LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

MR. BALFOUR ON SIR ROBERT PEEL.

[TO THR EDITOR OP TIM "8esoraroa.1 trust that I may be permitted to refer without offence to certain statements recently made by Mr. Balfour upon the subject of Sir Robert Peel and his initiation of the Free-trade policy. I fear that those statements cannot be described as correct.

Mr. Balfour is of the opinion that the conditions under which we adopted Free-trade were so "profoundly different" from our present circumstances as to necessitate our revision, or possibly our abandonment, of that policy. In particular, he believes that Sir Robert Peel had not "any perception of the special problems with which we have to deal." I hope that I shall not be con- sidered to be transgressing the bounds of propriety to be observed towards so prominent a statesman if I respectfully examine the reasons adduced by Mr. Balfour for this belief. Perhaps it will appear that those reasons are by no means adequate.

Mr. Balfour, to begin with, compares his own action with that of Sir Robert Peel, much to the disadvantage of the latter. The course "tried by Sir Robert Peel in 1845" is not the course of Mr. Balfour, but an inferior one. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel matured "a great change of opinion which he then, in the twinkling of an eye, and at a moment's notice, thrusts on his followers." This is Mr. Balfour's account. I fear that Mr. Balfour has been misinformed as to the facts of the case.

His informants have omitted to remember that, so far from this change of policy having been accomplished" in the twinkling of an eye" in 1845, Sir Robert Peel, prior to the election which placed him in office in 1841, publicly stated in the House of Commons that "I will reserve to myself the unfettered discretion of considering and amending the Corn-law." Nor are 14r. Balfour's informants aware that, having amended that law in 1842, and having found that amendment inadequate in 1845, Sir Robert Peel resigned office in December, 1845, rather than, carry on the government with a divided Cabinet. When Mr. Balfour rebukes another for acting "in the twinkling of an eye," and for "thrusting a change at a moment's notice on his followers," are we not fairly entitled to inquire in our turn : Did Mr. Balfour resign? Did he consult his party P

So much for political history. I regret that in other respects Mr. Balfour's account of Sir Robert Peel is also open to question. Mr. Balfour argues that, among the recent changes of the world, "the tariff wall" has been "raised against us" by foreign nations. Mr. Balfour declares that this movement has been in process "since 1880." He omits to state that in 1842, and in the years immediately succeeding, it was already at its height.

As this matter is of some importance, I should venture to support the latter observation by a reference first to the speech of

Mr. Ricardo delivered in the House of Commons in 1843. On

that occasion he referred to "the war of tariffs which is now bringing such calamities." It is into this warfare that we are

now invited to re-enter. The disastrous conflict was already in full swing in 1843, and it was perfectly apparent to Sir Robert Peel He adopted Free-trade, nevertheless.

That this war of tariffs against us was also existent in 1844 is evident from the work of Macgregor, one of the Joint Secretaries of the Board of Trade, who published in that year his volumes entitled "Commercial Statistics." It was officially laid before Parliament. This book states that "the commercial laws of France and, somewhat later, of Austria" have been framed as unsoundly as "the spirit and principle of restriction could well devise. Those of Germany, formerly liberal, are now highly restrictive. Those of Spain tyrannical, those of Portugal in- consistent and capricious. Russia much later adopted the restrictive system; Sweden and Denmark followed the example." Where, then, is the evidence that the -system of foreign Protec- tive tariffs was a fact beyond "the perception" -of Sir Robert Peel?

Coming to the next year, 1845, this matter is further dwelt upon in the Edinburgh Review. "A war of tariffs," it says in its

July issne of that date, "is carried on between the

civilised nations of the world." And this statement is "applicable to 'the tariffs of most foreign countries." But perhaps Sir Robert -Peel was in ignorance of this phenomenon around him, however well known it might have been to others. But so far trots not possessing "any perception" in this respect, Sir Robert Peel himself refers to it at length in his speech on the Customs Act -delivered in 1842. On that occasion he mentioned Spain, and the United States, and Russia, and other countries, as intent on Prohibition and Protectien. I now approach another of Mr. Balfour's statements. Mr. Balfour says that "in 1845 it was a question simply between rival interests within the four seas, within the confines of the British Isles." This also is, I venture to think, a misapprehension. The facts are, indeed, precisely otherwise. For instance, in his first Budget speech Sir Robert Peel spoke as follows "We found on entering office that there were negotiations pending with many Statei in respect to proposed commercial treaties, and we have done- all we could to continue those negotiations, commencing also with some other States." This disposes, I fear, of Mr. Balforee account of the circumstances in which- Free-trade was initiated, and accordingly I regret that I must meet with a negative Mr. Mfelies- :opinion that " thereiimplications and difficulties arising out of international arrangements never

