The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1910. THE TARIFF REFORM SITUATION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 830, 31 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1910. THE TARIFF REFORM SITUATION.

Behind all the stormy fighting of the past year over the Budget and the House of Lords there has loomed the fact that sooner or later the fiscal question must be fought out. Prior to, and during, the general election the Unionist party had to struggle under the handicap of internal dissension on this issue, and desperate attempts have been made from time to time by the Unionist Free-traders to shelve the fiscal question in order that the party might present a united front to the Radicals. The latest) and the most important of these attempts, was made by Lord Rosebeky on April 16, when, in a letter to the Times', he declared that the next general election would decide "the greatest issue of our time—that is, whether the Constitution shall bo wrenched out of all shape and proportion to give almost absolute power to a Single Chamber and its casual majority." Such an issue, he urged, should be a sole one, and the fiscal controversy would run athwart it. Tariffs, he admitted, were very important, but they could not vie in importance with this great constitutional qupstion. "Will the Unionist leaders then not drop for the coming election," he accordingly asked, "the Tariff issue and concentrate on the Constitution? They could do so cither by dropping the question altogether or agreeing to refer it to a Royal Commission. If victorious at the polls they could at once set about a real reform of the Second Chamber, and when that mandate was exhausted appeal to the country on their Tariff policy with the certainty of having .placed the Constitution on a sure basis for the future."' The 'Times admitted that the idea had some obvious advantages, but added that it was not practically feasible. The great body of the Unionist party could not be expected to abandon the policy on which they believe they won most of their victories in February.

The discussion that followed the publication of Lord Hosedeev's letter revealed the hopelessness of getting the Unionist party to drop Tariff Reform for the time being. Lord St. Aldwyn, one of the staunchest of Free-traders, and a leading member of the Unionist party, thought that nothing could be done against "the almost fanatical conviction of the absolute correctness of the policy of Tariff Reform" which characterised so many Unionists. This being the case, he suggested that Unionist Free-traders and moderate Liberals should organise and run their own candidates—candidates who would stand as Unionists pledged against Tariff reform so far as the new Parliament is concerned. Lord Ridley expressed tho official Unionist , view when he urged that the "Free-trade constitutionalists" were a minority, and should therefore give way to the majority of "Tariff Reform constitutionalists" in the Unionist party. What it is not difficult to believe is the opinion of the majority of those whose support is needed by the Unionists was voiced by Professor A. V. Dicey. Unionist voters, he said, were "sick with watching the tricks and turns of the party game," and were longing for the Unionist loaders to treat every other consideration as insignificant compared with the necessity for preserving the Constitution. It is the strength of this moderate Unionist opinion referred to by Professor Dicey and by Lord St. Aldwyn which should be, and which, if it could be accurately measured, certainly would be, the deciding factor for the Unionist party. Unfortunately it is impossible to say just how.strong an army can be made by the junction of the Unionist Free-traders with those Tariff Reformers and those undecided Unionists who are willing to have the fiscal issue suspended for a Parliament. The Tariff Reformers, as our quotation from the Times indicates, believe, or profess to believe, that the Unionist gain at the election was a gain by Tariff Reform. Yet it is. quite obvious, from the advice of the Spectator and of leading Unionist Free-traders, that a groat many Tariff Reformers owe their scats in the House to. the votes of fiscal opponents who hated the Radicals more than they could hate a tariff.

The position, therefore, looks very lilec a game of bluff between the opposing factions of the Unionist party. The Unionist Free-trade Club has been wound up, and its place has been taken by the "Constitutional Free Exchange Association," but a number of members of the club have preferred to join the Free-trade Union, which does not, like Uie Association, hold antiSocialism as a definite part of its platform. In the meantime Mit. CnuncHiLL has organised a Freetrade campaign on lii.es, in which he has been assisted by distinguished men on the Conser-. vative side in politics. The forces of Free-trade, that is to say, within and without the Unionist party, are rallying against the Tariff Ilof ormci's. No doubt some of the Tariff Reform leaders would adopt Loud ItnsEßEliv's suggestion if they dared, but their ncck-or-notliing ' friends will not allow them to do so. Why, in £aco o£ Iho danger to tlio who'lo

Unionist policy involved in an adamantine refusal even to postpone Tariff Reform as-a practical-issue, the extremists should refuse to give way, is not at all clear. A definite split at the polls in the shape of Unionist Free-traders as candidates will let the Liberals in; a Unionist majority secured with the aid of Free-trade votes cannot carry a tariff. Why, then, do the Tariff Reform stalwarts refuse to listen to Lord Rosebery's counsels? In part, perhaps, because they believe they can carry the country with them, but in part also, it cannot be doubted, because they feel that to postpone the issue will be to set the Unionist Free-traders free from anxiety ovor'thc constitutional question. Once set free from the necessity for crippling the Radicals, these Free-traders will be able to oppose Tariff Reform without any misgivings. So long as they are under the shadow of their present anxiety about bigger things than tariffs their votes, so it is hoped, can be used against Free-trade. These facts, added to the new activity of the Free-traders in educating the electorate, appear to make success for the Tariff Reformers impossible for at least one Parliament.