ample should be followed. There and then if we do this the unis a curious analogy between soundness of the above syllothe two situations-the situa- gism becomes manifest at once. tion of Pitt in 1783 and of Simple as this exposition may Mr Balfour at the present seem to educated minds, and moment. It was Mr Pitt's easily as the truth of it might first object, and should be Mr be recognised by uneducated Balfour's, to gain time. It ones if left to the operation of was the object of the Whig their own unhampered commonOpposition, and is now the sense, it may be so easily disobject of the Radical Opposi- guised under a cloud of commontion, to prevent this. The one places about taxing the food of tried to do it by forcing Pitt the people, the big loaf and the to resign; the other tries to little loaf, and so forth, that we do it by forcing Mr Balfour cannot expect it to make that to dissolve. In refusing to be rapid progress which is indeed driven, the Minister of Edward much more often the fortune of VII. takes exactly the same error than of truth. For the ground as the Minister of struggling truth to force its George III. "He will wait way through a hostile crowd till public opinion has had interested in stopping its adtime to gather strength," vance, and hustling it, so to that is to say, till the Tariff speak, at every turn, time is reReformers have had time to quired; and this is what we bemake the people fully com- lieve Mr Balfour is fighting for. prehend the character and intention of their policy and its probable results. This cannot be done in a day. A plausible fallacy generally dies hard, and the Free Traders have got one to their hands which is exactly calculated to impose on the ignorant and uneducated. Let us put it in syllogistic form. All taxes on food are bad. A duty upon corn is a food. upon Therefore a duty upon corn is bad. The syllogism is unsound; but why? Because there are four terms tax to it instead of three. "Duty on corn," in the minor premiss, is a simple term, and in the conclusion a complex one. When the imposition of one tax is combined with the remission of another the two processes must be taken as one, "This is a question," says Mr Chamberlain, "which touches, no doubt, very closely some deep sentiments among the working people, and especially among the agricultural labourers. This arrangement with the Colonies would necessitate not a tax on food, as you are told. That is false. But it might entail a transfer of taxation from one kind of food to another kind of food. It is not much of a sacrifice, but it is capable of the grossest misrepresentation; and you see accordingly at every bye-election swarms of placards with giant loaves on the one hand and small loaves on the other, representing what our opponents declare will be the result of a policy which at the very utmost, cannot possibly add more than a in the worst possible circumstances, farthing to the quartern loaf, which would probably add nothing at all, and would certainly reduce other portions of the expenditure of the working man." In these few words we recognise the mass of ignorance but the ebb will come, and if our opponents come into office before the reaction sets in, the country in a few months will be much more anxious to get rid of them than they ever were to put them in." Then the Unionists will return to power "with a clear and definite policy accepted by the vast majority of the party." This is a very pretty prospect, we allow, and things of course may turn out as Mr Chamberlain predicts. But when we reflect on the mischief which a Radical Government has done before now, during a very brief tenure of office, we may be excused for wishing that "the ebb" should come before they get another chance. That is why we trust that we may take Lord Lansdowne's statement as some guarantee that this Parliament will be allowed to complete its natural term before the struggle begins. It is not by any means certain and misrepresentation which the Tariff Reformers have to face, and the absolute necessity of their securing as much time as possible for the dispersion of it before the appeal to the constituencies. Public opinion must be educated, and have "time to gather strength," if the Tariff Reformers are to appeal to it with any prospect of success. Mr Chamberlain is Mr Chamberlain is convinced that a small duty on foreign corn, sufficient to enable the Colonies to supply the home demand independently of foreign competition, may be accompanied by such a reduction of taxation on other articles of food as would make the whole cost of living no greater than it was before, if not considerably less. If we took our corn-supply from our own Colonies instead of from foreigners, the closer connection which we should thereby establish between different branches of the Empire would be worth a little addition to the price of food, even were this a necessary consequence; how much more, then, should we value it when it costs us nothing! But all this cannot be made plain to the working classes in a day. Mr Chamberlain says that "sooner or later our cause must be victorious," and looks forward to what may happen in the meantime with perfect equanimity As the Opposition naturally sentiment, we confess, which wish to take advantage of we do not altogether share. the flowing tide, so are they "In our party system we anxious to accumulate always have to reckon the ebb and flow of popular opinion. At present it is flowing in favour of our opponents; a on VOL. CLXXVIII.—NO. MLXXVII. that if a Liberal Government came in they would go out again in a few months; and if we are to pass through another such Government in order to reach our goal, we may find ourselves in a sorry plight before we get there. The imperial principle may have undergone disastrous eclipse before that time. as many offences as possible on Mr Balfour's head before the tide turns. This was the object of the vote of censure ; I this was the object with which the adjournment of the House was moved on the 22nd of May, ending in a scene of disgraceful violence without & parallel in our parliamentary history; and this was the object with which Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman got up the debate of June 7. The motive in each case was the wish to convict Mr Balfour of a breach of faith. For this purpose they drew a comparison between the words he used in the Edinburgh speech of October 1904, the Manchester speech of January 1905, his answer to a question from Mr Soare on the 22nd of May last, and his speech at the Albert Hall on the 2nd of June. The contention was that Mr Balfour had promised that the fiscal question should not be discussed at a Colonial Conference before the General Election, and that since giving this pledge he had stated that the Colonial Conference of 1906 would be free to discuss it, whether after dissolution or before. The explanation is so simple, that we are lost in wonder at what we cannot help calling the barefaced impudence of the Opposition in asking us to shut our eyes to it. Mr Balfour was speaking of two different Conferences. There will be next June the regular Quadrennial Conference, which