Kitabı oku: «The Old World and Its Ways», sayfa 33

CHAPTER XLVII.
THE TARIFF DEBATE IN ENGLAND. ¹³

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.

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.

CHAPTER XLVIII.
IRELAND AND HER LEADERS

November 29th was spent in Dublin, the 30th at Belfast and en route to that city from Dublin. Dublin is a very substantial looking city and much more ancient in appearance than Belfast, the latter reminding one more of an enterprising American city. We did not have a chance to visit any of the industries of Dublin, and only a linen factory and a shipyard in Belfast, but as the linen factory, the York Street Linen Mills, was one of the largest in Ireland, and the shipyard, Harland & Wolff's, the largest in the world, they gave some idea of the industrial possibilities of the island.

The lord mayor of Belfast, Sir Daniel Dixon, gave us a history of the municipal undertakings and extended to us every possible courtesy. To one accustomed to the farms of the Mississippi and the Missouri valleys, the little farms of Ireland seem contracted indeed, but what they lack in size they make up in thoroughness of cultivation. Not a foot seemed to be wasted. At Birmingham I saw some Kerry cows, which I can best describe as pony cattle, that they told me were being bred in Ireland in preference to the larger breeds; they are certainly more in keeping with the size of the farms. The farm houses are not large, but from the railroad train they looked neat and well kept.

My visit to Ireland was too brief to enable me to look into the condition of the tenants in the various parts of the island, but by the courtesy of the lord mayor of Dublin, Mr. Timothy Harrington, and Mr. John Dillon, both members of parliament, I met a number of the prominent representatives of Ireland in national politics. A luncheon at the Mansion House was attended by some 75 of the Irish leaders, including Archbishop Walsh, John Redmond, John Dillon, Michael Davitt, William Field, Patrick O'Brien, several members of the city council, ex-Mayor Valentine Dillon, High Sheriff Thomas Powers, and Drs. McArdle and Cox, and other persons distinguished in various walks of life.

The dinner at Mr. Dillon's gave me a chance to meet Mr. Bailey of the new land commission, and Mr. Finucane, lately connected with the Indian department, and to become better acquainted with the more prominent of the Irish leaders whose names have become familiar to American readers, and whom I met at luncheon.

Archbishop Walsh is one of the best known and most beloved of the Irish clergy, and he endeared himself to the friends of bimetallism throughout the world by the pamphlet which he wrote some years ago, setting forth the effect of the gold standard upon the Irish tenant farmer. It was a genuine pleasure to make his personal acquaintance. It may be added, in passing, that the tenants of Ireland will be more than ever interested in the stable dollar when they have secured title to their lands and assumed the payments which extend over more than sixty years. Any increase in the value of the dollar would increase the burden of these payments by lessening the price which they would obtain for the products of the soil.

Mr. John Redmond is the leader of the Irish party in parliament, and, having visited the United States, is personally known to many of our people. He has the appearance of a well-to-do lawyer, is quick to catch a point, ready of speech and immensely popular with his people. He has the reputation of being one of the most forcible of the Irish orators, and I regret that I had no opportunity of hearing him speak.

Mr. Dillon is a tall man, probably six feet one, with a scholarly face and wears a beard. His long experience in parliament, his thorough knowledge of the issues of the last quarter of a century, and his fidelity to the interests of the people of his land have given him a deservedly high place among the great Irishmen of the present generation.

Mr. Michael Davitt has also had a conspicuous career, but is not now in parliament, having resigned as a protest against the Boer war. He is the oldest of the group and shows in his countenance the fighting qualities that have made his name known throughout the world. He is not a diplomat – he has not learned the language of the court. He is not a compromiser, but a combatant, and his blows have been telling ones.

The lord mayor of Dublin, Mr. Timothy Harrington, has been honored with a third election as lord mayor, a position first held by Daniel O'Connell, but he is always at Westminster whenever there is an important vote in parliament. He is a typical Irishman, good-natured, full of humor, well informed and a natural politician.

