TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN AND THE "SPECTATOR."
WE publish in another column a short letter from Mr. Austen Chamberlain in which he tells us that we have misconceived the meaning of the speeches delivered at Manchester by him and by Lord Derby. Mr. Austen Chamberlain quotes a passage from his speech and then adds: "There is no word here of the abandonment of Tariff Reform at the next election or by the next Unionist Government." We, of course, accept Mr. Austen Chamberlain's statement unreservedly. By the very nature of things he must be the best interpreter of his own speech, and we are extremely sorry to have been led into a misconception of his attitude. Since it is apparent from the reticence of Mr. Austen Chamberlain's letter that he deprecates further discussion, and since it is obvious that heated controversy must prove injurious to the Unionist Party by leading to recriminations, we shall say as little about the matter as possible. It may be well, however, while refusing to engage in a verbal battle, to remind our readers of the genesis of the incident, which will, we trust, be from to-day a closed book.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain speaks of our misconceiving the meaning of his speech. We think it would have been more correct if he had spoken of the misconcep- tion of the Pall Mall Gazette, for, to be perfectly candid, we may say that we should never have dreamt of writing as we wrote in regard to the Manchester meeting if it had not been for the comment of the Pall Mall Gazette. As we pointed out last week, it would not have been wise or tactful for Unionist Free Traders who had, like us, pledged themselves for the sake of the Union to support the official policy of the Unionist Party, even if that policy included Food Taxes, to interpret unassisted the meaning of Mr. Austen Chamberlain's Manchester speech, and of Lord Derby's special endorsement of a certain phrase therein. When, however, as we proceeded to explain, we saw the best known and most trusted exponent of Tariff Reform in the Press, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, setting forth what ought to be the policy of the Unionist Party at any General Election held before the settlement of the Irish question, we felt, as we still think it was natural for us to feel, that we could not possibly do any mischief or anger Tariff Reformers by drawing attention to that declaration of policy. It is an open secret that for the last few years the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette has been the special exponent of the forward section of the Tariff Reform Party, and we held that we could not be doing anything indiscreet in follow- ing his lead.
As we have stated above, we had no notion of basing a leading article or, indeed, making any special comment on Mr. Austen Chamberlain's speech till we saw the leading article in the Pall Hall Gazette. That convinced us that Mr. Austen Chamberlain's words had a special significance. This conviction was strengthened by the fact that, though we diligently searched the Unionist and Tariff Reform papers, we found no repudiation of the words of the Pall Mall Gazette in any quarter, either on the Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. This confirmed us in the view that the attitude of the Pall Mall Gazette was the official attitude. The publication of our article seemed to bring us further confirmation of this opinion, for last Saturday the Pall Mall Gazette published long extracts from our leading article without any disclaimer, and apparently with complete approval. Our article was, indeed, described as "a remarkable article," and as "a tribute to the Pall Mall Gazette." We think, then, that our readers and the vast bulk of the Tariff Reform Party will admit that the misconception, which it is clear from Mr. Austen Chamberlain's letter there has been, must be laid not so much at our door as at that of the Pall Mall Gazette. And here we had perhaps better quote again the actual words of the Pall Mall Gazette upon which we relied, for prob- ably our readers have by this time forgotten them :—
"That being frankly said, let us add something equally frank. The Unionist Party cannot deal with Tariff Reform merely by way of evasion and suppression. When the Irish question is out of the way and the Opposition comes to the necessity of consider- ing upon what new bases its future is to be founded, it will have to take up once for all a more decisive and logical attitude for or against Tariff Reform. But in the meantime Tariff Reform is no the issue. Ireland is the issue. In dealing with the plain people who do not understand wavering and finesse, the words of faith are beyond price. But there is no possible good to be got by trying to drag out faint words on Tariff Reform from reluctant lips at an undesirable moment. Until the whole struggle on the Home Rule Bill is decided, and with it the fate of Ulster, there must be no division in the Unionist Party on other subjects. Afterwards, as any far-sighted politician can already see, the Unionist Party as a whole will have to face the alternative of restoring the constant advocacy of Tariff Reform in Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's broader spirit—if not in the precise terms of his doctrine—or of abandon- ing that policy altogether."