meets as a matter of course, a "Automatic," Mr Balfour called it, on which the Government can impose no limitations or conditions. It will enjoy perfect freedom of dis cussion, and may take up the fiscal question, or leave it alone, as it pleases. If it likes to anticipate a discussion which had better be deferred, Mr Balfour cannot help it. What he said about the Conference and the General Election referred only to a conference which may or may not be convoked immediately the elections are over, for the express purpose of considering the fiscal question, and for that only. If the present Government are still in power, it certainly will be convoked. If not, alors comme alors. Now, where is the breach of faith in these several statements? Mr Balfour allows that in his speech at Edinburgh he did omit to refer to the ordinary Quadrennial Conference. But he has explained so often that what he meant was this, that no special conference should be summoned for the exclusive discussion of the tariff question till after the dissolution, that the affected ignorance of the Opposition as to what he really means at this moment can be intended only to delude that large class of voters, especially in working-class constituencies, who have neither the skill to analyse such pretexts, nor time to do it if they had. To do this for them must be the work of the Unionist campaign during the interval that still remains between the autumn of 1905 and the autumn of 1906, or it may be, perhaps, a little longer. The Opposition-and much may be forgiven to men in such a plight-would fain force on Mr Balfour's declaration, namely, that the fiscal question would occupy a front place at the next appeal to the people, a meaning which does not belong to it. Of course, it must occupy a front place. We did not want Mr Balfour to tell us that. How can a question which has been discussed up and down the country for two years, which has caused the resignation of Ministers and the reconstruction of Governments, help coming to the front? The constituencies will know that if Mr Mr Balfour returns to power he will summon a conference to consider the new fiscal scheme which Mr Chamberlain has suggested, and with which he himself in its main features is in sympathy. If they disapprove of such a reference to our Colonial fellowsubjects they will, perhaps, turn out the Government. If not, the Conference will be called. That is all. Mr Balfour is not going to the country with any cut-and-dried programme. He is not going to ask the constituencies to vote for any form of protection, retaliation, or preferential treatment. He will simply ask them whether they wish to hear what the Colonies themselves have to say upon the subject; whether, after having had Mr Chamberlain's proposals fairly set before them, they think it worth while to unite with our Colonial representatives in considering how it would work. This is the moderate proposition which the Opposition have overlaid with all manner of accusations, misrepresentations, and calumnies; and it is this tissue of falsehoods, woven together with no inconsiderable skill, which time is required to unravel. 66 The Opposition very naturally are unwilling to allow us that time. As Mr Balfour admits, the tide is now flowing in their favour, and they are eager to take advantage of it while it lasts. But a Government supported by a substantial majority is in no way bound to humour them. "I shall consider it my duty," said Mr Balfour at Manchester, as long as the party of which I am for the time being the leader show their confidence in me, to carry on the work of the country to the best of my ability." And considering all that is at stake independently of the fiscal question, he is bound to be as good as his word. Not that it is by any means certain that if Parliament were dissolved to-morrow the Liberals would secure a majority. It is probable, no doubt. But we must remember that on more than one occasion the bye-elections have proved deceptive. In Lord Palmerston's second administration the bye-elections went strongly against the Government. The Opposition gained so seats that before the Parliament was dissolved they were able to defeat the Church Rate Bill. In 1864 the Government majority on a Cabinet question had sunk to eighteen; yet at the dissolution which followed it was raised to fifty-eight. Immediately before the general election of 1880 the Conservatives scored three great victories at Sheffield, Liverpool, and Southwark. But on appealing to the country at large they lost 111 seats. We would not attach too much importance to these figures. They show, nevertheless, that constituencies may sometimes at byeelections be swayed by motives which do not determine their votes when appealed to by the Government. However this may be, it is certain that the line of action lately pursued by the Opposition must, in a greater or less degree, have its natural effect on public feeling. Decided partisans, to whichever side they belong, make the best excuses they can for the misconduct of their leaders, and stick to their colours through thick and thin. The party system makes it necessary that there should be such men, both Liberal and Conservative. But there is a large body of voters who have not taken the oath of allegiance to either side, and whose natural prepossessions, whether in favour of Tory or Radical, are always liable to be disturbed by the personal behaviour of the statesmen whom they have hitherto supported. On such men as these the scenes of May 22 would make a considerable impression, and the failure of Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman to put forth the slightest effort to check such a gross violation of parliamentary decency would make a still stronger one. This scene, moreover, may be said to have been only the culmination of many previous ones, but little less flagrant, and not unlikely to be the precursor of others equally if not still more so. If to these causes of distrust should be added the discovery that the men who have been guilty of these gross offences against the spirit and authority of parliamentary government have also been deceiving the public on the question of Colonial preference, and have wilfully and of malice aforethought accused the Prime Minister of offences of which they knew him to be innocent, then the ebb spoken of by Mr Chamberlain may be expected to set in; and all we desire is that before Parliament is dissolved public opinion should be allowed time to ripen. If candidates are put to any inconvenience by this delay, it is their own fault for listening to what the Opposition said rather than to what Mr Balfour said. There are, then, two valid reasons against a premature dissolution-one, the necessity for bringing home to the popular mind what is really meant by Mr Chamberlain's plan, and for dispelling the fogs and falsehoods in which his opponents have endeavoured to disguise it; the other, the equally essential object of exposing to the world at large the carefully concocted fiction which charges Mr Balfour with a breach of faith, and the unworthy and immoral conduct of those who have continued to repeat it. |