TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE ASYLUM PARTY.
IN the House of Commons on Wednesday a serious and deliberate attack was made on the Coalition Govern- ment by a combination of Nationalists, disgruntled Liberals, and derelict Unionists. We are glad to say, however, that the rank-and-file of the House of Commons of both persuasions showed themselves loyal to the Administration. Out of two hundred and eighty-six TJnionists in the House only fifty-eight voted for what we may fitly term the "Asylum • party." [" Asylum," it will be remembered, meant originally a fortuitous concourse of heterogeneous human atoms banded together in a sanctuary or "lawless church."] The Spectator has always admired Sir Edward Carson because of the wise, loyal, and persistent way in which he has handled the 'Ulster question, but we are bound to say we deeply regret to see him acting as he now is in alliance with the Nationalists. He knows if any man does what is their political record, and how at this very moment they are ready to do anything to prevent Ireland discharging her duty in the war and bearing her share of the common burdens. Sir Edward Carson, when he found that the Nationalists were going to act with him in his attempt to overthrow the Government, should have said that he refused to support any motion which would involve co-operation with those who shirked so basely their duty towards the Empire and the cause. By such spirited and dramatic action he would have been able as by a lightning- flash to make the British people and the people of the Dominions understand the true situation here. He would have taught the whole world that even in Parliament patriotic men do not lose their instinct for what will serve and what injure the commonweal. As long as the Nationalists insist on Ireland being a badged nation, and badged for the worst of reasons, the Irish politicians should be sent to Coventry. No man who means business over the war should seek or accept their help. No doubt we shall be told that our suggestion as to how Sir Edward Carson should have acted shows our total ignorance of the way in which the Parliamentary game is to be played. The idea that co-operation could be re- fused in the lobbies is absurd. "Votes are votes, no matter where they come from. A shopkeeper might just as well turn good money away from his doors because he disliked the political opinions of certain would-be shoppers." Our answer is plain. "If this is the Parliamentary game, thank Gad we do not understand it / " The peg for the "Asylum party's" attack on the Coalition was a motion by Mr. Leslie Scott declaring that certain enemy property in Nigeria should be sold only to natural-born British subjects or companies wholly British. In reply Mr. Steel-Maitland and Mr. Boner Law, representing the Colonial • Office, fought Nigeria's battle most bravely. They insisted on getting the best price obtainable for the war assets which had come her way. By doing so they were carrying out our essential principle of Empire—i.e., that in all Colonies and Dependencies where self-government does not exist the duty of the Imperial Government is to govern in the interests of the governed. We must t never exploit any Imperial posses- sion in the interests of the people of this country, or in those of British merchants or officials temporarily resident in the Dependency. In every case, no matter how great the tempta- tion to the contrary, we have got to act as trustees, not as beneficiaries. This of course is a point that has been in the past quite as strongly upheld by thoughtful and responsible Tariff Reformers as by Free Traders. Mr. Boner Law showed a good deal more than debating power in his spirited and statesmanlike speech. After tearing to shreds the monstrous suggestion which underlay the " Asylum " case—i.e., that the Colonial Office by their policy were more or less friendly to the Germans—and after showing also that the Colonial Office were as anti-Hun as any one could possibly wish them to be, he declared that what was wanted in the Colony of Nigeria was new energy and new capital, and- that the plan of setting up a monopoly and so creating a disease, and -then using your ingenuity to cure it, was not one which commended itself to him. As a whole the speech was as brave as it was sensible.
It is pretty clear from these proceedings that a real Opposi- tion is now forming in the House of Commons, a party whose object, though not avowed, is to turn the Government out, and that regular attacks on old-fashioned Parliamentary lines —" oppose everything, propose nothing, and turn out the Ministry "—may be expected from thin triple alliance of 'Irish Nationalists and -discontented- Unionists -and -Liberals. We venture to predict that the next attempt will be an attack in force upon Mr. Balfour and the administration of the Admiralty. We have criticized in the past, and in all prob- ability shall still desire to criticize, in certain details the conduct of the naval side of the war. If, however, an attempt is made, not to improve our naval strategy by sane and Serious discussion, but to use any defects perceptible therein as a lever for destroying the Coalition Government, it will become the duty of all patriotic critics to stand by the Government and to urge all persons who want to help their country to do the same. If useful criticism is drowned thereby it cannot be helped. There could be no greater disaster at this moment than to use the conduct 'of the war as an engine of Parlia- mentary warfare. When they see such methods of attack on the Government as were indulged in on Wednesday night, all well-wishers of the nation and of the good cause must stand together and support the King's Government. If patriotic members of the House of Commons want a sign as to how they are to act, we suggest a very simple and perfectly effective one. Let them always go into the opposite lobby to the Nation- alists, and so defeat the object of Mr. Redmond and his:Sinn-Fein- controlled colleagues, which is to bring down the Government which dared to put down the Irish rebellion and hang the traitor Casement. A change of Government now would be a national calamity. The Government may conceivably have to develop In the matter of personnel in the future, but there is no alter- native to the present loyal combination of the leaders of the two great parties in the State to carry on the war, for such is the Coalition which is now governing the nation. The result of Wednesday's proceedings is happily one upon which the Ministry can congratulate themselves. But when we say this the Government must of course remember that the vigilance keenness developed in the " Asylum " Opposition requires the utmost vi • nce in all matters of administration, and not least of al in their naval policy. That policy must not if possible have even a speck upon it. It must be vigilant and prudent, but also active in the best sense. Conventionalism and lethargy are parasitic growths which may attack the noblest bodies.
To return once more to the general question of the nature of the support that should be given to the Coalition. What patriotic people have to consider in the first place is not whether they should indulge in the luxury of giving a knock to this or that politician whom they happen to dislike— often, we admit, for perfectly good reasons—but whether by doing so they are helping in the work of winning the war. The object, and there is no other object for us just now, is to beat the Germans. Anything which contributes to that object is good. Anything which derogates from it is bad. There is a fine French aphorism which is worth quoting in this context. "Pour tin gentilhomme il n'y a pas de liberte." For a man of noble birth there is no such thing as freedom. This means of course that the man of nobility must think, not of pleasing himself or of claiming a surly liberty of action, but solely of his duty. So for the true lover of his country, the true nobleman of the heart, there is in a crisis like the present no liberty. He must beware of indulging his own prejudices. He must think only of the supreme duty of winning the war. . But nothing is more certain than that the war is not going to be won by turning out the Government and by the violent political upheaval which would be involved —an upheaval which would please the enemy, depress the Allies, and lead to utter confusion. The reason why this must be so is plain. There is no competent alternative to the present Ministry. Look at the persons who form the "Asylum" Opposition in the House of Commons. Do we want an ` Asylum ' Government to match them ? Are Mr. Redmond and Mr. Devlin to he part of the new Ministry, supported by Mr. Bottomley and Sir Henry Dalziel ? The thing is absurd. For good or ill, we have got in the Ministry the best people available, and we must make the best of them. People who most naturally and inevitably find it impossible when challenged to name an alternative Ministry, fall back upon the remark—" Only get rid of the present gang, and new men and better men will soon be found." This is a piece of mental perversity of which sensible men must beware. It is part and parcel of the old paradox, "Something has got to be done," though nobody knows what. As Lord Melbourne wisely said : "When I hear people say that something must be done I know they mean to at, something foolish. When people say that ".yo will soon find good men," but cannot tell us who they are, it means that they would produce a set of irresponsible incom- petents. Let us see the names before we hand over the country-in war time- to -an-"-Asylum '2. Administration.-- :
Previous page