We should like to leave the whole episode here, but we must add a few words in order to avoid the possibility of a new misconception. The editor of the Pall Mall Gazette and of the Observer, writing in Sunday's Observer, though he does not withdraw the passage which we have quoted from the Pall Mall Gazette or deny that the true policy is "Ulster first," takes the Spectator to task for what it said. We are not going to wrangle with the Observer over this matter, nor shall we do more than point out that if the Observer article is read as a whole its conclusions still seem to be exactly those of the Pall Mall Gazette of Tuesday week and of the Spectator. There are only two points with which we wish to deal. First, we must repudiate all knowledge of what the Observer calls "certain efforts. .. from Free Traders who were to be finally placated by the Edinburgh Compromise to secure the drop- ping of Tariff Reform altogether." Who the Free Traders thus mysteriously alluded to may be we know not. We can only say that they have held no communication with the Spectator, and that if they had they would certainly have received no encouragement from us. We have always said, and we say it again, that if any demand comes for the temporary postponement of Tariff Reform pending the settlement of the Irish question, it must come from the rank-and-file of the Tariff Reformers, and not from Free Trade Unionists like ourselves. It may be remembered that this was also the attitude which we adopted in regard to the dropping of the Food Taxes. We told the Unionist leaders plainly that as long as the Union was in peril we should support Unionist candidates, no matter what their fiscal policy. Advocates of Food Taxes would be as readily and as loyally supported by us as non-Food Taxers. No doubt we expressed at the same time our opinion that to insist on Food Taxes was not the way to win the votes of the balancing electors for the Union, but we always made it clear that, whether our political strategy was approved or not, we should support the decision of the Unionist leaders. They would be wise, we held, to make sure of the Union before they made sure of Tariff Reform, but a decision against this view would not alter our attitude for one moment. We will, however, go further than merely saying that we have engaged in no hidden movement of Unionist Free Traders to undermine Tariff Reform. We do not believe that there has been any such movement, for we believe that the leading men among the old Unionist Free Traders who have not joined the Liberals are heartily in agreement with us that, till the fate of the Union is decided, they must support the official programme, whatever it may be, and that movements for the postponement of Tariff Reform, if they come at all, must come from the Tariff Reformers.
The other point we must notice in the Observer article is the amazing suggestion that the Spectator seems to think that even if in some way or other the Irish question were settled by agreement, the Unionist Party would still be bound not to press for Tariff Reform. Such a notion has, of course, never entered our heads. We should have thought it im- possible for any reasonable person to have read our article of last week or our previous articles and not to have realized that any suggestion we have made to the Tariff Reformers in the matter of strategy or policy has always been subject to the needs of the Union. If the Union is saved, either by the complete defeat of Home Rule or by some com- promise, then of course the full Tariff Reform policy can be, and we presume will be, revived. It is only until the Home Rule struggle is decided that we have asked that the Union should be made the essential issue—the issue upon which all sections should concentrate. To be specific, if we imagine that the conversations now going on between Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Asquith have ended in, say, the exclusion of Ulster and the passage of the rest of the Bill, followed a year hence by a General Election, then we hold that the Unionist leaders would not only have the right to press Tariff Reform as the essential issue, but would also have the further right to revive Food Taxes and Preference. The Edinburgh Compromise was only intended to last for the period during which the Union was in danger. With the disappearance of that danger would disappear the Compromise and the full Tariff Reform policy would be revived—provided, of course, the Tariff Reformers themselves wished that it should be so. In fine, we, like the Pall Mall Gazette, were dealing with the possibility of an immediate General Election before either the Home Rule Bill was passed or any compromise arrived at. It was natural, nay necessary, that we should argue on this hypothesis, for all Unionists are demanding, and rightly demanding, a General Election.
The Observer, in the course of the leading article to which we have referred, uses these words : "So far all the effective sacrifices have come from one side "—the context implying, of course, the Tariff Reform side. The last thing we want to do is to bandy words as to who is making the most sacrifices, especially when we have always admitted that the Tariff Reformers have made, and are making, great sacrifices. We should have thought, how- ever, that the editor of the Observer would have had enough imagination to see that there must be some amount of sacrifice on the part of those who control the Spectator in declaring, as we have always declared, our willingness while the Union is in danger to vote for and support Food Taxers to the utmost. But we do not want to end upon a point of difference, and would rather dwell upon the following passage towards the conclusion of the Observer's article :— "Will not the Spectator use its great influence with its friends as we use ours with our friends ? In theory all Unionists are urged to make every sacrifice for the Union ; in practice, Tariff Reformers are expected to make all the sacrifices up to the point of self-annihilation, while many Unionist Free Traders, it seems to be assumed, will make no sacrifice whatever of their fiscal opinions, even in the cause of Ulster. Again we hope that the Spectator, for the present, will appeal to its friends, as we appeal to ours, to abide quietly by the Edinburgh Compromise, however unsatisfyinF in itself to all sections. Afterwards Unionists will be free for decisive discussion."
Here the Observer need have no sort of doubt. We shall go on urging on our friends, as we have always urged on them, the duty of supporting Tariff Reform candidates, however extreme, as long as they are sound on the question of the Union and Ulster. That is the only point that matters.
Let us say again that we should never have thought of making any demand or giving any hint that Tariff Reform should be postponed, even at an ad hoc "Union and Ulster" Dissolution, unless the suggestion had first come from so zealous and whole-hearted an exponent and leader of the Tariff Reform movement as the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette and of the Observer. We must add that we have said our last word on this incident, and do not desire to publish any correspondence on either side.-
Previous page
