MANCHESTER AND TARIFF REFORM.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR..']

Sm,—Your readers will perhaps be rather weary of seeing letters with my name attached, and it may be you will not insert this, but your readers in the South who have not been in close touch with Manchester by-elections might be glad of a little information from one who has. If the personal pronoun is rather conspicuous in this instance it can scarcely be avoided.

In 1908 as a Unionist Free Trader I had no hesitation in going on Mr. Joynson-Hicks's platform, speaking and working for him. Tariff Reform was declared to be not the issue, and we sent Mr. Winston Churchill to the right-about. The ill- informed London Press was so boisterous in hailing it as a Tariff Reform victory that I wrote to the Manchester Press telling them that Mr. Joynson-Hicks would lose the seat at the next General Election, which he did. It was a great mistake to send Mr. Bonar Law to Manchester in December 1910. Speaking and working for him, I was not surprised at his losing, as the Referendum promise came so late as to be regarded with suspicion, and besides he was so prominent a Tariff Reformer.

We now come down to the by-election last week. By letters to the local Press and canvassing my Free Trade friends I did what little I could to defeat the Government candidate. The position was rather an absurd one: an "out-and-out Tariff Reformer" standing for an out-and-out Free Trade seat. Still, Sir John Randles was the only stick available with which to smite the Government, and, as it was a by-election, a good many—but by no means all—Unionist Free Traders used the only weapon available, with a result that every one knows.

From the speeches of the two candidates it would have been thought by any one not knowing that the Liberal was the business candidate and the Conservative candidate the academic lawyer. But it didn't matter this time : Manchester does not want Mr. Lloyd George, nor does it want another Radical's policy (Mr. Chamberlain's). It wants to be let alone, and all signs point to the whole country wanting the same.

Now as to the future. Do not let the leaders of our party be deceived as they were in 1909 by by-election results when they foolishly forced an election on the Budget. South Manchester and North-West Manchester will both be lost at the General Election if Mr. Balfour's and Lord Lansdowne's pledge as to a Referendum on Tariff Reform be trifled with. Lord Lansdowne's words were very definite, viz. : " We will not apply Tariff Reform until a Referendum has been taken on it from the people of this country." Are our leaders going to play fast and loose with their pledges P If they are, then they will incur the contempt and disgust of all moderate men. One often hears it said that politics is a dirty game, and the resentment which would be shown if this pledge be repudiated would result in a much worse split than Mr. Chamberlain caused by making a business question a party question. Radicals will be perfectly justified in repeating what they said when the Referendum was first promised—viz., that it was a dirty electioneering trick to help Mr. Bonar Law in Manchester.

Who are these men who want us to repudiate our pledges P Who are the men who fear that if the people saw the Tariff they would have none of it P Who are the men whose tactics are so low that they would use the woes of their country (the fear of Home Rule, Disestablishment, and Lloyd George finance) to smuggle through a Tariff which their reluctance to put their cards on the table would prove that they thought would never pass on its merits P I can only say I have never met any of these men, and the number of men who would Act so dishonourably must be very small. Our party will be irretrievably smashed, and deservedly so, if we tamper with our pledges.

Do not let the North-West Manchester large majority lead any one to think that such tricks can be played with impunity.

With a definite assurance that a Tariff Reform Bill will not be applied till a Referendum has been taken on it, Sir John Bandies (although a Tariff Reformer out and out) may sit for that seat as long as Sir Wm. Houldsworth did. Without it he will be most determinedly opposed by many who voted for him last Thursday. If Tariff Reformers have faith in their Tariff let us have a look at it. If they will not do that then we can only conclude that it will not stand the daylight, and the opportunity to bring in a Tariff Bill will not be given them, for they will be deservedly distrusted.

Mr. Davidson's letter on this subject in the Spectator of August 10th was most excellent. He does well to remind us that

Mr. Chamberlain said: "I have not raised this question as a party issue, but as a national question." It is a national question to be decided by the nation as a separate issue.

When Mr. Chamberlain departed from his first idea and

captured the Party Machine he lost us the Duke of Devon- shire, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Lord G. Hamilton, Mr. Arthur

Elliot, Lord Ritchie, Lord Goschen, Mr. Winston Churchill, Colonel Seely, Sir George Kemp, and others. He wrecked our party 'by his Radical methods, and that wrecking alone made the smashing of the Constitution a possibility. How many moderate Liberals are only waiting to see a Referendum pledge to join the Conservative Party P Their names must be legion. Our party alone can stand between the Radicals and revolution. The breaking of that pledge will result in ruin to our party, and, what is of far greater consequence, ruin to the country.

The promise of a Referendum on Tariff Reform is looked upon here in the North as our Conservatives' debt of honour. It will be no use for our leader to lecture Mr. Asquith on dis- regarding his debt of honour concerning the Preamble and the reform of the House of Lords if our debt of honour (the promise of a Referendum) be thrown to the winds.—I am,

Sir, &c., E. L. OLIVER. The Waterhouse, Bollington, Macclesfield.