TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE UNIONIST FREE-TRADERS AND THE LIBERALS. THE statement that the official Liberal organisation in Durham is about to bring out a candidate to oppose Mr. Arthur Elliot is a matter for grave concern to all Liberals—and we are certain they are the majority—who put the cause of Free-trade above mere party interests. The next General Election will, in effect, be a pl6biscite taken on the question of Free-trade or Protection. That being so, it is essential that the number of Free-trade candidates returned, whether Unionists or Liberals, shall be overwhelming, and that the Protec- tionists in the House of Commons shall be reduced to so small a figure that no political party for the next generation shall think it possible to raise the anti-Free- trade banner. This, we acknowledge, is an ideal to which it will be difficult to attain, but all true Free- traders must admit that it is one well worth striving for, and that it is quite conceivable that it may be obtained if Free-traders, whatever their differences on other matters, will agree to work together. But this can only be accomplished by the display of a loyal and generous spirit amongst Free-traders. Can it be said that such loyalty to the cause of Free-trade will be displayed if Liberal candidates are brought forward to contest seats like Mr. Elliot's in Durham ? If there had already been a Liberal candidate in the field, we fully admit that our protest would not be reasonable. But in the case we have mentioned there was no such candi- date. That is, there was no one who could say that he had obtained the right to contest the constituency before the promulgation of the Chamberlain policy. If there had been a Liberal candidate chosen to oppose Mr. Arthur Elliot before the cause of Free-trade was in danger, the local association might reasonably have argued : " We cannot withdraw the support we have promised, and some arrangement must now be made which will involve an equality of sacrifice between the two Free-traders in the field." In the case of Durham, however, there was no such difficulty. The Liberal Association wait till a Chamberlainite candidate is brought out by the Tariff Reform League to attack the seat. On this, the Liberal Association produce a candidate, acting exactly as if the difference between Mr. Elliot and Mr. Hills were an ordinary party dispute, of which they had every right to take advantage. One might imagine, indeed, from their action that the Free-trade controversy did not exist.
It is not as if Mr. Elliot were one of those half- and-half Free-traders who, though they are willing enough to talk against Protection in the abstract, are quite unwilling to make any sacrifices for the prin- ciples they profess, He is not one of those who usurp the name without the substance of Free-trade, and who appear to think that the cause can best be furthered by supporting a Government which has been purged of its Free-trade elements, and is composed half of avowed and half of cryptic Chamberlainites, and presided over by a Prime Minister whose policy has been pronounced by Mr. Chamberlain to be in no way antagonistic to his own. The Liberals have every right to deny to such men the name of Free-traders, and to refuse to regard them as friends and co-operators in the great struggle which is before us. With men like Mr. Arthur Elliot, and the group of sincere and earnest enemies to Protection who act with him, the question is very different. Mr. Arthur Elliot— we take his case because it is one immediately before us, though there are others equally strong—has surely made sacrifices for Free-trade that give him a claim to the gratitude of all Free-traders. Though he bad only just entered the Ministry when Mr. Cham- berlain produced his Protectionist programme, and had taken up work at the Treasury of a kind specially inter- esting and attractive to him, he did not scruple at once to throw up his post and part from his colleagues. And M did this at a time when the prospects of a Free-trade victory were by no means what they are now. In any case, he threw away the hope of a Ministerial career, which is naturally and rightly the ambition of all politicians, and threw it away, not after he had enjoyed office for many years, but after a six months' tenure. To a man who has held office for six or seven years resignation means very little. To one who has only just taken up his post the sacrifice is great and real. Even if this were all, Mr. Elliot would deserve well of every Free-trader. But this is by no means all. Ever since he resigned he has been most active in the work of fighting Protection under its alias of Tariff Reform. In the House of Commons his voice and vote have invariably been heard and given On the side of Free-trade, and in the country he has worked in season and Out of season for the cause. Dissatisfied by the want of activity shown by the Free-Food League, he became the leader in the formation of the new Unionist Free-Trade Club,—a body which, if its work is not spoilt by action such as that contemplated in Durham, promises to do invalu- able work in showing Unionist Free-traders throughout the country that at the present crisis it is their duty to lay aside ordinary party considerations, and to vote for tho Free-trade candidate whether he is a Liberal or a Unionist. The Unionist Free-Trade Club, in a word, owes its existence to Mr. Arthur Elliot more than to any other man, and as the chairman of its Executive Committee the chief work and responsibility for its action have fallen, and will fall, on him. Yet this is the man whom the Liberal Association of Durham—we cannot say the Free-traders of Durham— appear to wish to drive out of Parliament, while at the same time presenting the seat to a Chamberlainite.
