TOPICS OF TIIE DAY.
THE POPE, THE PROTECTIONIST, AND THE PEWTER POT.
"ENGLiND does not love coalitions," -said the politician who is at the head of one of the oddest coalitions ever seen within the walls of Parliament. It is a fortuitous concourse of atoms, and of atoms which -never-could cohere except for purposes of mischief. The Pope's nominees, Bowyer Hennessey, and Company, range themselves side by side with kr. Newdegate and Mr. Whiteside, The English Tories, who boast of -being -the backbone of English Protestantism, cooperate with the supporters of the Papacy, one to rout a Government supposed to be too friendly to France, the other to rout a Government supposed to be too hostile to the Pope. Even Sir Francis Baring's dislike of French policy in Italy is strong enough to make him object to .a treaty between England and Franoe. In alliance with these come the mere party men- the Du Canes and Northcotes and Hubbards—and finally the licensed victualling interests, hitherto supposed to be friendly to Italian freedom, though ever excited with suspicions of the sinis- ter designs of France. The motives thathave led these incongru- ous elements together are but too plain. ''Suspicion of France, a lin- gering love of protection, affection for hops and malt, and devo- tion to the _Papacy. So that it has been Mr. Gladstone's fortune to call up an opposition, which, under Mr. Disraeli's congenial leading, has for its essential elements the Papacy, Protection, and the Pewter Pot !
As might be expected, the arguments that are used by the spokesmen of this wonderful combination are, like it, inconsis- tent and conflicting. We are told that the lowering of the duties on wine will ruin the beer interest—the hop-grower, the malt- sten the publican. This could only be effected on the hypothesis that wine will be largely consumed by those who now drink beer. Yet the same speaker who used this notable argument, cut the ground from under his feet in a subsequent section of his speech, by marshalling a formidable array of statisties to prove that the consumption of wine will not increase. In the former case he ap- pealed to the pockets of the Essex brewers ; in the litter case he desired. to convict Mr. Gladstone of the financial offence of sacri- ficing present, without taking security for future revenue. Hence
the n inconsistency. Then' again, we have the Protec- tionists taking free trade ground against commercial treaties. They tell us it is wrong in principle. But when they are re- minded that other countries, Geeing the advantages France will reap from the treaty, may be induced to lower their tariffs, a sage Disraelite, an opponent of commereial treaties tells us that other countries are not likely to lower their tariffs, because having parted with all, we shall have nothing to give in return. An argument good against a government which based its commercial policy on the principle of exclusive treaties, but utterly worthless as against a proposal which, in giving what are called advantages to France, gives them, at the same time and by the same net to all the world. Perhaps the lowest kind of argument used against the treaty, and therefore against the B ud get, is that wenre about to con- fer certain favours on a natural enemy, to strengthen a "dominant, restless, military power," and feed it fat at our expense. The Tories have clutched at an impetuous speech of Mr. Fox and brandished it in the faces of the Whigs. Granting that Franca, is the natural enemy of England—une tres forte supposition— how can we feed her and strengthen her unless our merchants deliberately sell their goods for less than prime cost ? Has com- merce ceased to be a profitable exchange of equivalents, because Mr. Cobden has negotiated a treaty with the Emperor Napoleon ? The idea is absurd. How long-lived are fallacies ! It might have been supposed that reasonable men, in the second half of the nineteenth century, would have ceased to believe that one nation's gain is another nation's loss. Yet here is the old and often-exploded fallacy flourishing in St. Stephen's as freshly as if Adam Smith and his successors had never been born. The Tories talk of the precedent of Mr. Pitt, and when a successor of Kr. Pitt, at the British Exchequer, comes down with a plan to pro- mote commercial intercourse between England and France they quit the precedent of Mr. Pitt and take up with the precedent of Mr. Fox and his doctrine of natural enemies !
Another argument of the same hypocritical description is, that the Government afforded the House no opportunity of discussing the treaty. Why, every gentleman had the treaty in his pocket, and .its clauses on the tip aids tongue ; everyapeaker throughout the week has discussed its provisions, and every speaker will discuss them so long as the Budget is before the Rouse; for in one sense the treaty is the Budget and the -Budget is the treaty, and we shall hear of " equivalents " and "concessions" and the "price we pay " until the end of the chapter. There is one sound argument against the treaty. It is that
which Lord Grey fastened upon at the outset, and has continued to enforce with his accustomed pertinacity. It is a doctrinaire argument, but nevertheless a good one ; vet it is not absolute and unexceptionable like one of the commaidmente. The argument is that you proceed on a false prindiple when you make treaty arrangements with a foreign power, -which deprive you of the liberty of dealing as you please with the sources.of taxation, at the same time that you hamper yourself with obligations which may possibly give rise to misunderstandings with that power. We are quite willing to concede the rule as one of general application ; but we are not willing to concede-that it is a general rule so perfect as
to admit of no exception. Here is an exceptional case. France and England lie near each other. Both are fertile, rich in natural and manufactured products. Yet by a lamentable fatality they have been commercially isolated for centuries. France has laboured under that protection which is the bane-of industry and trade ; a protection often amounting toprohibition. The Ernpetor proposes to break in upon this system of artificial isolation; and he asks us to help him. _Why should we not assent ? Why should we not enable a sagacious monarch to overcome the pre-. judices of his people, and allow them to taste of the sweets of free- trade'? But, it is said, to do that is -to infringe on the canons of political economy and resort to the exploded system of reciprocity treaties. We are perfectly willing to agree that the better planter England and France would have been to come to an.understandiug, and have respectively made reductions in the duties levied on each other's produce. There was, however, a powerful obstacle in the way of that mode. The Emperor could only ensure the reduction of duties on his side by means of a treaty. Were we from an affection for free trade principles in the abstract to deny him the means ? Suppose that we had a full exchequer. Might we not have reduced duties on French commodities ; might we not have made remissions if no treaty had been even dreamed of? Shall we refuse to make reductions and remissions solely to avoids, commercial treaty with France ? Shall we refuse to create be- tween the two countries those commercial interests admitted to be so powerful in keeping the peace between the United States and Great Britain ? Some of the Tories say that the treaty is politi- cally wrong, but commercially right. Does this mean that an alliance with France is wrong ? Is that the secret of the opposi- tion, open and covert, with which Mr. Gladstone's scheme has been assailed ? Would a closer alliance between the people of Erance and the people of England be a political evil P Is that why Papal partisans and Orangemen, Roman Catholics and Pro- testants, Protectionists and pewter-pot men, join to help Mr. Dis- raeli in his assault upon Downing Street ? The Tories take upon themselves a great responsibility when they pursue a course tend- ing to keep up the artificial separation existing between the two muitries, and pursue it in the name of free trade ; and we may be excused for suspecting the objects of men who in the same breath refuse to accept a treaty because it runs counter to the principles of free trade, and refuse to abolish differential duties because they run counter to the principles of protection.
Previous page
