Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1923. THE FISCAL ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 107, 2 November 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1923. THE FISCAL ISSUE

Kegret that the question of Imperial preference had been given such prominence at so inconvenient a time, and sympathy with the British Goverriment in the embarrassing position in which it had placed them, were feelings which, regardless of one's opinions on the merits of the issue from the^ Dominions' standpoint, it was difficult to repress when Mr. Bruce opened fire at the Economic Conference. One of the conditions on which the Conservatives had won the General Election was that they should refrain from any radical reconstruction of the tariff. Even the preference which they provided on currants and raisins was denounced as a violation of this pledge, though the matter was so trivial that ridicule rather* than indignaI tion was the chief weapon of attack, and the keynote of the defence was deprecation and apology. Upon a Government embarrassed ,by>. even-this timid/lip-service to ,a great principle, i!ne demand of the Dominions for the taxation of the food of the British people in thenfavour was* suddenly sprung in a manner that seemed to make "save me from my friends " an appropri T ate prayer for the Government. Despite the enthusiasm of the " Morning Post," the vagueness of the Prime Minister's references to the subject in his speech at Plymouth did not effectually dispose of this view. But the speech which he has since delivered at Swansea has removed any doubt. Whatever may be the ultimate effect of protection and preference upon the fortunes of the Government, there is no foundation left for the theory that they deprecate the too sanguine advocacy of their friends from the Dominions as adding to their load of,trouble. Mr. Baldwin's attitude to the fiscal issue at Swansea was not that of a man who is being pushed into something against his will. He was so thoroitgh-going that, instead of .any longer regarding Mr. Bruce's propaganda as having sprung an awkward surprise upon the Government, "one begins to wonder whether it was not a " putup job." On one vital point Mr. Baldwin goes ihdee'd a good,deal further than Mr. Bruce. The' need of the British farmer for protection was Mr. Bruce's startingpoint, and as the recognition of this need would admit the preference on their produce which the Dominions desire, he was not tempted to trespass any further on the domestic politics of Great Britain. Though by no means shutting the door against protection for the farmer, Mr. Baldwin lays greater emphasis on the protection of other industries. Approaching the question from the side of unemployment, he made the need of the manufacturer for protection the starting-point of his fiscal.programme. Among the four points ■tvhich he mentioned as vital to the prosperity of the nation the two that touched the tariff were as follows :— i Third, that neither employers nor workmen should be unfairly exposed to the. merciless attacks of foreign competition, when foreign competitors were able to entrench themselves behind the walls of their own tariff; and, fourth Britain should do its utmost to check the one-sided development of industries, which had drawn a million people from the land, and upset the healthy proportion which ought to exist between the urban and rural populations. Though the needs of agriculture are not excluded from this statement, they are not emphasised nor even expressly mentioned. The reference under this head to " the merciless attacks of foreign competition," and to the entrenchment of these competitors " behind the walls of their own tariff," is not naturally applicable to agriculture at all, and the second head only covers it iv an incidental and nogai tive kind of. way. 1£ My. Baldwin

desires." to check the one-sided development of industries which have drawn a million people from the land," he'will presumably do so lather by encouraging agriculture ™ by its rivals. ■Why he preferred the negative forP of expression is a question to which we can see no answer either in principle or in tactics. But there £ no ambiguity on the main point. J-he British Premier has amplified the general reference of his Plymouth speech to the protection of home markets, which, according to the correspondent of the " Daily Express," raised "the.only really enthusiastic cheer of the evening," and he has committed his party to a general policy of Protection. He has avoided Mr. Joseph Chamberlam's mistake of giving the needs of the Dominions the first place in his advocacy, which we regarded from the outset as putting the cart before the horse. But he follows Mr. Chamberlain in strongly emphasising the evils of dumping, and the present disorganisation of both the British and the European markets, gives him a stronger case,'and may secure him a better hearing. Mr. Baldwin is wise in expecting no weakening of the orthodox Lib--eralp in their allegiance to Free ■Trade. Is he equally wise when he expects " to obtain some support from orthodox Labour, which is naturally Protectionist"? The attitude of Labour to the anti-dump-ing legislation of the Lloyd George Government does not offer him much encouragement, and the taxation of food, which that Government left severely alone, threatens to unite the divided forces of the Opposition as no other issue has been able to do. But Mr. Baldwin is supposed to be contemplating a General Election early in the New Year on the very question which the enemies of the Government would have chosen.