Sra,—As one of the Unionist Free-traders who ventured to defend
in your pages a Parliamentary attitude of friendliness towards the Government so long as Mr. Balfour did not repudiate the Sheffield utterances of October, 1903, I now ask to state my belief that in enlarging the scope of those opinions at Edinburgh he has not only justified the allegiance granted him by consistent Free-trade supporters like myself, but established a new claim to be judged as if those later state- ments were absolutely reliable. It was manifestly out of the question that the Premier should have dealt at Southampton with this intricate question after an hour and ten minutes' speech upon the injury done to life and property by the Russian fleet on the Dogger Bank. There was, however, nothing to discourage his Free-trade leanings in the resolu- tion previously moved by Mr. Chaplin at the afternoon Con- ference, which never suggested Protective means in order to cure " dumping" ; nor can adherence to a free and unfettered Conclave of Great Britain, the Colonies, and India be held to have committed those present to favour any particular means of uniting the Empire. It is to the Retaliation of Adam Smith, and not to the Protection of List, that Mr. Chaplin's csolution generally referred. Otherwise the words "agrees with the Prime Minister" would be meaningless, as in the
former direction alone has he ever suggested how "to deal with the evils" of "unfair competition." I can assure your readers that, despite the thirteen dissentients, there were other Unionists present at the Conference who would never have taken part in the proceedings but for the knowledge that a compromise had been arranged for the sake of party unity, and that none of the extreme Protectionist proposals would receive serious consideration. And surely you, Sir, should rejoice that the great Unionist combination, despite Fiscal differences, still works together to safeguard the unity of the Empire, keep a majority together to gain the reform of equal representation for equal population, which on October 29th you begged us to vote for, and, last but not least, enable us to go forward with our diplomacy without swapping horses when approaching such a stream as the present international crisis seems likely to force us to cross. It appears to many of us that men may disagree on the Fiscal question, and yet admit the validity and strength of these conclusions. Finally, I must ask to be allowed to express ray surprise that so clear a reasoner as the Spectator should assume that Mr. Balfour's rejection of the general principles of Protection at Edinburgh is not contradicted by the speech of Mr. Chamberlain at Luton, which proposed to bolster up more than one industry by means of a 2s. duty on corn, together with 5 per cent. on flour, or by the proposed 10 per cent, on manufactured articles. For myself, I am glad of the opportunity of restating my former implicit belief in Mr. Balfour's standing firmly by his opinion as expressed in the famous Sheffield speech. I may add that I am the more tempted to ask you to print this as the powerful and logical advocacy of kindred views in the Standard has ceased, because by the power of the purse it has been thought fitting temporarily to arrest pens adjudged to be far too ready and acute not to expose the root difference between the economics of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain.
PERCY M. THORNTON.
—I am, Sir, &c., Battersea Rise House, West Side, Clapham Common, S. W.
[Nothing would please us better than to be able to agree with our correspondent, but unfortunately, for the reasons given by us elsewhere, we find this impossible in existing circumstances. As to the Sheffield speech programme, we can only say that though it is not so dangerous as Chamberlainism, it is far from true Free-trade, as the Duke of Devonshire showed by his resignation immediately on its promulgation. It also has this capital defect. Its author intimated that if Mr. Chamberlain succeeded in converting the Unionist party to Preference, and its inevitable consequences in regard to food taxation, the Premier would acquiesce in that policy.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
