The old world and its ways

by William Jennings Bryan

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.