TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BONAR LAW'S SPEECH. DOAbiNssRpoeLV speech d itnob ubre warmly , bmakes congratulated it o clear, lat i Es
beyond the reach even of Liberal misrepresentation, that the Unionist Party has not only excluded all proposals for Food Taxation from its general election programme, but is pledged in the most solemn and binding way, if returned to power, not to introduce any such taxation in the next Parliament. The distinction is important. A party might very well, before a general election, decide not to advocate a particular system of taxation, yet afterwards, and when they had been in office, say, two years, might in spite of that fact establish a wholly new fiscal system. For example, the Liberals carried their land taxation, their old-ago pension proposals, and their insurance policy, though none of these had been part of the party programme at a general election. The Unionist Party has, in fact, bound itself not to tax food without a special appeal to the people at a general election in a manner which is without precedent. That they were right to take this exceptional step we have no doubt whatever.
We are confronted with a revolution of the most serious kind with which any country can be confronted, a revolu- tion the chief feature of which is the disintegration of the central Imperial unit. A revolution which leaves the fabric of the nation entire, though it may profoundly alter social and political conditions—as, for example, a Franchise Bill—can at any rate be reversed almost as quickly as it is made. In the case of breaking up the unity of a country the conditions are altogether different. If a separate Parliament and a separate Executive are created in one part of the kingdom, such an arrangement cannot be terminated in fact, even though it may in theory, by a. mere repealing Act. An Irish Parliament once established or re-established would, we are sure, reassert its " inherent rights " and claim to be something a great deal more than the mere creature of a Westminster statute. The Unionist Party was faced with the imminent danger of such a revolution, a revolution, moreover, to the fear of which the party owes its existence and its name. That being so, it was obviously the prime duty of the Unionist Party at the next general election to use every legitimate means in its power to secure a con- centration of Unionist effort to defeat Home Rule. To do anything short of this might be to betray the cause of the Union. What, therefore, the Unionist Party bad to con- sider, as the prospect of an election drew near, was the best method of making it possible for every voter in the country to vote Unionist, the best method of setting free every electoral influence that was inclined to move in a Unionist direction. But when once this principle was accepted—as it was bound to be accepted by every Unionist as soon as it was stated—it became evident that the Food Taxes must be abandoned at the coming general election. Unquestionably the proposal to tax food has proved in the past, and would prove in the future, an obstacle to the casting of votes against the destruction of the Union. A certain number of Unionists, though strongly opposed to the taxation of food per se, were, like ourselves, prepared to vote for it rather than to acquiesce in the destruction of the Union. A far larger number of voters, however, were not prepared to take this view of the choice of the evils. It was clear that as long as the taxation of food was part of the Unionist programme and was involved in a Unionist victory, they would not vote for the Unionist candidates, but would actually vote for those who were press- ing for the destruction of the Union. Their votes could only be obtained at the price of the abandon- ment of Food Taxes. When that fact was once ascertained, there was nothing for Tariff Reformers who cared for the Union, as Mr. Bonar Law, Lord Lansdowne, and the bulk of the Unionist Party cared for it, but to make the necessary sacrifice. In such a crisis as this no man need be in the least ashamed of confessing to such party opportunism. Home Rule must be defeated. It could not be defeated without the abandonment of the Food Taxes. Therefore Food Taxes had to be abandoned. Strangely enough, the fact that Mr. Bonar Law is him- self in favour of Imperial Preference through Food Taxation. and that, therefore, he has made a very great personal sacrifice in acting as be has acted, appears to a section of Liberals as a proof of his want of sincerity, of deter- mination, of stedfastness, and of every other quality of statesmanship and political integrity. For ourselves we can only say that we hold a very different opinion of his conduct, and that we believe that our, and not the Liberal, verdict will be that of the country and of posterity. We hold that Mr. Bonar Law has proved that he has the highest gift of statesmanship, a sense of proportion. He was willing to make a personal sacrifice of a kind that was specially disagreeable to him rather than abandon the essential consideration of Unionist policy, the safety of the Union. A man of lesser political gifts, a man impelled by personal pride, a man handicapped by an undue sense of amour propre, would very likely have sacrificed the cause of the Union in order that he might appear con- sistent. Happily for the Unionist Party and the country Mr. Bonar Law was not moved by motives so narrow and so mean. Like a wise man and a loyal man he kept his eye upon the main object of the Unionist Party. Again, like a wise statesman, having once adopted the principle that all other considerations must be sacrificed to the Union, he carried out his decision fearlessly and without reserve. A weak man, having made the decision about Food Tames, would have probably thought it prudent to refuse to proclaim his decision too loudly. Mr. Bonar Law has seen the futility of any attempt to ride two horses. In his Edinburgh speech, though he must have known that it would give a great deal of pain to many of the thick-and- thin supporters of Preference, he again and again reiterated the fact that there can be no taxation of food in the next Parliament if the Unionists win, and therefore that no voter is in any possible danger of furthering the cause of the taxation of food by voting Unionist at the coming election. All who detest the destruction of the Union and all who feel that the present Government have forfeited the confidence of the country may now vote Unionist without the slightest fear of increasing the burdens on the poor man's home.
