' On Monday in the Commons Sir James Kitson moved
a Resolution declaring that the House recognised that the result of the recent General Election had been a demonstra- tion of .the fidelity of the British people to Free-trade, and announced its determination to resist all proposals savouring of Protection. The Motion may be described as a declaratory judgment of Parliament, ratifying the verdict of the country. Mr. Balfour, who spoke first on the Opposition side, began by saying that the Resolution was in effect a vote of censure upon the Opposition, a novel Parliamentary operation, since it went out to meet trouble before it arose. Criticising the wording of the Motion, he asked five questions. Did the Government condemn as Protection only the two expedients of a general tariff upon foreign goods and the taxation of foreign corn ? If they condemned Protection absolutely, would they abolish existing Protective taxes, such as those on tobacco and cocoa, which were not balanced by a corresponding Excise ? Would they include in their condemnation the protection of labour, such, for example, as the prohibition of the importation of foreign workmen during a strike ? Would they abolish Protection in India, —a country over the finances of which, they had absolute control ? Did they wish to commit the House for six years to a refusal to discuss any attempt to broaden the basis of taxation even for purposes of national defence or social reform P The new Chancellor of the Ex- chequer would be hard pressed to raise funds for the many enterprises he was pledged to. Was the House to pass a self-denying ordinance wholly forbidding the consideration of new methods in the case of an emergency merely because they were vulgarly labelled Protective? We have dealt with Mr. Balfour's dialectical subtleties elsewhere, and will only record here our satisfaction that they did not in any way impress the House. The new Members have happily enough common- sense to agree with the Hermit of Prague that "what is, is," and are not in the least inclined to admit that there is no real distinction between Free-trade and Protection, or that "Tariff for revenue only" is an unscientific principle quite unworthy of the consideration of the political philosopher.
Previous page