It may be said, perhaps, that in the circumstances Mr. Arthur Elliot should not seek re-election, and so save the seat for Free-trade. Free-traders who take up such an attitude must be very short-sighted. It is essential for the interests of Free-trade that Unionist Free- traders shall be found in the next Parliament, and shall be able to witness to the assertion that Free-trade is a tenet common to both parties. This being so, even if Mr. Elliot should personally be willing to resign, he could not, in loyalty to the Unionist Free-traders with whom he is acting in the country, men who have given him their whole- hearted support and confidence, refuse to offer himself for Parliament. We trust, indeed, that in no case where a Unionist Free-trader is confronted by a Chamberlainito candidate will he dream of resigning. It is a positive duty in all such cases to keep the Unionist Free-trade flag flying, whatever may be the Member's personal and private feelings in the matter. We have written strongly, but we believe that in what we have said we are representing, not merely the, views of Unionist Free-traders, but quite as much the views of the more enlightened Liberals and Radicals throughout the country. We are confident that they view with alarm and indignation the action proposed at Durham and elsewhere, and will do all they can to condemn' it. We are equally confident that the leaders of the Liberal party, and also the central Liberal organisation, have no desire to see the bond-fide Unionist Free-traders attacked, and will do all in their power to prevent such action. Unfortunately, however, they have very little influence in such cases, and cannot interfere with the local associations. The only forces which are to be looked to to make the local associations do their duty are (1) the action of the more clear-sighted Liberals in the particular constituency; and (2) the expression of Liberal opinion at large. In the first place, we hope that in the threatened constituencies influential Liberals who dislike the working of the " machine " will band them- selves together, and will inform the local associations that if attacks on men who have sacrificed so much for the cause are persisted in they will withdraw their support, moral and pecuniary, from such associations. Next, we hope that the Liberal Press and Liberals generally throughout the country will protest strongly against such action. We note with satisfaction that such protests are already beginning to appear. For instance, the West- minster Gazette of Tuesday gives prominence to a letter written by one who describes himself as an advanced Liberal. The letter is so ably and fairly expressed that we need make no apology for reprinting it in full:— " It is with considerable regret that I, an advanced Liberal, have noticed the adoption of a Liberal candidate for the city of Durham in opposition to the Hon. Arthur Elliot. I have ex- perienced the same feelings in regard to the boroughs of Green- wich, Croydon, and other constituencies where stalwart Unionist Free Traders are being opposed by new Liberal Free Trade candidates. I use the word new' because I am fully aware how difficult it would be to ask a Liberal candidate to retire who, has been in the field since the last' election. But in those constituencies where no Liberal candidate existed before 1903, I do think some effort might be made to secure the return of those Unionists who have taken a brave stand on behalf of a great principle. Liberal candidates and associations have been glad to secure the help and support of Unionist Free Traders ou their platforms ; but now they had an opportunity of rendering similar service they all with one consent began to make excuses. I think, Sir, that on many grounds we might have expected more generous and, what may be considered more important, a more enlightened and a better party policy. What was and is the position of affairs?
(1) But for the opposition of the Unionist Free Traders we should probably have had a Protectionist Budget in 1903, with preferential treatment for the Colonies. The latter step, when once taken, would have been exceedingly difficult to retrace.
(2) Men who sacrifice office and break party and family ties for a great cause should be able to look for help from the primary supporters of that cause.
(3) The opposition of the Unionist Free Traders to the Chamberlain-Balfour policy has immensely strengthened Liberal- ism in the country. Only those who have been through the last eighteen months of by-elections can estimate the moral value of this support and the corresponding demoralisation in the Unionist ranks.
(4) The Unionist Free Traders may be few in numbers, but they are immeasurably strong in mental and moral power. Their opposition to the Chamberlain-Balfour policy in the House of Commons has reduced the Protectionists to absolute intellectual bankruptcy. The result has been that the most Tory House the country has known has been an impregnable Free Trade fortress. (5) It is obviously Mr. Chamberlain's policy to rid the Unionist party of these Free Traders and to secure a solid, if small, Protectionist Opposition in the next Parliament. And action among Liberals which makes this easier is only playing Mr. Chamberlain's game. (6) A band of sound Unionist Free Traders on Mr. Chamber- lain's flank in the next House of Commons will be worth far more to the Liberal Government than twice their number counted among the regular supporters of the Liberal Party. (7) To keep the Unionist Party divided upon Free Trade, from the lowest point of view, is surely good tactics.
Now, Sir, what is to be done? Are we for the sake of the possible gain of a dozen seats won by three-cornered contests— ours no longer than the presence of Unionist Free Traders divides the Tory vote—to snatch small party triumphs at the cost of far larger and deeper issues ? Are we to play Mr. Chamberlain's game and sweep from the next House of Commons his most powerful and dreaded opponents? Such victories would be dearly bought and give greater satisfaction to nobody more than to the late Colonial Secretary. Liberal victories at the expense of such able and sincere politicians as Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Lord George Hamilton, and others would, I think, be worse than defeats. Surely, Sir, it is not yet too late to save the situation."
We would ask the Durham Liberal Association, and the associations in other constituencies where candidates have only lately been chosen, or where preparations are being made for nominating candidates, to reconsider their duty in the matter. If they are true Free-traders, they cannot, we believe, come to any other conclusion than to support the sitting Unionist Free-traders when such Members are bond file, and not merely nominal, opponents of Protec- tion. We admit that in certain cases this is demanding a considerable sacrifice from the local associations, and the men they would like to nominate. But it is only by such sacrifices that great causes can be won. If the Unionist Free-traders are to prove the only people willing to make sacrifices for Free-trade, and they are to be swept out of exist- ence, not by the Protectionists, but by Liberal Free-traders, it is impossible to look forward to the future without dismay. We do not believe that a crushing defeat can be inflicted on the Chamberlain policy unless the Unionist Free-traders in all constituencies will vote for the Free- trade candidate, who in the vast majority of cases will be a Liberal. But how can they be asked to do this by their leaders when the local Liberals will give no quarter to Unionist Free-traders in the case of the few seats they now hold ? If these are to be sacrificed, thousands of Unionist votes will be lost for Free-trade throughout the country. Is that a result which the Liberals of Durham and elsewhere can contemplate with satisfaction, and as helpful to the cause of Free-trade ?
Previous page
