TOPICS OF THE DAY.
PARTY FUNDS.
WE must confess to being a little amused at the new trouble which disturbs the Radical party, and which is described in the Daily Chronicle with as much frankness as acerbity. They cannot, it appears, get money enough for " organisation " purposes. Formerly, they had, it is implied, no difficulty, for the Liberals were as rich as the Tories, and commanded, it may be assumed as certain, much more disposable cash. They had, we remember to have been told, at one particular time four- teen Members in the House, each of whom was bald, and each worth a million. A great squire may be quite comfortable, and yet never be able to give a subscription in thousands, which does not greatly worry a banker or financier or successful merchant. Now, however, it is stated, the majority of the plutocrats have joined the Unionists, and the Liberals are in despair at the difficulty of finding means. They cannot blackmail concessionaires as the French are believed to do ; they cannot levy a regular tax on all office-holders, expectants of office, and Senators, as the Americans do ; and they cannot, like the Russian Nihilists, rob the post-offices and the minor treasuries on behalf of the Cause. They are compelled therefore to importune the few millionaires still remaining to them, and the millionaires, being masters of the situation, exact a quid pro quo. This disgusts the Daily Chronicle, avowedly because the system leads to a most discreditable sale of honours, and secretly, we sus- pect, because if one wishes social democracy to prevail, it is a little galling to see capitalists controlling it in the strength of their deep purses. Great financiers, great masters of labour, and great millionaires, are not precisely the people whom devotees of equality and "fairer distribution " want to see seated in the interior cabinet of a Social-Radical party. They are sure to act as wet blankets on all manner of kindling, and if the party is to depend on them, it may as well surrender many of its most distinctive ideas. It might as well form the ground-landlords of London into a committee for legislating on betterment or for levying rates upon urban ground-rents.
We heartily sympathise with our contemporary, whom we believe to be honestly fighting for greater purity in party management, though we are a little surprised at its despondent tone. The majority of the rich, like the majority of all classes in England, are no doubt Unionists ; but there must surely be a residuum large enough to keep up a party fund without any difficulty. Are there really not two hundred Radicals left rich enough to subscribe £250 a year towards the victory of their cause, or is earnestness quite dead among the well-to-do devotees still remaining attached to the Newcastle programme ? We should have thought the few Liberal brewers, the leaders of the Veto movement, the proprietors of Radical dailies, and the advocates of Little England, could alone have filled a war-chest of any needful depth. Our contemporary, how- ever, must know, and accepting its statement as true though pessimist, we sympathise ; but we want to ask a question. Is the war-chest an absolute necessity ? We can hardly think it if the party is really so grimly in earnest as Radicals, Socialists, and teetotalers always represent themselves to be. Suppose they trust for a little to their causes and their eloquence and their enthusiasm. We shall be told, of course, that organisation is everything, that an English party must have a central staff, must assist impecunious candidates, must issue leaflets by the ton and picture-placards by the half-million, must reward lecturers, and must in many cases pay " orators' " expenses. Without these outlays there would be no " organisation ; " and without organisation, though there would be a party, it could never, it is alleged, be brought up to the polls. Two-thirds of its men might vote, being interested in the fate of Governments, but the remainder would stay at home or go on working at their trade, as they often do now, when there is no conveyance ready, with rosettes on the horses, to drag them triumphantly to the booths. There are men in both parties indeed who declare that, wholly apart from bribery, skilful electioneering means spending money, that the more paid agents the party has, and the more paid talkers, and the more paid hunters-up to bustle about on the final day, the greater are the chances of success. This is rather a melancholy view of democracy, that grand device for turning earth into a Paradise and human beings into angels with three meat meals a day, and we should like to ask the Chronicle whether it is not a little Rochefoucauldian, a little dictated by the con- tempt for humanity natural to a beaten party just after an election. Is it really impossible to form a central Committee of unpaid men who would work for the love of the cause, hunt up candidates with 6d. a piece in their pockets, and send down orators content to be repaid in. applause and the consciousness of duty performed ? Such a Committee might not prepare so many tables as the paid men would, but it would probably be more energetic and more in sympathy with the electors, whom it is now per- fectly clear Mr. Schnadhorst and his colleagues most imperfectly understood. The leaflets ought not to be necessary if the Press is competent, and the picture- placards amuse the electors much more than they convince• them. Great, indeed, is the power of caricature in France ; but did anybody ever know an English elector who, having- decided to vote for Jones, was persuaded to vote for Smith by a mocking " poster " " The guiding influence of the central authority," so far as it was a good influence, would be retained by the voluntary Committee, which,. not making a trade of its work, would probably prefer- able men as candidates to the nominees of millionaires. The unavoidable expenses, for registration and the like,. are paid locally now, and so, we would suggest, might the remainder be. There would be no necessity then for " heavy cheques," or humiliating appeals to the very rich,. still less for that sale of honours and dignities which, in spite of current rumours, we still hope is based upon the inability of journalists to perceive claims patent to- those who have advised the Crown.
We cannot but believe that Radicals overestimate the value of organisation, and underrate that of ideas and energy. One proposal which the country accepts will bring them more votes than any fund they can raise, and one really stirring speech will move thousands of the hesitating voters, where paid agents will move tens. They did not carry the Reform Bill by devices like those for which heavy cheques are required, and in losing faith in. non-material means they are losing their most effective motor. We are sorry to see them decline upon that lower level, which should be left to ward politicians and Common. Councillors ; and we a little wonder too why they decline. After all, it is difficult to conceive of Radicals who are wholly uninfluenced by imagination, and their experience of recent years ought to have taught them that organisation is but a broken reed to lean on as they march. How many Committees was the mere personality of Mr. Glad- stone worth,—the bare fact that he stood at the head of his party, and was responsible for its policy ? We can name speeches of his which have brought more votes than the whole Newcastle programme, which latter was- a work of the organisers, and reduced the whole party to a badly linked chain of groups. The Daily Chronicle does not doubt that the recent organisa tion of the party was excellent, and indeed the ex- istence of innumerable caucuses and committees and associations, all organised by wirepullers at the centre, was patent to everybody, and was boasted of by a section of the party Press ; yet look where it all has landed them. Not only has the party been defeated, which was natural and right, in the presence of a great recoil of opinion, disgusted by faddy projects, subservience to groups, and servility to the Catholic Irish ; but it has nothing like the representation to which its lingering favour with the multitude would have entitled it. The " organisation," so far from supplying any deficiency in ideas, has actually made that deficiency more noxious, and has impaired instead of strengthening the representation of the party. The Daily Chronicle, we see, thinks the million- aires could be superseded by a national subscription, and may, it is possible, be right, though we suspect average party men will keep their guineas for local purposes, and lock upon the Central Committee rather as a necessary nuisance than as a friendly ally, but we should like to see a move- ment for dispensing with subscriptions altogether. The party which pleads that its motive power is not interests, but ideas, should trust its ideas, and let the war-chest remain empty without fear and without regret. Who paid for the revulsion of opinion which ended in the Revolution of 1688 ?
Previous page
