THE DANGER TO THE EMPIRE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sra,—Mr. Chamberlain is responsible for having provoked a great national controversy on the question of the preferential treatment of Colonial trade, and that controversy cannot now be stifled. Sooner or later the question must be brought bsfore the electors, and there is every reason to believe that Mr. Balfour, and perhaps the majority of the Unionist party, will by then be pledged to support the policy of which Mr. Chamberlain has become the ardent missionary. My object is not to discuss either the principle or the details• of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, but to point out the subtle difficulties and dangers which underlie its discussion. We are told that fiscal union is the only alternative to separation; that without it the Empire will go to pieces. The Colonies have been expressly invited to give active support to proposals which are designed to foster their interests. Mr. Seddon and other Colonial politicians have not been slow'to respond to the invitation, at times with somewhat excessive vehemence. It is more than likely that, when the Election comes, • we shall be told that "every vote against preferential tariffs is a vote against Imperial unity." This is. in fact, the inevitable conclusion from what Mr. Chamberlain lei alreidy said. If, therefore, the Mother-country should decide, as all supporters'of Free- trade must hope it will decide, against a scheme which threatens the very foundations of its economic and its political system, there must inevitably be a good deal of 'discontent in the self-governing Colonies. Confident , expectations will have been raised, and they will be disappointed. Many rash and passionate sayings will have been uttered in the course of the discussion, and they will not readily be forgotten. For the first time since 1776 the material interests of this country and of the Colonies will have been brought into real or apparent collision. All this bodes ill to the maintenance 'of that sentiment of common aims and aspirations which found expression in the recent war. If we suppose that the verdict is the other way, and that Mr. Chamberlain succeeds in his arduous task of converting the people of this country to the desirability of imposing a tax upon food, will the danger be any less ? To many ardent and resolute Imperialists the most fundamental objection to Mr. Chamberlain's scheme rests upon the belief that it will be' absolutely fatal to Imperial unity. After the mandate of the constituents has been gained, the Protec- tionist Ministry must open negotiations with the Colonies as to the precise details of the preference to be accorded to their products. It is hardly rash to prophesy that these negotiations will give rise to almost insuperable difficulties; that the modest taxation of foreign imports proposed in the Glasgow speech will fail to satisfy the Colonies, and that what satisfies the demands of one Colony will excite the bitter jealousy of another. And if we imagine a scheme of taxation drawn up, how long can it be maintained P At every Budget there will be an effort to procure a revision, either by some interest' in the Mother-country, or by some dissatisfied Colony. Thus not only the initial settlement, but the constant possi- bility of modifying it, will give rise to the maximum of friction, both between this country and the Colonies, and also between one Colony and another. This friction, the inevitable result of distance and divergent material interests; must weaken rather than cement the bonds which hold the Empire together. If, then, as I hold, the controversy itself will be harmful to the Empire, and either of the two alternative decisions fraught with danger to its unity, where is the remedy to be found? Like Mr. Balfour, I cannot suggest a remedy, but only a " palliative." On • so vital a question all party differences and jealousies should be thrown aside. An Imperialist Free-Trade Union should be formed, which all opponents of Mr. Chamberlain's policy should be invited to join. And this Union should fight the quarrel out, not merely as a national, but as an Imperial matter. It should provide literature, and it should provide speakers, not only to convince the electors at home, but to lay the case for Free-trade in Great Britain before the Colonies. There is already an inclination, both in Canada and in Australia, to listen to the contention that it would be monstrous to demand excessive' or ruinous sacrifices from the Mother-country. The formation and activity of such a Union, even if it failed to convince a majority of the Colonists, would certainly remove the very possible reproach that this great question was judged by one side in the conflict with a purely selfish regard to British interests, and without any attempt to weigh Colonial wishes and Colonial opinion.—I
am, Sir, &c., RICHARD LODGE. 25 Hope Terrace, Edinburgh.
[As our readers know, we 'have from the beginnino•" opposed Mr. Chamberlain's policy first and foremost because we bIlieve that it will, if persisted in, ruin the Empire. As to the wisdom of forming a Union of Alf Free-traders under one banner we do not feel so sure. The cause of the Union benefited by the maintenance of a separate Liberal Unionist party, and so, we think, will Free-trade. The Free-trade Unionists can do better work for the cause by retaining their own organisation and by standing shoulder to shoulder than by amalgamating with the Liberals.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
