[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
Stn,—In your second leading article of October 8th you say :-
"There is no certainty that the Unionist Party will win at the
next [General] Election Lancashire cannot be recaptured for Unionism while there is any fear of the policy of the Tariff Reformers being carried out in regard to the taxation of food."
I fear what you say is perfectly correct. Lancashire is Con- servative to the backbone ; in fact, she is so conservative that she will not vote for any radical change even if it be threatened by the so-called Conservative Party itself. At the by-election in North-West Manchester the Conservatives were only too delighted with the chance of showing that they did not want a Radical Government any more than they wanted
Tariff Reform, and turned out Mr. Winston Churchill. At the General Election of 1910, instead of asking the voters whether they wanted the Budget or not, they asked them if they wanted Tariff Reform, and of course they said " No." We are to have in the next few days two hundred and fifty Tariff Reform meetings in Lancashire. If that is not waving a red rag in front of a bull, I do not know what it is. When those meetings are over, the Lancashire Conservatives, who are the balancing factor, will, I fear, say : " Well, if that is Conservatism, I shall be obliged to vote Radical again." As you say in your leader, Sir, I too "want a Unionist victory at the polls." There is only one way to get it, and that is for the Conservative Party to be conservative. Nine Unionist Free-traders out of ten would vote against this Government at the next Election if the leaders of the Conservative Party would say : "We will not give up Tariff Reform, but the country shall see our tariff when ready, and vote on it either at a General Election or a Referendum." The Land-taxes alone are quite enough to sweep this Government away if only the Conservatives would devote themselves to that subject and give it prominence over other topics. Let them show that a Government which taxes an article (land), and says it will be cheaper, is no Free-trade Government at all.
Let them bring it home to the electors that a tax on land is a tax on food and house-rent. Let the Conservative Party
realise that
"a body politic led to seek prosperity in legislation is like a man taught to depend on drags for vigour—to-day's dose but calls for a heavier one to-morrow. There is no promise for recovery save in abstinence."
Prosperity can only come from character and natural resources and natural laws. Insomuch as legislation inter- feres with these (as so much recent legislation has), to that extent is prosperity retarded.—I am, Sir, &c., X. [We refer to these letters in our leading columns.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