perplexed Sir Hobert Peel" •

The MiSapprehension of Mr. Balfour is singular when one remembers the words, tolerably well known, I believe, uttered by Sir Robert 'Peel in 1646. "Wearied. out," he said, "by our long and unavailing efforts' to enter into satisfactory commer- cial treaties with other nations, we have resolved at length to consult our own intere.sts,"—i.e., to adopt Free-trade, that " one- sided " Free-trade, as the modern Protectionist describes it. Thus, in spite of Mr. Balfour, "the complications and difficul- ties _arising out of international arrangements" were perfectly familiar to Sir Robert Peel But a third ground upon which Mr. Balfour rests his argument is even more singular still. Mr. Balfour declares that he himself has on hand "in all seriousness an incomparably more difficult and com- plex question" than Sir Robert Peel had to face. I am glad to hear that the difficulties in the way of taxing the food of the' people are so "incomparably difficult," and that it is so "complex" to put a duty on bread. Mg. Balfour's reason for this view is that "the Colonial complications are entirely novel." On the contrary, they are more ancient than the death of Queen Anne. 'When. Sir Robert Peel came into office the system of preferential trade now proposed with our Colonies was already in operation. It 'wasultimately abolished by the Whig Government which succeeded that of Sir Robert Peel, and Which received his support. But Sir' Robert Peel himself took steps in that direction during his own term of office.

Lord Grey, in 1853, in, revising the COlonial policy Of previous

years, wrote: "For more than two centuries the principle of placing the trade with the Colonies on a different footing from that with other countries had been maintained up to the year 1846." Lord Grey added: "It is now reeognised as sound by the Majority of intelligent and educated men that duties Ought not to be levied on the importation of any articles which would meet in our market articles of the same kind produced in the Colonies, and not subject to an equal amount of taxation." This is now the existing plan. Durmk the career of Sir Robert Peel it existed, and was abolished. '

Sir Robert Peel-himself initiated the abolition of this system. Hear Lord Grey : "The policy of placing our trade with the

Colonies on the, same-footing as that with foreign countries was first aystematically adopted in Sir Robert .Peel's Act for the re- peal of the Corn-law." Hence the system has already been tried and found wanting.

r hope that I am not exceeding the respect due to Mr. Balfour by these references to the misapprehensions of those whose duty

it is- to inform him upon this important subject. Strange

as they are, the last of them bids fair to rival all the rest. Mr. Balfour says : "I really want to try to treat this subject in a serious, sober, and scientific spirit.' But, on the other hand, this sentence is followed immediately by these words:—" All the leading Free-traders of that time thought —and I have never criticised them for errors in their prophecy—none of us is endowed with prophetic gifts, and I think their prophecy was a very natural one ; but they did prophesy that our example would induce the whole world to adopt a Free-trade policy, that this country would find itself a Free-trade nation among Free-trade nations, and they deduced from the condition they anticipated conclusions with which I, as a matter of fact, entirely agree. But these very prophecies unfortunately were wrong." Here, as in his other statements already referred to, Mr. Balfour has been misinformed.

In spite of Mr. Balfour's information concerning Sir Robert reel,. I presume that he will admit that even Sir Robert Peel may be classed among "the leading Free-traders" to whom Mr. Balfour refers. Before his entry into office in 1841 Sir Robert Peel publicly announced himself as a Free-trader in explicit terms, in those days, I mean, when "Mr. Balfour claims that Sir Robert Peel was maturing his opinions "in silence," and "in private." Further, Sir Robert Peel may, I think, be fairly described as a "leading" Free-trader, since at that date he was the Prime Minister responsible for carrying Free-trade.

With this necessary preface, let me quote Sir Robert Peel's own words upon the subject of the adoption by other nations of Free. trade. In 1846 he said :—" I may be told that many foreign countries have not followed our example, nay, have not only not followed our example, but have actually applied to the imports, tion of British goods higher rates of duties than formerly. I quite admit it. I give you all the benefit of that argument. I rely upon the fact as conclusive proof of the policy of the course we are pursuing What has been the result upon the amount of your exports? Your export trade is greatly in- creased." Finally, in 1849 he said: "The best way to compete with

hostile tariffs is to encourage free imports to re-establish duties upon the import of foreign produce to be regulated by the principle of reciprocity, would be accompanied by insuperable difficulties." He further stated that, even if the doctrines of Free- trade were ultimately to prevail, he had "no guarantee" to give of the early future removal of duties upon our goods imposed by the foreigner.

• In these circumstances, to quote Mr. Balfour, it would be "folly to interfere with the great system which has been in operation all these years without due regard to the history and conditions of the past " Those words must stand as

my excuse for these observations, and for this inquiry into Mr. Balfour's statements upon the subject of Sir Robert Peel [gr. George Peel entirely vindicates his grandfather's memory, and shows that the alleged changed conditions as 'regards the policy of foreign_ nations and the claims of our Colonies are not in reality Changed or new. They are almost exactly what they were at the time when Sir Robert Peel made his great departure. and established our commercial prosperity on a foundation of rock,—a foundation which a section of Politicians now wish to destroy with the dynamite of preferential and retaliatory duties.—En. Spectator.]