It will be said, no doubt, that Mr. Bonar Law, while making it clear that Food Taxes were abandoned, also nailed the flag of Tariff Reform to the Unionist mast. We admit that he made it clear that a reform of the tariff in a Protectionist sense remains part of the Unionist programme. We are, of course, as much opposed to Protectionist ideas as we were before. At the same time we hold that Mr. Bonar Law would not in the circumstances have been justified in throwing over Tariff Reform even if he had been personally willing to do so. Judged by the test which we mean to apply to all proposals at the next general election—i.e., whether votes will be lost or gained for the cause of the Union—we hold that it would have been unwise to have abandoned this part of the Unionist programme. Whether rightly or wrongly we are not going to argue now, the fact remains that abstract proposals for moderate taxation on the importation of manufactured articles are not an obstacle to the obtaining of votes for the support of the Union. In the abstract the ordinary voter sees no objection to what he considers " administering a reasonable tit for tat to the foreigner." We regret that he takes this view, but the fact is one which it would be insincere for us to ignore. Whether the ordinary voter, when the details are worked out, will or will not approve of a particular tariff is another question. At present he is clearly inclined to think that the foreigner is having it too much his own way. Protec- tion, in fact, has taken hold of the minds of a very large section of the working class in England, just as it has done in America and in the democratic British colonies. That this is so is hardly to be wondered at when we consider the intellectual basis of trade unionism. Trade unionism is essentially protectionist in its nature, and it is only by an accident that the British trade unionist sometimes imagines himself a Free Trader in the matter of imports. We have not forgotten the clamour raised by Liberal and Radical trade unionists against Lord Haldane because he dared to buy horse-shoes for the British cavalry in the cheapest market and not in the home market. That controversy showed how skin-deep were the Free Trade views of a large section of the Labour Party.
The proposal to tax the foreigner will not, as we have said, lose votes to the Union, or, to put it in another way, the abandonment of the Protectionist principle would have lost a great many more votes than it would have gained. Therefore we have no quarrel with Mr. Bonar Law in this respect. It will be quite time enough when we have saved the Union to argue the question of Protection with our fellow Unionists. Meantime we will only say that, in our opinion, the Union and the salvation of Ulster would be cheaply purchased by an increase of indirect taxation. We may venture, however, to restate a prophecy often made in these columns. In the end we shall have neither Protection nor Home Rule. In any case, we would urge all Unionist Free Traders and all moderate Free Traders not to trouble their heads at the next election about the fiscal controversy, but to bend every possible effort upon overthrowing the present Ministry and placing a Unionist administration in power. Even if, for the purposes of argument, such action must be held to involve a victory for Protection, we would urge them with all the power at our command to vote for Unionist candidates.
We are glad to note Mr. Bonar Law's reference to the question of the rates. We agree with him that agricul- ture deserves the special attention of the Unionist Party. We desire to tee agriculture encouraged, or, to put it in a fairer way, to remove the monstrous and unfair discouragement from which the great industry of agri- culture now suffers. The agricultural industry in this country is subject to a special tax to which no other industry is exposed, and until this special taxation is abolished it will be impossible to say that we have given agriculture a fair chance. At present we are always deploring the decadence of agriculture while ignoring the fact that we place it under a monstrous disability. Before we consider the question of giving bounties to agriculture, let us refrain from taxing it unjustly. At present the raw material of agriculture, the fields out of which the crops spring, are taxed in a way which in the case of any other raw material would be considered absolutely crushing. The agriculturist is taxed in respect of his house and the buildings in which his industry is carried on, just as is, say, the manufacturer of boots or of soap. Here they are on an equality. But when the ordinary business man is let free, three or four more turns of the screw are reserved for the farmer. We hope very much that when the proposals at which Mr. Bonar Law hinted are worked out in detail it will not be a case of half measures or palliatives, but of the total abolition of taxes on agricultural land.
Previous page