At a dinner given a few days later at the National Liberal club in London by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, I met several other Irish members, among them Mr. William Redmond, brother of the leader of the Irish party, and himself a man of great ability and long parliamentary experience, and James Devlin, one of the most brilliant of the orators of the younger generation. The oldest person at the O'Connor dinner was Mr. O'Brien, the last Irishman who enjoyed the distinction of being sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. The host, Mr. O'Connor, while he represents a Liverpool constituency and is not, therefore, technically speaking, a member of the Irish party, is one of the most prominent and influential of the Irishmen in the house of commons. He has lectured in the United States as well as in Europe, and is now editor of two weekly papers of large circulation. He showed his friendliness toward America and his appreciation of our country's resources by taking unto himself an American wife – a beautiful Texan.

At Glasgow I met another member of parliament, Mr. William McKillup, who, though a citizen of Glasgow, represents an Irish district and takes an active interest in everything that affects the Emerald isle.

Mr. Harrington and Mr. Redmond took me to the Dublin cemetery and we visited the graves of O'Connell and Parnell. The tomb of Ireland's great agitator is under a massive pile of granite, made to represent an old Irish tower. No monument has yet been erected to Parnell. The memory of the two dead statesmen and the presence of the living leaders recalled the struggle to which so many of Ireland's sons have devoted their lives, and it was a matter of extreme gratification to find that substantial progress is being made.

It is true that home rule has not yet been secured, but the contest for home rule has focused attention upon the industrial and political condition of Erin, and a number of remedial measures have been adopted. First, the tenant was given title to his improvements and then the amount of the rent was judicially determined. More recently the authorities have been building cottages for the rural laborers. Over 15,000 of these cottages have been already erected and arrangements are being made for some 19,000 more. These are much more comfortable than the former dwellings, and much safer from a sanitary point of view. The recent land purchase act, which went into effect on November 1, seems likely to exert a very great influence upon the condition of the people. According to its terms the government is to buy the land of the landlord and sell it to the tenants. As the government can borrow money at a lower rate than the ordinary borrower, it is able to give the tenant much better terms than he gets from his present landlord, and at the same time purchase the land of the landlord at a price that is equitable. The landlords are showing a disposition to comply with the spirit of the law, although some of them are attempting to get a larger price for their land than it was worth prior to the passage of the law. The purpose of the law is to remove from politics the landlord question, which has been a delicate one to deal with. Most of the larger estates were given to the ancestors of the present holders and many of the owners live in England and collect their rents through a local agent. The new law makes the government the landlord; and the tenant, by paying a certain annual sum for 63 years, becomes the owner of the fee. He has the privilege of paying all or any part, at any time, and can dispose of his interest. The settlement which is now being effected not only removes the friction which has existed between the tenant and the landlord, but puts the tenant in a position where he can appeal to the government with reasonable certainty of redress in case unforeseen circumstances make his lot harder than at present anticipated. The assurance that he will become the owner of the fee will give to the Irish farmer an ambition that has heretofore been wanting, for he will be able to save without fear of an increase in the rent. Not only is the land question in process of settlement, but there have been at the same time other improvements which make for the permanent progress of the people. There is a constant increase in educational facilities, and a large number of co-operative banks have been established. Agricultural societies have been formed for the improvement of crops and stock, and the trend is distinctly upward. The Irish leaders have not obtained all that they labored for – there is much to be secured before their work is complete, but when the history of Ireland is written, the leaders now living will be able to regard with justifiable pride the results of their devotion and sacrifice and their names will be added to the long list of Irish patriots and statesmen.

In Dublin I paid my respects to Lord Dudley, lieutenant governor of Ireland, whose residence, the Viceregal Lodge, is in Phoenix Park, and found him so genial and affable a host that I am led to hope that in his administration of the executive branch of the government he will make the same attempt at just treatment that parliament has made in the enactment of the recent land measure.

There is a general desire among the leaders of thought in Ireland to check the emigration from that country. They feel that Ireland under fair conditions can support a much larger population than she now has. Ireland, they say, has been drained of many of its most enterprising and vigorous sons and daughters. It is hardly probable that the steps already taken will entirely check the movement toward the United States, but there is no doubt that the inhabitants of Ireland and their friends across the water contemplate the future with brighter hopes and anticipations than they have for a century.