The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1910. MR CHAMBERLAIN’S INJUNCTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7048, 9 February 1910, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1910. MR CHAMBERLAIN’S INJUNCTION

Mr Chamberlain has gone to the south, of France, we were told yesterday, and it would seem that on tho eve of leaving England he seized the opportunity of suggesting an improvement in Mr Balfour’s methods.of. campaigning. “ The food duties,” he said, “ must he explained baldly and straightforwardly ” —which is but another way. of saying that this is what Ea 3 not been done. Tho truth, of course, is that there has been no explanation of the food duties, straightforward or otherwise, for two very simple reasons. These are (1) That the fallacy of Mr Chamberlain’s earlier theses was long ago exposed, and (2) That tho suggested preference on colonial imports is no longer tho essential part of the tariff reform programme, and has merely been maintained therein as a bribe to agrarian interests and to mask the real objective of tho propagandists. In Mr Chamberlain’s mouth preference was represented to bo' something which called for no sacrifice. It was not to increase the taxation paid by the industrial classes. It was proposed as “ the only system by which the Empire can be kept together ” and all good Imperialists were urged to give it their support.

What is the position to-day? Simply that Mr Chamberlain’s original propositions have been thrown overboard altogether. There is no serious pretence that tariff reform is “only a readjustment of taxation.” It stands forward for judgment now as the means by which Conservatism recom-

monds tlie nation to raise millions of additional revenue a year. It is the supreme irony of the situation, therefore, that a “ straightforward ” explanation of the food duties is the very thing the Unionists find it desirable to avoid. They are driven to tho expedient of telling the farmers that food taxes will raise prices and telling tho workmen that they will ho lowered. This is undoubtedly “ bold,” but there is room for some difference of opinion about its straightforwardness. Mr Chamberlain very rightly says that “the Imperial side is the stronger side of tariff reform.” There are clearly more votes to be obtained by making catoh-ories of “ the Empire ” and “our over-sea dominions” than by telling the proletariat exactly what tariff reform and preference mean. In thoir evolution tho food taxes have advanced from preliminary humbug to transparent subterfuge.

Why the wealthiest nation in the world should seek to raise revenue by placing a tax upon the food of the people has never been explained. If wo except the inadequate contention that this procedure is a statesmanlike alternative to “ Socialism ” and the ludicrous argument that , the Empire can be strengthened by such an arrangement the British electors have not been furnished with a single reason to justify altering their historic fiscal p;licy. The theory that commerce and industry oan be regulated by the State imposing taxes upon them is in itself a concession to the crudest form of Socialism, and the idea that Imperial benefits must follow in the wake of taxed bread is too absurd to require refutation. There was a time in Mr Chamberlain’s career when he himself stated this view with the , boldness and straightforward clearness which ho now regrets his successors have failed to show upon the reverse attitude. In 1881 the Pair Trade- League was formed, “fair trade,” like “ tariff reform,” being the alias of an organisation to secure taxation upon imported wheat, flour, meat, and so forth. , Its most bitter opponent was Mr Chamberlain, and his declaration that “ if you tax food you Tower wages” scotched tho movement for a time. Four years later " fair trade ” was dragged to tho front again at a general election, and once more Mr Chamberlain attacked it in good Amglo-Baxon. In. one of his speeches he reminded the electors that “ the condition of the farmer was never so hopeless, and the state of the labourer never so abject' as when oorn was kept at value by a protective duty.” The truth of this was not even disputed, and when he delivered his famous “ I am certain ” speech in the Bouse of Commons the Fair Trade League faded away. Otn that occasion he said:

I can conceive it just possible, although it is yery- improbable, that, under the sting of great suffering and deceived by misrepresentations, the working classes might be willing to try strange remedies, and might be foolish enough to submit for a time to a proposal to tax the food of the country; but one thing I am certain of: if this course is ever taken, and if the depression were to continue or to recur, it would be uio signal for a state of things more dangerous and more disastrous than, anything .which has been seen in this country since the repeal of the corn law. A tax on food would mean a decline in wages—the same .amount of money would have a smaller purchasing power. It would raise the price of every article produced in the United Kingdom, and it would indubitably bring about the loss of the gigantic export trade which the industry and' energy of the country working under conditions of absolute freedom has been able to create.

No more was heard of tariff tinkering until 1896, when the suggestion was made to revive the old;timo colonial preference. Mr Chamberlain was then Colonial Secretary in a Conservative Ministry, and, speaking at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce he expressed Kis opinion, about it in these words:

There is not the slightest chance that in any reasonable time this country or its Parliament would adopt so one-sided an agreement.

Tim© passed by. The. Conservative party had South Africa * upon its hands and “ khald" as a battle-song. It prospered at the polls—until the GMnese labour scandals reached ominous proportions. It required a new plank to its platform, some counterirritant to a rapidly-growing public resentment, and a the colonies ” having become popular, what more effective than wheel them . into line? “ Colonial preference ” was revived, Mr Chamberlain “ boldly ” and “ straightforwardly ” expounded the doctrine of the big loaf and - the little loaf, and, incidentally, wrecked the party of his later allegiance. It was an astute move, but was made in vain, and has twice been proved an infertile inspiration. The., passage of years and the conflict of argument has altered Mr Chamberlain’s profuse assurances of “no increase in taxation ” to the very definite evidence of his disciples that revenue-raising is at the bottom of the whole campaign as we know it to-day. It manifestly requires boldness to let the oat clean out of the bag, and Mr Balfour may have reason to feel a little resentment at the character of his political inheritance. A statesman who has to go before his countrymen and expound the blessings* of taxed food deserves no little sympathy. Taxes of the kind have been tried in many other countries. In not one has the experience been other than disastrous.