LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
LORD SALISBURY AND THE TARIFF REFORMERS. [TO Tea forces OF THU SPEOTATOR.1
Sta,—It seems to me that all good Unionists should hail with satisfaction and gratitude Lord Salisbury's statesmanlike reply to the Tariff Reformers which appeared in the Times of March 15th. Does not that letter supply a solid basis for what we all desire,—a treaty of reunion between the two sections of our party, enabling all Conservative forces to join hands in withstanding the Socialistic attack on property of all kinds which looms in the near distance ? Is there any Unionist Free-trader or any Unionist Tariff Reformer who is so schismatic as to refuse subscription to a treaty inscribed with the headlines that Lord Salisbury suggests :—(1) No additional taxation whatever on the food of the people; (2) preference to our Colonies conceded by the removal of old taxes rather than by the imposition of new ; (3) no new import-duties except for revenue purposes or where needed for protective negotiation. These proposals, if distinguished by common-sense and modeAtion more than by originality, are, so far as I am aware, novel as regards the methods suggested for securing Colonial Preference,—viz., the relief from Inland Revenue charges of Colonial stock liable to British Estate-duty, and the exemption of Colonial shipping from British port dues. These suggestions, and their extension in similar directions, of course require careful examination. It is not too much to hope that the Spectator will lend its aid to this end, and that Lord Salisbury's valuable letter will fructify into the much-desired reunion. What though, as a hostile critic points out, Lord Salisbury may have been a member of the Ministry that imposed a shilling import-duty on corn ! The result showed that he was not wrong then, for the price of wheat was not raised. He may be equally right now in aiming at securing that it shall never be raised by taxation.—I am, Sir, &c.,
CHARLES STEWART.
[We have dealt elsewhere with Lord Salisbury's letter, and will only say here that we desire as ardently as ever the reunion of the Unionist Party in order to withstand the forces of Socialism and disruption. The only possible basis for such reunion is, however, Free-trade,—for Protection is in the last resort a form of Socialism.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
