LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE FREE-TRADE UNIONISTS. [To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Can you enlighten me with regard to the course which the Free-trade Unionists are expecting events to follow, or which they map out for themselves with a view to influencing events ? I have been watching for the past year to see what it is to be, and I confess that I find their inaction incom- prehensible. All must surely share the belief expressed in the
Spectator of June 25th that when the time comes Mr. Balfour will again declare himself to be in sympathy with the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. I have been puzzling over the manifesto of the Surrey Free-trade Unionists as quoted in the Times. It is a clear statement of the position, and their attitude towards Lord Bingham appears to be the correct one for all voters who share their convictions to adopt ; but I ask : "Do those who issued the manifesto believe for a moment that the action which they recommend is going to frighten the majority of the Unionist party from Tariff Reform, at any rate before they have put this policy to the test of a General Election ? Has the history of the last twelve months held out the smallest prospect of Unionists who adhere to Free-trade principles
being able to continue an integral part of a Balfour-Cham- berlain party ? "
How is the course which is recommended in the Chertsey division to be reconciled with the statement that those to whom it is addressed "must not and need not abandon one jot of their Unionism " ? Directly they have placed Mr. Sadler's party in power for six years, what further control will they have over its actions ? Its official leader is certainly not more pledged to oppose Home-rule than Mr. Balfour is to support Mr. Cham- berlain. What is it which prevents Free-trade Unionists from striving for the position which the Liberal Unionists occupied after 1886 with such benefit to the country ? Even in Quaker Darlington the Liberal Unionist Five Hundred unanimously passed the pro-Chamberlain resolution which is to be moved by Mr. H. Pike Pease, M.P., at the approaching Liberal Unionist meeting. In view of this and similar occurrences, and the reply of the Duke of Devonshire to the questions of the Earl of Lichfield, surely it is useless any longer to keep up the fiction of the existence of any party other than that led by the Balfour-Chamberlain partnership, that led by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and that led by Mr. Redmond.
The Surrey Free-trade Unionists believe that those who share their views form a large and influential body in every constituency. I am ceasing to be as sanguine as they are ; but why not make the most of any influence which this body has ? Instead of meekly deserting to the enemy, is not the proposal which I have put forward elsewhere a more profitable one,—that they should ascertain as nearly as may be what their strength is, and then obtain the best value they can (in the shape of concessions to their opinions) in exchange for the benefit of their support ? If Free-traders are really agreed that Mr. Chamberlain's policy is so dangerous that all other aims must be subordinated to opposition to it, is it not only fair that the Radical party should agree not to con- test certain seats against Free-trade Unionists in exchange for Unionist support of Radicals in other constituencies ? And surely by united action Free-trade Unionists could affect the nature of the candidates, and their addresses, in other instances, if they are really an influential body P—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We have dealt at length elsewhere with the general issue raised in our correspondent's letter.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
