LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
WANTED, A NEW PARTY. ITO TR It EDITOR or TIM -sescrxrea.1 SIR,—The question raised by "Constitutionalist" in tho Spectator of October 27th is of supreme importance to Unionist Flee-traders, and though I agree in the main with the reasons given in your article in the same issue against the creation of a new party, I wish to point out, with respect, that the plan which you suggest does not meet a possible contin- gency. You advise that a sincere and patient attempt should
be made to reconstitute the Unionist Party on a Free-trade basis, and that Unionist Free-traders should make it clear that their support can be obtained only on condition that Tariff Reform is abandoned. Will the condition be agreed to, and when? The difficulty of persuading the Tariff Reformers to abandon their policy is, to my mind, very great; at any rate, it will• not be wise to minimise it, and in any circum- stances success is distant. We should have to wait for a con- siderable period of time to elapse after the active element had died down.
Can the Tariff Reformers be so persuaded before the next Election ? If they cannot, what is the Unionist Free-trader to do then ? In case at the next Election the issue were between Home- rule and Protection, I should be obliged to support Home-rule as being the lesser of two evils, and in the hope that Home-rule might, for the time being at any rate, be watered down. The necessity of choosing between two evils sufficiently, I think, indicates the difficulty of the Unionist Free-trader's position, and• it seems to me that this is the difficulty which" Constitutionalist" wishes to provide for. Your plan depends for its success upon its being carried out before the next Election. If it cannot so be carried out, it fails. " Constitutionalist's " plan could in ordinary circumstances be carried out before the next Election, and would, I think, meet the immediate dangers to which we are exposed. The risks which you point out would be likely to arise if a new party were created are not so immediate, and if they did arise they would have to be met by the wisdom and knowledge which we should then possess. The formation of a new party may not be an ideal plan—not a plan which would be adopted on its merits—but is it not a plan which meets the requirements of the Unionist Free-traders as they at 'present exist? Would not the action of the Liberal Unionists at the time of the Home-rule split afford us some guidance at the present juncture ?
I hope you will pardon me addressing you at this length, but my excuse must be the extreme importance of the question.
—I am, Sir, &c., J. A. GRDEDY.
14 John Dalton Street, Manchester.
[We fully appreciate the importance of our correspondent's point, but we trust and believe that no such odious dilemma is ever likely to be presented to the Unionist Free-trade electors. If they are strong—and they will be strong -if they are organised and Vigilant—we may feel pretty certain that in order to buy their assistance either the Home-rulers will declare themselves willing to drop Home-rule for another Parliament, or else the Tariff Reformers will be willing to "postpone" —as they will call it—Tariff Reform in order that the present Government may be removed. If we are mistaken, and neither side will make any concession, the Unionist Free- traders can always abstain. That abstention will be required of them, however, we do not believe. It is far more likely that the Unionist Party, anxious for office and longing to beat their opponents, will agree that Tariff Reform shall not be one of the issues at the next Election. Experience shows that the party out of office will always make bigger concessions to those who hold the balance than will the party in office. In this faet is to be found the strength of the Unionist Free- trade position, and a good prospect for reuniting the Unionist'Party on a Free-trade basis.—ED. Spectator.' .
Previous page
