeches in the House of Lords :—" If you are good enough to take any interest in my views on the subject of the relations of a politician to the party organisation, I would refer you to my speech in the House of Lords on this subject towards the end of last Session. As regards the general question of the policy of the Government and my own political opinions, I am afraid I must also refer you to my speeches, because it is not possible for me, with the utmost desire to avoid any discourtesy to your- self, to enter into a correspondence on the subject." Here, again, we can only assume that since Lord Selborne will not repudiate the policy set forth by the Council which uses his name so conspicuously, he does not dis- agree with it. Any other interpretation would involve an attack on Lord Selborne which his antagonists in public life, quite as much as his supporters, will refuse to make. But imagine what course would be taken by the Duke of Devonshire if a political body of which he was vice-president put out an official statement of policy on a vital matter, advertising at the same time his close connection with the organisation. In such a case is it not absolutely certain that if he disapproved of that policy be would disavow it ? Until they contradict us, we find it impossible to argue that either Lord Lans- downe or Lord Selborne must be judged by a lower standard of political honour. Therefore, since they do not repudiate the policy put forward in conjunction with their names, we must assume that they have not been mis- represented by the Council of which they are the vice-presi- dents, and that its policy is their policy. Further, we must assume that it is not a policy repugnant to the Prime Minister and the rest of his colleagues, or else he and they would feel bound to dissociate themselves there- from.
These considerations, added to others so often set forth in these columns, throw a very curious light on Lord George Hamilton's readiness to resign his seat to the candidate chosen by the Unionist machine at Ealing because he is willing to declare himself a supporter of Mr. Balfour. We do not wish to say any- thing which may sound unfriendly or disagreeable to a Unionist Free-trader who has made such sacrifices for the cause as has Lord George Hamilton. It is, however, difficult for us to believe that he can have read the Edin- burgh speech. How is it possible to interpret that speech as a pledge in favour of Free-trade, and as a declaration of opposition to the policy of Mr. Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform League? Yet that is how Lord George Hamilton must interpret it if he regards a pledge to support Mr. Balfour as equivalent to a victory for Free-trade at Ealing. If we take the plain meaning of Mr. Balfour's words, they contain no repudiation of Chamberlainism. Read in the light of the speeches of Mr. Chamberlain, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of such incidents as the correspondence between Mr. Hatch and Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne, the Edinburgh speech becomes nothing more than a verbal repudiation of an academic definition of Protection which is universally repudiated by all the modern opponents of Free-trade.
Before we leave the Fiscal incidents of the week we must say a word as to Mr. Brodrick's speech at Shere on Tuesday. Mr. Brodrick's speech was memorable for the following passage in which he deals with the Fiscal arrangements of the Indian Empire :—" He represented India, which was a Free-trade country. They had got a revenue tax on all imports in India ; they had got the power in India to put on any tax they pleased on any imports, and what was the result ? They got infinitely more consideration from foreign countries for Indian products than we did for British products. The reason for that was that our hands were tied here and they were untied in India. Were we to be so hidebound by tradition that we were to say: 'What is good for India is not good for this country ' ?, This curious passage seems to point to the fact that the rumours of a fortnight ago as to Mr. Balfour's and Mr. Chamberlain's latest Fiscal schemes were not ill-founded. These rumours were to the effect that Mr. Balfour means to propose a general revenue tariff of 5 per cent. upon all articles imported into this country, after the Indian example on which Mr. Brodrick lays so much stress. This general tariff would raise a large amount of revenue. Next, it would be possible to represent it to Free-traders as a Free-trade measure. On the other hand, Protectionists could be assured that it was the thin edge of the wedge, and that whenever a good case could be made out for a little encouragement to a decaying interest or for preventing " dumping " or "tariff-fed competition "—the phrase is Mr. Balfour's own—the percentage of the duty might be raised to adequate dimensions. Retaliators and tariff negotiators could also be told that by raising or lowering the duties on special articles foreign Powers could be made to understand that the British Government at last meant business. We are bound to say that such a plan of cam- paign strikes us as eminently likely to attract the mind of Mr. Balfour. It would seem an ideal plan to a states- man without any settled convictions on Fiscal matters, but hard pressed by the conflicting factions within his party. It looks like pleasing everybody and " dishing " the Opposition at the same time. At first sight, too, such a tariff appears very difficult to fight from the Free- trade point of view. In reality, however, we are not in the least afraid of the public mind being confused by an appeal for a 5 per cent, duty all round. Nothing would be easier than to show the electors the folly and futility of such a plan. In many cases the whole of the revenue raised on particular objects would be consumed in the course of collection, and we should soon see, as in America, ports where the money collected was actually less than the cost of collection. Again, as half the items in the tariff would be Protective in their incidence, we should see prices raised out of all proportion to the amount that went into the Treasury. That is, if we got ten millions into the Treasury by such a tariff, the consumer would have at least fifty millions additional taken out of his pockets and. placed in those of the men interested in the protected industries. The Free-traders could not wish a better field of battle than that afforded by a proposal for a general 5 per cent, ad valorem tariff.
Previous page
