THE TARIFF DEBATE IN ENGLAND.[13]
[13] The following European letters were written for the Hearst
newspapers, and are reproduced by their permission.
An American feels at home in England just now, for he constantly
reads in the newspapers and hears on the streets the tariff
arguments so familiar in the United States. I can almost imagine
myself in the midst of a presidential campaign, with import duties
as the only issue. I have been especially fortunate in arriving here
at the very height of the discussion and I have been privileged
to hear the best speakers on both sides. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain,
late secretary for the colonies, left the cabinet some three months
ago in order to present to the country the tariff policy which
he believed to be necessary. Not desiring to make the government
responsible for the proposition put forth by him, he turned his
official duties over to another and has been conducting one of the
most remarkable campaigns that England has seen in recent years.
He enters the fight with a number of things to his credit. He is
a great orator, he is pleasing in manner, experienced in debate,
skillful in the arraignment of his adversaries, and possesses the
faculty of so holding the attention of his hearers as to make them
eager to catch the next sentence. He is not an impassioned speaker,
he has no grand climaxes that overwhelm an audience, but he does
have what his friends call a "restrained eloquence" that leaves the
impression that he never quite reaches the limit of his powers. He
is a man who would rank high in any land and as an antagonist he
would not fear to meet the best on any platform.
He is about five feet nine or ten inches in height and weighs about
175 pounds. He wears no beard and is impressive in appearance. The
cartoonists take liberties with him as with other public men, and I
may say in passing that there are some newspaper cartoonists over
here who do excellent work.
Mr. Chamberlain is urging a departure from the free trade policy
which England has followed for fifty years, and he defends his
position on three grounds:
First--That it is needed for the protection of English manufacturers
and English laborers.
Second--That it is necessary for the defense and strengthening of
the empire.
Third--That a tariff can be used when necessary as a retaliatory
weapon to make a breach in the tariff walls that other nations have
erected.
[Illustration: JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN. HENRY ASQUITH.
DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE. LORD ROSEBERY.]
In presenting the first proposition he employs the usual
protectionist arguments. He appeals to particular industries and
promises better wages to labor and more constant employment. He
complains that foreign products are being "dumped" in England. The
foreigner is accused of selling his surplus wares here without
profit or below cost while he sells for enough at home to enable him
to carry on his business.
I heard Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Cardiff, the chief city of
Wales. It was an audience largely made up of wage-earners, and his
appeals were adroit and elicited an enthusiastic response. He dwelt
at length on the tin industry; figured the growth of the industry
from 1882 to 1892 and showed that during the next decade the tin
industry had suffered by the establishment of tin plate mills in the
United States.
He assumed that if the English government had been authorized
to make reciprocal treaties it might have persuaded the United
States to forego the protection of tin plate in exchange for trade
advantages in some other direction. He estimated the loss that had
come to Welsh workmen because of the lessened demand for their tin
plate, and he contended that it was necessary to give preferential
treatment to the colonies in order to increase or even to hold their
attachment to the empire.
In discussing retaliation, he seemed to assume what the
protectionists of the United States have often declared, namely,
that the foreigner pays the tax; and his argument was that England
ought to tax the goods coming in from other countries if other
countries taxed goods imported from England. He has coined phrases
that are going the rounds of the press, the most popular of which
is embodied in the question, "If another nation strikes you with
a tariff tax, are you going to take it lying down?" This phrase
aroused a spirit of pugnacity at Cardiff and was enthusiastically
applauded.
In presenting the claims of the empire, Mr. Chamberlain occupies
much the same position as the American protectionist who contends
that a tariff wall makes our own country independent of other
nations. In presenting this argument the late colonial secretary has
the advantage of the great popularity which he won during the South
African war, the spirit of empire being just now quite strong in
England.
So much for the leader of the tariff reform movement, for, strange
as it may seem, the English crusade for the adoption of a tariff is
being conducted through the Tariff Reform League, which, with Mr.
Chamberlain's endorsement, is asking for a campaign fund of $500,000.
On the other side are, first, the conservatism that supports the
settled policy of half a century; second, the political and economic
arguments which weigh against a protective tariff, and, third, the
ability and personal influence of the men who are arrayed against
Mr. Chamberlain. I have attended a number of meetings of the
opposition. The first was at St. Neots, Huntingtonshire, where I
heard Mr. H. H. Asquith, one of the Liberal leaders in parliament.
He is of about the same height as Mr. Chamberlain, but heavier, his
face and shoulders being considerably broader. Mr. Asquith differs
very materially from Mr. Chamberlain in his style of oratory, but
is a master in his line. His is more the argument of the lawyer. He
is more logical and a closer reasoner. He is regarded as one of the
ablest public men in England, and after listening to him for an hour
I could easily believe his reputation to be well earned.
While he discussed with thoroughness all phases of the fiscal
question, I was most impressed with his reply to what may be called
the imperial part of Mr. Chamberlain's argument. He insisted that
preferential duties would weaken instead of strengthen the bonds
that unite England to her colonies, because partiality could not
be shown to one industry without discrimination against the other
industries, and he warned the advocates of protection not to divide
the people of the colonies and the people of the home country into
warring factions, and suggested that when these factions were
arrayed against each other in a contest for legislative advantage,
the harmony of the nation would be disturbed and ill-will between
the various sections, elements and industries engendered.
