The Dominion. FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1909. BRITISH POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 448, 5 March 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1909. BRITISH POLITICS.

There is a world o£ significance, and a deeply interesting political story, behind the statement of Sir A. F. Acland Hood, reported in our cable news, yesterday, regarding the attitude of the Unionist party in Great Britain on the fiscal question. Speaking as Chief "Whip of the party, he deprecates the action of Unionist Freetraders in appealing to their constituencies on the basis that they would' offer thomselves for re-election if they arc unable to support a tariff reform Budget. It would, ho said, bo a better course to stand down altogether until the next general election. Properly to understand the meaning of this singular advice, it is necessary to know that tariff reform has been definitely adopted as the official policy of the Unionist party, with the result that a serious split has taken place in tho ranks. When Mr. Chamberlain began to preach the new doctrino in 1903, Mr. -Balfour, foreseeing just such difficulties as have taken place, declared that "it would bo perfect folly on tho part of the Conservative party or the . Unionist party to make particular opinions on economic subjects a test of party loyalty." This formula kept tho party solidly enough united until a year or moro ago, when the extreme tariff reformers, chafing under tho tardiness of the conversion of tho whole party to Mr. Chamberlain's policy, began to press for tho adoption of tariff reform as a vital plank in the party platform.' They have succeedcd in this endeavour, and they have followed up their success by an attempt to drive Qufc of the pfirty those members who remain faithful to Frcetrade. Some time ago seme prominent members of the party banded themselves together in a sort of sccrct society, known as "the Confederates," to further the carrying out of tho Birmingham programme. Their activities' long ago filled tho moderate Unionists with serious alarm. It was not until the middle of January, some six weeks ago, that war was openly declared upon tho Unionist Freetraders in a series of articlcß in tho Morning' Post. The writer declares that the return of a Unionist majority would be "worse than useless," since it would mean' tho early defeat of Mr. Balfour's Bocond Adminiatration} and a great set-back to tho tariff

reform movemont. "It would be far better," the argument proceeds, "that the eventual triumph of Unionism should be delayed for a few years than that the country should send to Parliament a Unionist majority divided against itself on the vital issue of tariff reform." Henco tho policy of purging the party is considered necessary by the Confederates.

The Post's articles caused an immediate fer.ment in political circles, and as tho days followed with additions to, or revisions in, the Post's "black-list" of Freefooders, tho fuss became highly entertaining and deeply interesting. It was officially stated that the Conservative Central Office would decline to support any Unionist candidate who was not unreservedly in favour of the Birmingham policy. The Liberal papers, although naturally intensely amused by tho split in tho party, and tho tragic gravity of the disputants, have not failed to profit by it. The anxiety of tho Confederates to (bludgeon their Freetrade friends into submission is interpreted in some quarters as ovidenco of the secret doubts nf the tariff reform leaders as to tho progress -of their cause—a not unreasonable deduction from the methods that are being adopted to make the Unionist party homogeneous on a policy which, when last advocated, was rejected by the nation. Tho Conservative Central Office being inclined to run its own candidates, and the Unionist Freetrade Club having met the challenge of the Confederates with a declaration of war on its own account, the obvious-thing for the Liberals to do is to encourage tho split. It says much, however, for the authority of principle that some of tho Liberal newspapers are advocating a most magnanimous policy. The Westminster Gazette, for example, thinks that tho Liberal party "ought to do everything possiblo to help" the staunch Freetraders of the Opposition:

It is too much to ask of convinced Liberals that when tho choice is between a Freetrader who is aiso a staunch Liberal and a Freetrader who is an opponent of tho chief Liberal measures they should give their votes to the latter instead of the former. And whero not to enter the field is to sacrifice tho chancc of returning a whole-hearted supporter of tho Government, it cannot fairly bo expected that Liberal Associations should abstain. But there aro other cases in which to run a candidate for the mero sake of running him may simply have tho result of handing to the Protectionists a seat which might bo held by a united Freetrado vote. In all these cases our counsel is to join forces and concentrate on the Freetrade candidate who is most likely to win tho seat.

Tho full extent of tho peril of tho Unionist party is apparent from tho line which tho Times has been taking in its anxiety to hoal tho breach. The Times regrets tho pig-headedness of the Unionist Freetraders, but it profoundly distrusts tho wisdom of hounding them out of tho party. Other things being equal, preference should bo given to. a tariff reformer as against a Free-foodor, but there are many cases in which things aro not equal:

There aro cases in which an unconverted Unionist is known to and trusted by his constituency. Ho has a greatly better chanco carrying it for his party than has any tariff reformer who may bo foisted upon it. Is he to be disowned, frowned upon, or 'opposed by a tariff reform Unionist? In that case tho seat is probably lost to tho party altogether. Thus tho question really becomes It it better to have a Unionist in tho HousO who does not accept tariff reform or to have a Liberal or Radical opposed to Unionist policy altogether?

In any event, the Times thinks that tho prospects of tariff reform are so good that the next election will yield a Unionist majority large enough to remain unaffected on a fiscal division by tho presence of dissidents within the party. But oven if tho Confederates' forecast of only a small Unionist majority is correct, the Times cannot admit "that a change in our fiscal policy can be made by a small majority, obtained by a drastic purge even of the party to which it belongs." The course to be followed, therefore, is a policy of patient waiting "until there is in favour of' tariff reform a great and solid majority of the people." Mb. J. Chamberlain has announced that he hopes to re-enter politics very soon, and his reappearance will assuredly stimulate tho movement which he set on foot. But it milsfc not be forgotten that the Unionist Freetraders include some of the greatest and most authoritative statesmen in Britain. Lord Gosciien, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Curzon, Lord Cromer, Lord George Hamilton, the Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Edward Clarke—that is a formidable array of names to oppose the names that the tariff reformers can bring forward. It is highly probable that the friction within the party will before long make clear, what is still very doubtful, tho real position of fiscal reform in tho mind of the people as a wholo.