WHY TARIFF LEGISLATION?
ONE of the chief political ironies of the moment is the fact that tariff legislation is being carried through Parliament at a time when there is much less public demand for this kind of legislation than there has been for many years. The Tariff Reform movement while it lasted was a real movement ; we did not agree with it, and we constantly pointed out its extreme dangers and denounced the fallacies on which, in our confident belief, it was based. But to-day there is only a shadow of the army which fought tooth and nail for Protection. The campaign failed, and one finds in conversation that some of those who used to be the foremost supporters of Tariff Reform recognize that such a thing is not good business now from the point of view of party politics. They feel that they attempted what was impossible ; that they tried to bring about what would not have been to the advantage of their party, or even of the country as a whole, if they had succeeded. They burnt their fingers, they admit, and in the same circumstances they would not be persuaded to burn them again. Why, then, is it that just when the natural fires of Tariff Reform have died down, we are faced with proposals for Protective legislation very much of the kind which Tara Reformers proposed ? And why, above all, is it that this ironic situation should be dominated by a Prime Minister who in his former capacity was one of the most relentless and most brilliant opponents of the Tariff Reform doctrine ? The answer, of course, is that the Bill for pro- tecting key industries was introduced as an essential part of the scheme for making the country secure in times of war. Hardly anybody will need to be reminded that the war showed us that if there were another war we should be in great danger of being starved, because we produce at home so small a proportion of the food which the nation consumes. The war also showed that under the Free Trade system we had allowed things which are essential to the conduct of war to be made almost entirely by foreign countries. Good examples are lenses and the chemicals used in the dyeing processes which are the foundation of the manufacture of high explosive. The Bill, therefore, was introduced not at all in the spirit of the Tariff Reformers, but as a piece of virtually agreed legislation which was to make the country safe. We as Free Traders accepted the principle of it on the grounds stated. For the same reason we strongly supported the policy of producing more food in this country. We had no illusions on the subject. We did not think that farmers would like the State inter- ference which is a corollary of State subvention. We felt sure that the guarantees to agriculture would make our food cost more. But we believed that it was right to make that sacrifice for safety just as it is right to pay enormous sums for a Fleet and an Army—both of them forms of unproductive expenditure. These things are insurance policies ; and no careful person fails to insure himself against common risks. Latterly, however, a tremendous change has come over the scene. Contrary to the predictions of many econo- mists, the trade boom after the war lasted a very short time, and we are now notoriously at the other extremity. In every port in the kingdom great ships are lying idle for want of cargoes. New shipbuilding has practically ceased. The country cannot afford any payments what- ever except for the barest necessaries. The fact that the Government recognize this is proved by their abandon- ment of the Corn Production Act. They have said in effect : "We know that we are breaking our pledges to the farmers and going back on our word. We know also that we are breaking our pledges to the agricultural labourers. But it is a case of dire necessity. We simply have not got the money to pay. This terrible truth supersedes everything else. It is obviously useless to keep up an appearance of holding to our promises when that would mean that the whole country would be ruined and nobody would be able to buy the things the farmer pro- duces.' That is irrefutable language. No sane person can resist it.
But if these arguments seem conclusive to the Govern- ment in the matter of agriculture, which, after all, remains our greatest national industry, why do they not seem to them conclusive in the case of the industries which it is still proposed to protect ? That Protection will keep too high the cost of things which might be cheap. Let us not deceive ourselves. Moreover, even from the point of view of national security, there is a great deal to be said for the importance of making ourselves fit to resist enemies by accumulating the greatest possible reserve of wealth and by maintaining the wonderful industrial adaptability which is certainly encouraged in countries where, under a system of Free Trade, open and unrestricted competition keeps men alert and inventive. Why, we ask, should the Government throw over the protection of agriculture and stick to the protection of less important industries ? Is food less important than optical glass ? Protection is sure not only 4o check the re-stocking of the country, but, as we think, is sure to be a clog upon activity. Circumstances having dictated the new agricultural policy—or rather no policy—the Government are frankly trusting for safety to the fact that the world is too exhausted to fight another great war for a generation, and also trusting to the great hopes of international understandings for preventing war. But what is true of one industry is true of all the others. Why proceed with this tariff legislation ? We sincerely appeal to the Government to acknowledge that a path which at one time it seemed necessary to take is no longer open to us. The Government have plenty to do, mall conscience,. without going on with legislation from which the whole basis has been knocked away, which has no compact enthusiasm supporting it, and which would lead to jealousy, wire-pulling, expense, and reduced national energy.
Previous page