At a house dinner of the National Liberal club in London I heard
another member of parliament, Mr. R. S. Robson, a Liberal, who
took retaliation for his subject. Mr. Robson presented a clear,
comprehensive and concise analysis of the policy of retaliation;
the strongest points made by him being, first, that retaliation
meant commercial war, and, second, that it contemplated a permanent
policy of protection. He pointed out that no country had ever aimed
a retaliatory tariff at England; that tariffs in other countries
were laid for domestic purposes and not out of antagonism to another
country. He contended that other countries, instead of modifying
their tariffs because of attempted retaliation on the part of
England, would be more likely excited to an unfriendliness which
they had not before shown, and that if England were the aggressor
in such a tariff war she must necessarily be a large loser. He said
that it was impossible to conceive of concessions being secured by a
threat to raise a tariff wall in England. It would be necessary, he
contended, if a retaliatory policy was undertaken to first impose a
high tariff all around and then offer to reduce it in special cases.
This would be a radical departure from the policy of free trade and
would bring with it all the evils that had led to the abandonment of
a protective policy under the leadership of Cobden.
Besides the Liberal opposition, Mr. Chamberlain has to meet the
antagonism of a number of influential leaders who would indorse Mr.
Balfour if he only proposed retaliation in a particular case where
an open and grievous blow had been struck at England, but who are
not willing to join Mr. Chamberlain in advocating a return to a
protective policy.
I attended a great meeting held under the auspices of the Free
Food League and heard speeches delivered by the Duke of Devonshire
and Lord Goshen. I was told that the duke was the only English
statesman who ever took a nap during the progress of his own
speech. Thus forewarned, I was prepared for a season of rest,
but the duke surprised his friends (and they are many) on this
occasion and his speech has been the talk of the country. It was a
powerful arraignment of the proposed tax on food, and, taking into
consideration the high standing and great prestige of the duke, will
exert a widespread influence on the decision of the controversy. The
duke is a tall, strongly built man, with a long head and full sandy
beard sprinkled with gray. He speaks with deliberation and emphasis,
but lacks the graces of the other orators whom I had an opportunity
to hear. If, however, ease and grace were wanting, the tremendous
effectiveness of the pile driver and the battering ram make up for
them.
He denounced the proposition to put a tax upon the people's food as
a blow to the welfare and greatness of the nation. He scouted the
idea that the tax would not ultimately extend to all food or that it
would not raise the price of food and showed that the increase in
the cost of food and clothing would take from the laboring man any
advantage which Mr. Chamberlain promised to bring by his protective
policy.
At the Free Food meeting the duke was followed by Lord Goshen, a
conspicuous leader of the unionist party. Though now about seventy
years old, he possesses great vitality and entered into the
discussion with an earnestness that bespeaks the extraordinary power
of the man. In appearance he reminded me of Gladstone and of Paul
Kruger. I should say that his face had some of the characteristics
of both--rugged in its outlines and giving an impression of courage
and strength combined with great intellect. He replied to Mr.
Chamberlain's challenge, "Will you take it lying down?" with the
question, "Will you hide behind a wall?" He denied that it was
necessary for the Briton to build a barricade and conceal himself
behind it.
In reply to the argument that the Englishman needed protection from
the foreigner, he gave statistics to show that Germany, one of the
protected countries to which Mr. Chamberlain constantly refers,
had an increasing number of the unemployed. His reference to the
increased consumption of horse meat in Germany and the decrease in
the consumption of other kinds of meat met with a response that
seems likely to make "No horse meat" a slogan in the campaign.
The last meeting which I attended was that at which Lord Rosebery
made his reply to Mr. Chamberlain. Lord Rosebery meets Mr.
Chamberlain on an equal footing. He is about the same height, but
a trifle stouter. He is an orator of great distinction, graceful,
polished, of wide learning and great experience, and he possesses
a wit that enables him to keep his audience in constant good
humor. He has been prime minister and enjoys great popularity. His
reception at the Surrey theatre, South London, was as cordial as
Mr. Chamberlain's reception at Cardiff. With all the arts of the
orator he repelled the attacks of Mr. Chamberlain and arraigned the
policy of the conservatives. He denied that there was any excuse, to
use his words, for the "lamentations of the modern Jeremiah." His
lordship declared that the country had made great progress under
the policy of free commerce with the world and that England had the
world for her granary and depicted the possible consequences if she
attempted to wage war against those who furnished her bread and meat.
He declared that the colonies could not supply the food that the
people of England needed, but called Mr. Chamberlain's attention
to the fact that Canada was "dumping" more iron into England than
any of the protected countries complained of. He arraigned the
conservative government's large and increasing expenditures and
suggested that the government might better lessen the taxes upon the
people than impose new taxes upon their food and clothing.
He closed with an appeal for more technical instruction; for a
better understanding of the needs of their customers, and for a more
earnest effort for the physical, intellectual and moral advancement
of the people.
I will not attempt to predict the outcome of this fiscal
controversy. I have missed my guess on a similar controversy in the
United States and I shall not venture a prophecy in a foreign land.
Mr. Chamberlain's opponents believe that a return to protection
would be taken as renunciation of England's ambition to be "mistress
of the seas," and that it would presage commercial isolation. It
is a battle of giants over a great question and all the world is
interested in the result.
NOTE--Since the writing of the above the Liberal party has
won an overwhelming victory and Chamberlain's policy has been
overthrown.