PROTECTION AND CORRUPTION.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—In the Spectator of November 28th you complimented me by noticing and amplifying an article I had contributed to the Daily Chronicle under the above heading. My object in writing that article was to illustrate in some detail—partly borrowed from an American, Mr. Chalmers Roberts, and partly the result of my own observations—the corrupting influences of Protection on American politics. Towards the end of your excellent summary of what I wrote you asked the reasons for Mr. Chamberlain's belief that similar conse- quences would not flow from the resurrection of Protection in England. May I point out that Mr. Chamberlain is in no need of reasons ? He has comfortably cleared the ground by denying all the premisses. In a letter to a correspondent published in the papers of November 14th he declared the "purity of Parliament argument" to be "absurd." He would like to ask in which of the Protective countries corruption is, or ever has been, due to Protection. He had never heard of anything of the kind in Germany. In America, he admitted, there was "a good deal of political corruption " ; but for this he had an easy explanation. It was "chiefly caused by the presence of Irish political organisations." "So far as the Government is concerned, nothing of the kind has ever been suggested to me, and the general purity of ad- ministration has increased in late years under a Pro- tective system." (I suppose before long we shall have Mr. Chamberlain claiming that Protection has caused the increase in administrative purity.) And while he was about it, he might as well expose all that nonsense about Trusts thriving on Protection. "The creation of Trusts," he announced, "is also entirely independent of Protection," and the proof of it might be seen in the fact that Trusts exist in Free-trade England. (This is just as though one were to argue that figs are independent of climate because they are found both in England and Turkey.) So you see Mr. Chamber- lain is on quite impregnable ground. It is all the fault of the Irish if there is corruption in American politics. Protection has nothing whatever to do with it. I confess that, in my first moments of amazement, I felt impelled to bring these statements to the touchstone of fact ; hence the Daily Chronicle letter. But on reflection I find them not by any means destitute of consolation. I think, indeed, we may all congratulate ourselves that Mr. Chamberlain has at last touched bottom. During the past six months we have seen him in many parts, and in each he has been wonderful. But here, surely, he transcends wonder. Some may prefer him in the tinplate and jewellery prologues ; others as the author of pontifical pledges of higher wages, fuller employment, lesser expenses, and several other things if his agitation succeeds, and of Imperial disruption if it fails ; others as the states- man who, after eight years in the Colonial Office, really thinks he can ear-mark certain industries, and say to the Colonies, "Leave these to us"; others again as the economist who regards commerce as a sort of prize-fight, and the surplus of imports over exports as so much dead loss ; still others as the reformer who is so malignantly up to date that nothing but his grandfather's cast-off policies will satisfy him; and others once more as the historian of the Anti- Corn-law movement. Far be it from me to deny his fascina- tion in each of these characters. In all of them he has amazed and amused a wondering world. But to my mind his real claim to immortality must from now onwards rest on the almost surprising accuracy and comprehensiveness of his in- sight into American conditions. You will remember what proof he gave of this insight a few years ago in proposing an Anglo-German-American alliance. Time, however, as we now see, has but edged the sharpness of his vision. The political corruption of America is "entirely independent of Protection," and "chiefly caused by the presence of Irish political organisations." We may at least rest assured he will never better that —I am, Sir, &c., SYDNEY BROOKS. Rossetti Mansions Chelsea.
Previous page
