FREE-TRADE AND PARTY POLITICS.
'IRE grave danger to Free-trade brought about by the determination of the Government to prefer party considerations to the cause of which they were appointed trustees by the nation was only too well illustrated in the debate on the Fiscal question which occupied Parliament during the past week. Hitherto in all the debates in the House of Commons the Liberal Free-traders have had infinitely the best of the argument, and have scored an easy victory over their opponents. The shadow of old-age pensions, and the vast expenditure which the scheme necessitates, have acted, however, like a upas-tree, and have blighted the efforts of the opponents of Protection on the Government benches. On Monday and Tuesday nights they had to fight proposals for broadening the basis of taxation at a complete disadvantage, for it was obvious that next year, though not this, and still more in the years to come, they would be forced, not merely to talk of broadening the basis of taxation, but, what is far worse, actually to broaden the burden of taxation imposed upon the taxpayer. They might use brave words, and express their verbal horror and detestation of broadening the basis of taxation, but every one knew that they were preparing to do the thing which their opponents were talking about. It might, indeed, almost be said of the Liberal Party, as of the lady in Congreve's poem, "She is the thing that she despises." The topsy-turvy character of the debate was still further marked by the fact that the Tariff Reform speakers in their desire to oppose the Government were constantly stumbling into what were in effect almost Free- trade arguments. Not only did Mr. Bonar Law denounce Mr. Lloyd George's Patents Act in the language of the strictest adherent of Free-trade, but he and other speakers occasionally came perilously near the admission that you could not tax the nation into prosperity. Indeed, we might imagine a Free-trade visitor from another planet who had listened to the debate finding some difficulty in deciding which was the Free-trade and which the Protectionist side of the House.
This bewildering confusion of ideas was accentuated by what took place on Wednesday night, when the Sugar Convention was under discussion. Here, however, though the Government and the majority of the Liberal Party took the anti-Free-trade line, the true Free-trade view was well maintained by a brave though minute Liberal minority. Mr. Villiers, one of the Liberal Members for Brighton, arraigned the Government for renewing a Convention that was inimical to true Free-trade principles. With great force he urged that if they once departed from the principle of Free-trade, or, as we should prefer to say, of the free market, they would find themselves surrounded by hopeless difficulties. What he and others objected to was the prohibition of any sugar. He might be accused of disloyalty to his party, but be put Free-trade before party. Mr. Austin Taylor, who supported Mr. Villiers, pointed out that he had joined the Liberal Party on the question of Free-trade. "It would indeed be disconcerting to him if the vital prin- ciple of the Liberal Party were to elude him almost at the first moment." Though Sir Edward Grey made a plausible defence of the Government's action, and was able to show that the new arrangement was at any rate somewhat better than the old, he could not escape from the fact that the Government, instead of denouncing the Convention altogether, had become responsible for an arrangement which in essence concedes the case of the Tariff Reformers and Protectionists,—a fact with which Lord Percy not unnaturally twitted him. Perhaps, indeed, the best proof of the extraordinary position in which the Government found themselves was that so pronounced a Protectionist as Lord Percy declared that if the question were pressed to a division, he would without hesita- tion support the policy of the Government. Mr. Lough also expressed the dissatisfaction of Liberal Free-traders with the action of the Government, and recalled the pledges given by them when they were in opposition. The argu- ment of the Foreign Secretary, he declared, was "the Fair- trade argument." There never was a more preposterous claim made for any document than the claim that the Convention was a Free-trade document. It was a working model of the kind of thing that the Tariff Reformers wished to set up in this country. Regarding the debate as a whole from the Free-trade standpoint, we have no hesitation in saying that the true Free-traders triumphed all along the line, and that the Government made very poor use of the weapons they had borrowed from the Tariff Reform armoury. Possibly, however, when Sir John Brunner's policy of the nationalisation of railways and minerals, and other attempts by the State to foster commerce at the expense of the taxpayers—all in effect violations of the principle of the free market and of free exchange—are brought forward, they will become more dexterous in their use of the Protectionist artillery.
In view of the extraordinary confusion into which the Free-trade controversy has thus fallen, we most heartily agree with the advice tendered by Lord Cromer on Tuesday at the meeting of the Unionist Free-Trade Club. Lord Cromer, who, we are glad to say, was chosen by that body to succeed the Duke of Devonshire as its president, advised his followers to keep their heads, to hold together, and to wait for better times, confident that in the end "Truth would prove to be the child of Time." That advice is founded, we are sure, on true statesmanship. Since the Government have chosen to plunge into a policy which in effect means preparing the ground, and giving the opportunity, for the imposition of a tariff, Unionist Free-traders must more than ever regard themselves as the bodyguard of Free-trade, and as pledged to defend their cause against all corners. It is true, no doubt, that for the time the prospect of so small a body being able to maintain that defence seems impossible. In politics, however, there is no such thing as the impossible, and especially is this true of the political situation of the moment. In spite of the fact that the Unionist Free-traders have presented to them dilemmas so disagreeable as : "Which are you going to do ? Vote for a Protectionist Unionist or a Free- trade Home-ruler ? " or again, "Vote for a Socialist Anti- Protectionist or a Protectionist Anti-Socialist ? " we believe that in the end a way will be found out of the difficulty. We are confirmed in this by the confident belief that the country at heart wishes neither to destroy the Union nor to destroy Free-trade, but is, on the contrary, determined to maintain both these causes, and also to refuse to allow the basis of our social organisa- tion to be that advocated by the Socialists. But though we remain invincibly optimist in this respect, We fully admit that a positive electoral policy is required by the Unionist Free-traders. Our advice to them is that given by Sir Robert Peel after the defeat of his party : Organise ! organise ! organise ! Next, we bold that the Unionist Free-traders, having got together and having determined upon joint action, should, in cases where they cannot put forward a candidate of their own, and where none of the candidates in the field hold satisfactory views, agree to abstain. If they take such a course in individual constituencies, and let their intentions be known and understood in sufficient time before polling-day, we do not doubt that in the end one or other of the candidates will be found willing to make concessions to them which will enable them to go to the poll. In many constituencies, if the Unionist candidate knows that there is a block of, say, four hundred voters whose votes can be obtained if he will promise that in no case will he vote for the imposition during the next Parliament of any tax upon corn, meat, or dairy produce without first resigning his seat and seeking re-election, the temptation to obtain such a block of votes will prevail, no matter how much the Tariff Reform organisations may frown upon his action. But if only in forty or fifty cases such pledges are given, and the candidate returned, there will be little fear of any resort to Protection in the next Parlia- ment. To make such electoral bargaining as we have suggested possible, it is, however, absolutely necessary that the Unionists should be organised, and definitely pledged to act together. If not, they must be, and will be, taken in detail and destroyed. Therefore the organisation which we recommend is not simply a headquarters organisation, but an organisation in each individual constituency. That, no doubt, is difficult, for it means something very like the creation of a new party. But it is not impossible, provided the sinews of war can be obtained. To put our recom- mendation in a nutshell, we want to see the Unionist Free. Trade Party stand clear from all other political organisa- tions, and then to make it known that their votes can be secured at the next General Election if a certain price will be paid for them. If no one will pay the price, they must abstain, and, as Lord Cromer said, wait for better times. Though the Liberal Government may be pledged to action which is undermining Free-trade, and though the Tariff Reformers seem for the moment to be gaining ground, we must never forget that there are many slips between the Proteetionist lip and the Fiscal cup.
Previous page
