THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1906 FISCAL POLICY IN THE COMMONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13543, 16 March 1906, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1906 FISCAL POLICY IN THE COMMONS.

The result of the division in the House of Commons upon the fiscal question, raised by Sir James Kitson, gives scant encouragement to the view advanced by Mr Wyndham that the present system is doomed. Nor does it impress us with a sense of the soundness of the belief which Mr Chamberlain, who was rather unaccountably silent in the debate, confidently expressed, even after the majority of the elections at- Home were over, that triumph was well within the grasp of the tariff reformers. Certainly, a majority of 5 to 1 upon a- division of the Commons in favour of a resolution declaratory of the determination of Parliament to resist any proposal, whether by the taxation of corn or by the adoption of a general tariff, to create in Great Britain a system of Protection affords to ordinary minds a sufficiently convincing guarantee of the fidelity of the nation to the principles of Freetrade. Mr Keir Hardie not unnaturally denied that the question of fiscal policy was the sole issue at the general election. His cue is plainly to insist that the reforms which his party demands were a prominent factor in the result of the polls, but it is rather inconsiderate of him to gibe at the Government in the same breath for having, in the brief time it has had at its disposal, failed to redeem its many promises. Apparently, some of his colleagues, who were returned in the interests of Labour, are—this morning's fables indicate— realising that more may be gained by co-operation with the Government than by disparaging it, as Mr Hardie is disposed to do. Moreover, it is perfectly well recognised that the Chinese labour question and the education question were skilfully utilised during the election as political cries against the late Government. But the main issue was unquestionably that of the fiscal policy of the future, and it was to the disunion Which the formulation and persistent advocacy by Mr Chamberlain of his scheme of tariff reform has produced in the Opposition ranks that the remarkable victory of the Liberals was chiefly due. Mr Chamberlain sought to lead the Unionists in a direction in which a great many of them were not prepared to go. Mr Balfour, on the other hand, whose verbal subtleties were doubtless calculated to excite a great deal of admiration, offered bis party no guidance at all. The consequence—the decisive defeat of the Opposition—was, in the circumstances, not surprising. Nor has the subsequent establishment of a basis of agreement between Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain on the fiscal question tended, se far as we can see, to improve the position of their party. Mr Austin Taylor, who, in seconding Sir James Kitson's resolution, derisively expressed the hope that the union between Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain is as perfect as the union of the double star Algol, which is remarkable for its periodic variation in brightness, its diufl nature being only perceptible when one of its members eclipses the other in brilliance, is himself a Unionist. It will probably turn out that he is one of the number who have, as we have learnt, felt tlieiDgelyes coMtrajtaed. to. secede

from the Opposition as a protest against what they conceive to be the absolute surrender, of Mr Balfour to Mr Chamberlain on the question of tariff reform. The Opposition has, indeed, damaged itself very materially through its attitude towards its issue. The significance of the existence of a majority of 37G votes in favour of the maintenance of the policy of Freetrade cannot be disregarded. Its special importance consists in the fact that it is a larger majority than the Liberal, Labour, and National forces combined were able— huge as their majority was—to claim over the Unionists at the close of the general election. On this particular occasion it was swelled, as our news shows, by. the votes of several members who are generally opposed to the Government. Mr Balfour complained that the discussion in the House was unnecessary. We can hardly agree that that was so, unless the objection rests on the argument that the country has settled the question and placed any alteration of the national fiscal policy out of the immediate range of practical politics. But it is impossible to withhold sympathy from Mr Balfour in the unfortunate position into which he has been forced: for the party he lends is, by the countenance it is giving to n reactionary policy, simply reducing itself to n state of impotence. It may, however, not be too, late for it, even now, to profit by the warning vSir Edward Clarke lias issued concerning the unwisdom of the adoption of Mr Chamberlain's proposals as a feature of its programme.