The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1909. THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 455, 13 March 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1909. THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY.

■ *—-— It is not unlikely that the powerful address of the British Prime Minister to tho Freetrade Unionists may mark a turning-point in the fiscal controversy. Even in the enormously condensed version of the cable agent, the speech is an unusually strong defence of the Freetrade position, and there need be no surprise that it has spurred the Freetraders all over tho Kingdom to unusual enthusiasm and activity. The activity since .the last general election has been almost entirely confined to the tariff reform propaganda, a natural result of the sense of security which the Libera! victory at the election implanted in the minds of the Freetrade party. Nothing in the history of British politics of recent years is more remarkable than the failure of the tariff roform movement to die under the heavy blow of the 1006 olection. That it sur-

yived, and has oven gained in strength, is due to the powerful' press support which it has received, the association of fiscal reform with Imperialistic ideals, ancl the useful aid of the "preference" tariffs in the oversea States tff the Empire. It might reasonably be claimed that the most powerful intellects and the finest journals are still on the side of Frectrade. Placed side by side with a list of the twenty greatest men amongst the tariff reformers, a list of the twenty greatest men in the Freetradocamp would make the first of these facts very clear. Nor is the Spectator, the Westminster Gazette, or the Manchester Guardian inferior in ability, integrity, and authority to any of the tariff reform newspapers, while all three are far superior on all three points to all their rivals with the possible exception of The Times. But they are not papers that reach the multitude, and in any event they have not pursued throughout an unflagging and remorseless attack on the doctrine of tariff reform. New Zealanders would probably find it difficult to realise, from any account of it, the energy and,persistence with which the Harmsworth and Pearson newspapers havo been fighting for Mr. Chamberlain's policy. There is no doubt whatever that tariff reform has made some real progress in the electorates, but the long list of victories' for- the tariff reformers at the by-elections is rather a record of discontent with the Government than of approval for the new fiscal teaching., None of these victories has really shaken the confidence of the Freetrade party; the Manchester Guardian very quickly recovered from the alarm and astonishment which prompted it to regard the defeat of Mr. Churchill at Birmingham as "a deadly blow at Freetrade." But there have been many signs that the Freetrade newspapers are alive to the necessity for carrying on a fiery defence of the creed that they have until now, considered too sound and too deeply ingrained in the popular mind to require any organised and serious call to arms'. The Daily News has for some time- been preaching daily sermonettes, and the Manchester Guardian has only recently established a daily article on "Fiscal Facts and Fallacies." Those people who have not allowed the zeal and activity' of the tariff reformers to carry them away have always suspected that, for good or ill, the British people 'are still faithful to Freetrade. If, .as seems likely, Mr. Asquith's spcechwill call the forces of Frectrade into vigorous life, we may expect to see a tremendous exhibition of strength in tho established policy. It is always easier to obtain enthusiasm for change than for the maintenance of the existing order of things, and it would be a mistake to concludo from the energy of the advocates of change that equal or even greater strength cannot be exhibited by the defenders of things as they are. What makes Mr. Asquith's speech of moment is the fact that it was delivered on a Unionist platform. This can only mean that the coalescence of the Liberals with the Freetrade wing of the Unionist party, which, as we noted the other day, was being advocated by the Westminster Gazette, is being regarded in official circles as the correct policy to counter the tariff reform propaganda. The Freetrade Unionists have only to stand to their guns to make tariff reform impossible of achievement for years' at least, since such a: course would mako the.sinking of the fiscal issue necessary to preserve the Unionist party from complete

As we noted yesterday, Mr. Asqtjith's defence of Frcctrade seems to have admitted that "dumping" is an economic phenomenon which cannot bo treated on Frcefcrade lines. His creed holds good, apparently "except in times of dumping." It was only the other day that Me. Churchill spoke of the possibility of using retaliation "as an .occasional weapon," and added: "While lam responsible for the Board of Trade, no utterance of mine shall tie the hands of the country in the taking of any steps for the pormanent advantago of trade." -Wo arc given no hint of the policy which these enigmatic utterances indicate as being a possible graft upon the Freet'rade stock. Probably we shall find bonuses at tho end of this dark hint, although what system of bonuses can cope with wholesale "dumping" will be beyond most men's powers of conjecture. It may be recalled that on April 30 last Sir John Brunneu, a prominent Liberal, threw out a hint of the Liberal party's trade policy in a speech which was endorsed by Mr. Asquith.

"Might ho bo permitted," he said, "as a man of business, to tender one piece of hard, practical advice to the Government? Ho had been all his life a man of business, and he claimed to know something of tho business community. Ho wished to advise the Goyorninent to give up that part of the policy of the Manchester school which was called the laisser fairo policy. The Manchester school of sixty years ajjo considered that the best thing that could be done for trade was to let it alone. Now of this ono thing ho was convinced—that tho Tory party, whether their efforts were good or bad—ho believed them to he bad—had absolutely convinced tho mercantile community that they meant to make a big effort for tho benefit of trado when they came into power. He asked the Government, and advised them to adopt a liberal trade policy—a sane, a wholesome, and a sound trade policy—for tho reason that, knowing his follows in trade in England, ho was convinced that when a bad

timo camo they would accept the offor from the other sido if the Liberals made none." Later he explained that what he meant ■was the nationalisation of railways and canals, in order to cheapen transport. It will bo interesting to see how far this policy—their advocacy of which has made the Spectator regard Messes. Churchill and Lloyd-Geop.ge as Protectionists at heart—will bo advanced in the new campaign of the Freetraders.