LL Unionist Free-traders are grateful to the Duke of Devonshire
for the manly and straightforward speech in which he addressed his Lancashire audience on Saturday last. After the sophistries and ambiguities on which so many of our statesmen now rely in order to prevent the public realising what they really think and really desire, it is indeed a comfort to find a statesman who so thoroughly acts up to the character once given to .him by the late Duke of Argyll. "Oh, gentlemen, what a comfort it is to find a man who means what he says, and means you to understand what he says." In the Duke of Devonshire's speech there was nothing to remind us of the American politician's words : "These are my senti- ments, but if they don't suit they can be changed." The Duke did not tell us what he thought the people of England would, or might, think on the Fiscal question, or how far it might be prudent for the Unionist party to go. Again, he did not draw academic distinctions, or set up men of straw whom he might demolish, and thus create an artificial atmosphere of strength and. determina- tion. Instead, he told us in plain terms what he thought himself, and what he believed to be for the welfare of the country. It is such speeches that touch men's minds and consciences, and make them realise the duties they owe to the State. Accordingly, after his speech there was no outbreak of confused discussion as to what he meant, or as to whether he was a true Free-trader or only a Free-trader in a " Pickwickian" sense. He has had no need to complain that his utterances are treated like the classics, and are overloaded with comments and conjectures. Men when they meet in clubs or railway carriages do not spend hours in arguing as to which is his side • in the Fiscal con- troversy, and as to whether this or that phrase, though it seemed to bear one meaning, did not in reality bear another, and was not intended to " dish " a, colleague, to placate an enemy, or to confuse the issue in order that plain men might be paralysed into inaction, and so a little time be gained for a distracted. Adminis- tration.
This being the Duke's attitude of mind, it is no wonder that "he could not perceive for what purpose the speech at Edinburgh was made if not for openly separating Mr. Balfour from the policy of the Tariff Reform League." Why was the Premier's declaration in regard to Protection neces- sary if he had not detected the presence of Protectionists in his party, and did not wish to give them a gentle hint ? The Chaplin resolution, if it was not disingenuous, was rebellious, for it said as plainly as words could say, on behalf of the Tariff Reformers, that the Prime Minister might call himself what he liked, but if he required their support he must do what they wanted. "Peace," the Duke of Devonshire went on to say, "had not yet been openly broken, but signs were not wanting that all was not well in the Protectionist camp. When Parliament met, if not sooner, it was possible that they might see the harmony of what once seemed a happy family some- what rudely disturbed." To this point the Duke again returned when he declared that "until they heard it in his own words, he would not believe that the Prime Minister was willing to accept the vote of confidence tendered to him at Southampton, or the interpretation of his speech which it contained."
It is clear from these passages that the Duke still has hopes that Mr. Balfour will even now separate himself from Mr. Chamberlain, and show himself to be, not merely in words, but in deeds, a Free-trader, or at any rate an opponent of the Chamberlain policy. In support of the Duke of Devonshire's hopes and expectations there is a full crop of rumours. On many sides evidence is being produced to show that Mr. Balfour has at last realised the nature of Mr. Chamberlain's summer and autumn work in the Unionist organisations and in the Unionist Press, and that he has come to understand what will be his fate if he cannot free himself from the clutches of Mr. Chamberlain. For example, there is Lord George Hamilton's speech delivered at Acton on Wednesday, which seems to point to hopes in his mind of the reconversion of Mr. Balfour to Free-trade. Next, such well-informed newspapers as the Liverpool Daily Post and the Daily Chronicle assert that, in spite of apparent outward peace, the relations between the two statesmen have reached the breaking point, and that it is impossible to say how soon a rupture may come In support of this view great stress is laid upon the fact that Lord. Salisbury, who is Mr. Balfour's cousin, as well as his colleague, lately repudiated the Chamberlain policy in explicit terms in a public speech. He lamented that members of the Con- servative party, "dazzled by a great Imperial dream," had. been "carried away by the enthusiasm of a very great but rather impulsive statesman." Speaking in defence of Retalia- tion, he added that the Government did "not desire the support of the reckless, the vehement, or the impulsive." It is urged that the Lord Privy Seal could not have used these words without consultation with Mr. Balfour. It is further pointed out that their significance is greatly in- creased by the fact that Mr. Matthew White Ridley, a Tariff Reformer, and private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, after four or five days' consideration, wrote to the Times denouncing Lord Salisbury's speech. The private secretaries of one Cabinet Minister are no doubt often inclined in private to belittle another Minister ; but it is by no means usual for them to criticise their chief's colleague in public, and. in such terms as the following : "Really, Sir, if it is to be suggested by a responsible Cabinet Minister that the Government can do without Chamberlainites, it is time to protest most strongly against attempts that are constantly being made, even apparently by Cabinet Ministers, to discover differences within the party." Mr. Ridley is also indignant at Lord Salisbury's descrip- tion of Mr. Chamberlain as an "impulsive statesman," and reminds him that the Prime Minister has incited Unionists to fight for Protection "by the sympathy and encouragement he gave to Mr. Chamberlain when he left the Cabinet." Unquestionably this looks as if the Tariff Reformers are afraid that Mr. Balfour is going to try to escape from their embraces, and as if they are determined to check any such retrograde movement by firm and immediate action.
