Evening Post. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1932. THE LIBERALS' DILEMMA

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 69, 19 September 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1932. THE LIBERALS' DILEMMA

On the 4th February when Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, explained to the House of Commons the tariff, proposals which he described as a "system of moderate protection scientifically adjusted' td the needs of industry and agriculture," they were criticised vigorously and in detail by Sir Herbert Samud, the Liberal Home Secretary. This attack by one Minister upon the policy which had been submitted by another as that of the whole.Cabinet was a severe shock to the Protectionist stalwarts and the constitutional pedants. Thoughit was, formally covered by the "agreement to differ" which was the alternative to the break-up of the National Government the opinion was widely expressed that Sir Herbert had gone too far, and the cry in the lobbies, was "Samuel must go." "The Times" did not join in this cry, but its opinion that he had gone quite far enough was shown by the remark that "the incident will be overlooked if the measure is not further hampered." Samuel did not go, and the measure which he opposed has now been in operation for more than six months and will shortly come up for review in circumstances which will impose a far more severe strain upon the "agreement to differ" and the unity of the Government. But on this occasion the disputants seem, at the first glance, though it may be a superficial glance, to have changed sides. Mr. Mac Donald, indeed, lvjio, himself a Free Trader, may be regarded as both the author of the "agreement to differ" and a consistent advocate of a liberal construction of ii, stands exactly where he did. On Friday he was quoted as declaring in the National Labour group's organ, "The Newsletter," that the emergency that called the National Government into being last year is not yet over and the work of the Government must, be continued and not shattered byr party fight. But instead of pleading for the rights of Sir Herbert Samuel and his Liberal colleagues under the "agreement to differ," the Liberal "NewsChronicle" is arguing that it is their duty to resign. "The Times," on the other hand, appeals* to them to retain their places 'on patriotic grounds, and'declares that the Teasons which induced the Liboials to stay in the National Government last November and last February have lost, none of their force. Domestically, the balancing of the Budget and the wonderful success of the War Loan Conversion scheme have gone far toward the restoration of credit and confidence, but unemployment and the need for more drastic economies still present problems of immense difficulty and importance. And, bad as the foreign, outlook was in November and February, one has only to think of Germany and China in order to realise that it is a good deal worse now. A mad world has more need of Britain's help than ever, and she has no strength to spare on party warfare if she is to be able 'co answer the call. From the standpoint, therefore, of the nation's need and the world's need the argument of "The Times" appears to be unanswerable. A large majority of the nation would, of course, be prepared to add that it is also unanswerable from the standpoint of the Empire's need, but that is just where the crux of the difficulty comes in for the thoroughgoing Free Traders represented by the "News-Chronicle." They do not think that the policy represented by the Ottawa agreements will be for the good either of the Empire or of the nation, and they think that,: it goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the vague understanding on which the bulk of'the Liberals agreed to join with the Conservatives and subordinate all party differences to the call of a great national emergency. From the Liberal- standpoint the tariff legislation of the National Government has presented an ascending scale of difficulty. Many members of the party had grave doubts about the Abnormal Importations Bill which empowered the Board of Trade to impose import duties not exceeding 100 per cent, ad valorem. But a tariff which, - however stringent, was aimed at the prohibition of dumping and the restoration of a favourable trade balance was beyond question an emergency.measure, and with a strong lead from Mr. Runciman, the Liberal President of the Board of Trade, who avowed -himself an unrepentant Free Trader^ it passed with only a single Liberal vote recorded against it. But Mr. Chamberlain's general tariff, with no emergency limitations, raised a much more serious difficulty for the Liberals, and nearly cost Sir Herbert Samuel his seat in . the Ministry. The demands o£the Ottawa Conference may possibly exact that price. . . It is indeed difficult to see how a tariff of which the duration will presumably be fixed by law at five

years can be brought within the definition of an emergency measure, or how a Free Trader can vote for a measure which, in intent and spirit, if not in legal effect, would bind the nation and the party over at least one General Election. He might possibly find a way out if Mr. Baldwin could satisfy him that the effect upon the Empire as a whole, and ultimately upon the world, will be the lowering of tariffs; and, so far as Sir Herbert Samuel is concerned, he may of course under : ■ the "agreement to differ" oppose, this measure, as he opposed the general tariff, without resigning. Whatever maybe Sir Herbert's solution of a difficult problem, he may be credited with having arrived at it conscientiously and. wjth a due regard for what he believes to be the public interest. He seems to us to have fully deserved the tribute paid to him by Mr. F. Kingsley Griffith, M.P., in the August number of the "Contemporary • Review":—

The position of Sir Herbert Samuel and those who follow him has .been' one of great difficulty. We have suffered a grievous loss by the death of Sir Donald Maclean, whose clear courage and robust Liberalism were a tower of strength. Sir Herbert, with the help of Sir Archibald Sinclair, has to give a lead to.all those who desire .to support the National Government in the tasks for which it was elected while resisting 4he fiscal changes which appear to go beyond its mandate. He has to defend Free Trade in the Cabinet and in the House, and to uphold the Government in' the face of."party discontent in the country;- He has to preserve a' Liberalism that shall be true to its traditions and> consistent' also with the decisions taken during the crisis of last year. Upon his performance of.these,tasks the'iutnre of the party may well depend. He has fulfilled them'in such a way as, to earn the gratitude of his followers and the admiration .of an increasing number of his opponents, and we owe it to him. that there is. still.a party in being .to make^ the Liberalism of the nation an' effective force in this Parliament and beyond. / ■'"' - :