MR. BALFOUR AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."1

SIR,—Unionist Free-traders have owed so much to the Spectator all through the Fiscal controversy that none of them can differ from it except with the greatest reluctance. But I think there must be a good many of us who find it very difficult to accept your view that Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour are, for practical and electoral purposes, the

same person under different names, and that the duty of the man who cares about Free-trade is to vote against each of

them with equal and impartial decision,—to vote, in fact, for the Liberal candidate except in the rare cases where there is a Unionist Free-trader in the field.

This is, I think, a fair statement of the advice you give us. Now, of course, some of us would urge against it that Free-trade was not the be-all and end-all of our political existence, and that such questions as the maintenance of the Union, education, Imperial defence, and others had some claim to consideration. But I myself would not press any argument of that kind, for I am substantially in agreement with you that it is Free-trade versus Protection which will be the one issue superseding all

others at the General Election. But it is just because Free-trade is the issue on which we join battle that I venture, with much respect, to disagree with your advice. Nothing, it seems to me, would be more disastrous to Free-trade than to commit it, as you wish to commit it, to the sole guardianship of one political party. A sound foreign policy and a sound Imperial policy are at this moment far more assured possessions of the nation than they would have been if Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey had gone over to the Unionist party during the Boer War. The Union with Ireland would be in no danger at all if Mr. Gladstone had died before 1892 and the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Cham- berlain had rejoined the Liberal party. In the same way, the real danger to Free-trade will begin when everybody who supports it has gone over to the Liberals.

I must not ask you to let sue discuss Mr. Balfour's speech, though I think you do it a great deal less than justice. It is surely a mistake, for instance, to say that in alluding to the general tariffs of Holland and India he "did not explain that in the case of India the general tariff is for revenue purposes

only" (Spectator, December 23rd, p. 1074). He expressly

mentioned that these tariffs were "non-Protective." The words are: "if you have a non-Protective tariff such as India has, or such as Holland has." But that is a detail. What is not a detail is that you find the whole speech a move towards Mr. Chamberlain, and not away from him. It is here that I respect- fully, and rather amazedly, protest. I pass over your doctrine that nothing could be satisfactory to us except an express dis- avowal of Mr. Chamberlain. Has it ever been the practice for leaders, when confronted with inconvenient exuberances on the part of important colleagues, to give the public all their feelings on the subject ? Did Mr. Gladstone ever expressly condemn Mr. Chamberlain and his "unauthorised programme" in 1885 ? Surely the established custom is to balance a civil reference to the exuberant colleague by an eloquent silence as to the matter of his exuberance. And that, it seems to me, is in substance exactly what Mr. Balfour did at Leeds.

I think you hardly make fair allowance for the difficulties of Mr. Balfour's position. He can scarcely be blamed for wishing to hold his party together. The large majority of that party appears to be Protectionist. In these circumstances, he makes a deliberate pronouncement of Fiscal policy, in which he states that he belongs to the Free-trade and not to the Protectionist section of his party ; that the pistol of Retaliation with which he wishes to arm the country is one which it would be a confession of failure to have to fire; that "a general tariff is outside the

scope of the fiscal reform" he is proposing ; and that, though he is in favour of Preference, he would like enthusiasts about

that policy to remember that as things are we give the Colonies "the whole maritime and most of the military defence practically for nothing," and therefore, before we go further, we have a right to know very definitely, "first, what the Colonies have to ask, and secondly, what the Colonies are prepared to concede."

Well, all this is not exactly Free-trade in our sense of the word. And it is true that the speech contains a couple of

flourishes evidently intended for Protectionist consumption,—

one in ridicule of the Cobden Club, and the other in laudation of Mr. Chamberlain. But it would be hard to grudge this sort of consolation to the Tariff Reformers when they get so very little else. After all, they have pinned their faith to the doctrine that in Protection lies the only way of economic salvation. Mr. Balfour, on the other hand, says not one syllable of sympathy with this creed, and not only separates himself from the Pro- tectionist wing of his party, but declares that Protection is "alien in its very essence and spirit to the Imperial idea." And I confess that I should have thought it was clear that all the serious and thoughtful part of the speech is an earnest attempt to stem the

Protectionist current which is running so strongly in the Conserva- tive party. In that case the question we have to ask is whether that attempt is not one in which we Unionist Free-traders ought to co-operate. I venture to urge that we ought, both because we are Unionists and because we are Free-traders. It is not nearly so important to the cause of Free-trade that there should be an immense Liberal majority in the next Parliament as that the Conservative minority should include a hundred, or if possible two hundred, Members who have sworn no allegiance to Mr. Chamberlain, and whose presence would deter the leaders from raising the issue of Protection, because with them in the House it would be the least likely of all issues to unite the Opposition. If this be so, how ought we to vote ? In favour of a Unionist Free-trader, of course, wherever we can find one, and against a supporter of Mr. Chamberlain, whoever be his opponent ; but where the contest is between a Liberal and a follower of Mr. Balfour, surely we may vote unhesitatingly for the latter, pro- vided he will declare that he is not a supporter of Mr. Chamber- lain, accepts his leader's decision against a general tariff, and will not vote for any measure or resolution tending to establish one.

20 Egerton Gardens, S. W., Dec. 27th.

[We are somewhat bewildered by Mr. Bailey when he asks us to support a policy which we have preached without ceasing for the last two years,—namely, that it is the duty of Unionist Free-traders to remain Unionists and not to join the Liberals, because only in that way can they prevent the great calamity of Protection and Free-trade becoming perma- nently the dividing-line between the two parties. We have repeatedly refused to join the Liberal party, and are determined to remain Unionist Free-traders, and soon as

the opportunity offers to take our share in reconstructing the Unionist party on a Free-trade basis. But because we are Unionist Free-traders, and intend to remain so, we do not mean to vote for Protection. We mean to make our Free- trade views effective, though the sacrifice be never so dis- agreeable. When a Free-trader is opposed by an anti-Free- trader we mean to support the Free-trader, even though he be a Liberal. Mr. Bailey seems to imagine that by voting for a Liberal at one General Election you instantly become a Liberal. We know of no such law of transformation. There were thousands of Liberals who in 1900 voted, and rightly voted, against Pro-Boer candidates and for Unionists. This did not make them Unionists. They wanted, however, to give their party a lesson, and they gave it. We desire to give our party a similar lesson in regard to Chamberlainism ; and, unless we are mistaken, it will be given, and with results which will ultimately enable Unionist Free-traders to be again conform- ing, and not as now nonconforming, members of their party. Unless men are occasionally prepared to read their parties such lessons the party system becomes a degrading slavery. As to Mr. Balfour, has Mr. Bailey forgotten the history of the past two and a half years ? Has he forgotten, for example, how Mr. Balfour said at Edinburgh that even if his party adopted the most extreme form of Protection he would not abate any of his zeal or earnestness in its support, though he added that it might not be possible for him to continue its leader ? Apart from this, however, we are willing to admit that Unionist Free-traders will be justified in voting for any Unionist candidate, and should indeed vote for such candidate, who will give a clear and straightforward repudia- tion of the Chamberlain policy, and will pledge himself to oppose that policy with all the power at his command. Will Mr. Balfour give such a pledge? We suggest that Mr. Bailey should attempt to obtain it. If he succeeds, be will have achieved something which will entitle him to the gratitude of all Unionist Free-traders. If he fails, how can he, on his own showing, continue to support Mr. Balfour P—En. Spectator.]