Nevertheless, and in spite of these facts, we most reluctantly feel obliged to reject the notion that Mr. Balfour is really about to free himself from the Chamber- lain entanglement, and to declare his opposition to the policy of the Tariff Reform League. No event in public affairs, should it come, could. cause us such an intense sense of relief. As we have said on several previous occasions, we should welcome the proof of our faulty political diagnosis with infinite pleasure. We fear, how- ever, that instead of having the satisfaction of being proved wrong, we shall to our bitter disappointment turn out to have taken a correct view of the situation when we said that Mr. Balfour did. not mean business in his Edinburgh speech. We are, in fact, able to draw little consolation from the squabbles which are taking place between the henchmen of Mr. Balfour on the one side, and of Mr. Chamberlain on the other. Nothing is commoner than for the clerks and agents in business firms to speak ill of each other while the principals are in entire agreement. These will even ostentatiously refuse to check the antagonism between their subordinates, knowing that while they hold together at the top the squabbling below is of no importance. It is for this reason that we have never paid. much attention to what are called "remarkable differ- ences" between the supporters of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain. The only safe and sure sign that Mr. Balfour has come to see the error of Mr. Chamberlain's ways will be an explicit declaration by the Premier of firm and. con- sistent opposition to the Chamberlain policy. Unionist Free- traders can be content with nothing less, for nothing less will show that Mr. Balfour is in earnest. No doubt to ask for such a declaration of opposition at the present time is to ask much, for Mr. Balfour has drifted. into a position from which he cannot extricate himself without a painful effort. But unless that painful effort is made he will inevitably flounder deeper into the Chamberlain morass. You may drift into a bog, but you cannot drift out of it. Getting out requires a definite and conscious act. Mr. Balfour has certainly not yet taken such action. The Duke of Devonshire apparently hopes and believes that he will do so. It is conceivable, of course, that he has private andpersonal reasons for such abelief. We, however, who can only judge by the Premier's public form, unhappily see no indication of any new departure. As we read the Edin- burgh speech, it shows no determination on Mr. Balfour's part to make any real sacrifice to resist Chamberlainism. Take, for example, what he says about Protection. He first frames a definition of Protection which he must have known could be, and was sure to be, repudiated by Mr. Chamberlain and his followers, since it is universally repudiated by English Protectionists, and is even repu- diated by the most extreme supporters of the American Tariff. Yet even of the extreme form of Protection defined by himself the utmost Mr. Balfour will say in condemnation is that he is personally of opinion that it is not the best policy for this country in its existing circumstances. Nor was this all, for he went on to make it perfectly clear that even if the extreme Protection of his definition were adopted, he should not diminish the zeal and earnestness of his support of the Unionist party. Here are his actual words : "It is a policy which I do not believe to be expedient under existing circum- stances, but I should never think, any more than my friend near me, of diminishing the zeal and earnestness of my support of a Conservative and Unionist party should that party take up a Protectionist line." In other words, Mr. Balfour publicly advised his party of the fact that, even if they adopted a far more extreme form of Protection than Mr. Chamberlain professes, he would still work as hard as ever for that party—in such a case working for his party must mean working against Free-trade—though he could not remain its leader. This, however, does not exhaust the anti-Free-trade animus of the Edinburgh speech. Before the declaration just quoted Mr. Balfour most significantly placed the declara- tion that Protection as he had defined and explained it "has always been, and is now, in my judgment, an admissible doctrine in the Conservative party." When the head of a party uses such words, is it likely that he will ever be able to wean, even if he desires to wean, his party from Protection ? If the Edinburgh speech had been a sudden improvisation, it might have been possible to pass them over as an accident or an aberration. But, unfortunately, the Edinburgh speech, with its ambiguous words in regard to Protection, has a history of eighteen months behind it. It must be read in connection with Mr. Balfour's deeds, rather than his words, during those eighteen months. Of the nature of those actions we should like to remind our readers. In the first place, there was Mr. Balfour's letter wishing Mr. Chamberlain "God-speed." Next, there was the absence of any such message of goodwill to the Duke of Devonshire and the resigning Free-traders. Thirdly, there was the appointment of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, an avowed supporter of the policy of the Tariff Reform League, to the office which is specially concerned with our Fiscal policy. Fourthly, there was the absence of any protest by the Prime Minister in regard to the opposition offered in their constituencies to the Unionist Free-trade Members. Fifthly, there was the support and encourage- ment given by one of Mr. Balfour's colleagues, Mr. Long, to the attack made on the seat of a Unionist Free-trader. Sixthly, the Prime Minister has at by-elections sent to candidates supporting Protection the heartiest wishes for their success. Seventhly, Mr. Balfour sent a message of approval and wished success to the new Liberal Unionist organisation formed by Mr. Chamberlain after the Duke of Devonshire and his Unionist Free-trade followers had been driven from the older organisation.
We can only end as we began, by hoping that Mr. Balfour, in spite of these stubborn facts, will in the long run prove that he has always been opposed to Mr. Chamberlain at heart. Until, however, he does so, and by deeds rather than words, we must urge on all Free-traders the duty of keeping their powder dry and their arms ready for use. If Mr. Balfour finally offers a genuine opposition to Mr. Chamberlain, they will have lost nothing by remaining prepared ; and if, un- happily, all his alleged anti-Chamberlainism ends where it began, in talk, they will have the priceless consolation of knowing that they never allowed themselves to be deceived into taking action which might lead to the abandonment of Free-trade, and the taxation of the food of the people.
Previous page
