TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE FORCE OF POLITICAL NAMES.
THEchief impression which was produced upon us by the account of the Birmingham Conference on Monday was one of pathos. There is surely something genuinely pathetic in the vehemence with which average electors who wish for precisely the same policy at the present moment, insist to each other that, to use the language of a poet who was writing of a very different kind of separating medium,—a separating medium between lovers,—" A gulf lies between us, our different past." Here are these Birmingham Liberal Unionists and Birmingham Tories, absolutely agreed as to what should be done now, none of them inclined to reproach the Government for doing too little, none of them inclined to reproach the Government for doing too much, thoroughly content in one division with the Home Secretary as their repre- sentative, thoroughly content in other divisions with Mr. Chamberlain End Mr. J. A. Bright as their re- presentatives, and nevertheless disputing with emotion, with passion, with pertinacity, whether they have their fair share of representatives who, besides agreeing with both sections of the united party now, agreed in times now long past with their own distinct section of that party. It is a very curious controversy, and it is hard to say whether it testifies most pathetically to the unreality of the new political zeal, or to the ideality of the old political memories. Two sets of men, who have not the slightest notion of quarrelling about what they wish to be done, are quarrelling in Birmingham, and quarrelling bitterly, as to the justice of expecting more of them than need be to return as their representative one who, though he would express their views admirably now, would have represented their views very badly four years ago. The Birmingham Tories say that, according to the compact between the Liberal Unionists and the Tories, in the case of Glad- stonian seats which it was hoped to win, the candidate who would have most chance of success was to be sup- ported cordially by both sections ; that in the Bordesley Division of Birmingham, a former Conservative candidate, Mr. Walter Showell, would have had the best chance, and would have been accepted cordially by the Liberal Unionists, if he had not refused at the last moment to be put in nomination ; that it was only on his refusal that Mr. Jesse Collings, a Liberal Unionist, was brought forward ; and that this ought to be re- garded as showing that the Tories had a right to two out of the seven Birmingham seats, and that it was only the accident that a particular Conservative was unwilling to stand, which deprived them of one of the two. The Liberal Unionists say that, as a matter of fact, it was a Liberal Unionist who carried the Bordesley seat, and that, too, with very languid help from the Tories, who were dis- gusted at the tardy refusal of their own candidate to come forward, and who gave the Liberal Unionists very feeble help in Bordesley in return for the cordial help given by the Liberal Unionists to the Tories in the election of the Home Secretary for the Eastern Division of Birmingham ; and that after the Liberal Unionist had won the seat, and won it with such very languid Tory help, it is impossible to deem it rightfully a Tory preserve. To us, the con- troversy seems too intricate to admit of anything like a positive and unhesitating judgment; but the interesting aspect of the matter to us is not what Lord. Salisbury and Lord Hartington, who are to decide it, ought tlinkr—for we and it very difhciAlt to imagine how they will go about the taik of making up their minds that there is any " ought " in the matter,—but that strife should rage so high on the question whether one out of seven or two out of seven Birmingham seats should be filled by Unionists who would like it to be known that they formerly belonged to the party which resisted change, and whether five out of seven or sig gut of seven of those seats should be filled by Unioniak who would like it to be known that they formerly belonged to the party which desired change. Such a dispute is not like a quarrel between Capulets and Montagues, but between Capulets one of whose ancestors was a Montague, and 0apulets of pure blood ; or between Montagues with a Caplet taint in the blood, and Montagues pure and unalloyed, Is it to be emori4e4 0 want of practical hold on the proud, or to the enthusiasm of memory, that such a dispute as this should seriously endanger, as it may seriously endanger,. the hearty co-operation of the different sections of Unionists, not merely in Birmingham, but in England at large ? We suppose that both these factors must be admitted to have a share in the peril of the situa- tion. If Tories were hearty Unionists enough to say, Perish the name of Tory rather than that the Union should be repealed, or virtually repealed,' we should not have had this dispute: Nay, if the average Tory elector had had less pride in remembering that he always did vote against the policy of change, and that he could not bear to be supposed a Chamberlainite, even for the sake of preventing a most disastrous change in the- future, we should not have had this dispute. It is partly the inadequacy with which the Birmingham Tory realises that it is a vast deal more important to defeat this great Glad- stonian revolution than to be labelled accurately in relation to a time now long past, and partly the vivacity with which he realises that he always used to vote against the Radicals, of whom he is now condemned to be the ally, that makes the present condition of things in Birmingham so bitter to him. And, similarly, the Liberal Unionist can bear- almost anything better than to find himself labelled a, Tory. He has been in the habit of boasting of his Liberalism all his life. He thinks the policy of the Union strictly Liberal, and even democratic. He cannot endure the reproach of having changed his views, which he knows that he has not changed. And to be represented by a man who four or five years ago was a Tory, and who calls himself a Tory, still, seems to him almost a degradation. The name of Liberal is to him half his political patrimony. He would as soon be charged with cowardice at school as with any love for Tories, and so he haggles for the strict observance of the compact between Liberal Unionists. and Tories almost with the pertinacity, not to say the cruelty, of a political Shylock who will not give up one grain of his pound of flesh.
What adds a good deal to the irony of the situation is that the Tories perfectly well know, not only at Birming- ham but elsewhere, that the age of Toryism, properly so called, is past, and that the Tory Party can never again take up that position of haughty caste prejudice which at one time appeared to give them so happy a sense of superiority over the Liberal Party. Perhaps this is the very secret of their passionate clinging to the party name,—that the- thing which it once represented is gone by for ever. The sort of scorn for ignorant popular cries which Coriolanus. expresses so powerfully in Shakespeare's play, can no. longer receive even the faintest utterance without de- stroying every chance for a Parliamentary candidate ; and it may well be that the complete disappearance of the thing has rather increased the fervour of attachment to the name. We hold that the Liberal Unionists are so secure of the future, so secure that popular Liberalism in reality,. whatever be the name, must always be part and parcel of the creed of every section of the people that is to to have any strong representation in Parliament, that if there is a plausible ease for their opponents, they might. afford to give way without risking anything of the smallest political significance. Mr. Walter Showell, ha& he been returned for Bordesley, would have given just the same votes as Mr. Jesse Collings, and these votes would have been, in effect, Liberal and not Conservative votes. Toryism is now a name, Liberal Unionism is still a thing. The shadow of the past is on the name of Toryism, but it has passed away from the Tory policy ; and that being so, the Liberal Unionists can afford to be magnani- mous, if it should appear on careful consideration that there is a plausible excuse for magnanimity. Further than that we cannot go. The details of the dispute as to Bordesley and Central Birmingham, and what Mr. Walter Showell would have done, and what the Tories failed to do for Mr. Jesse Collings, are so difficult and intricate, that unenlightened Londoners should not undertake to form a. clear judgment upon them. We only hope that it may be settled in a way to preserve the cordial mutual under- standing of the two sections of the party, and that whatever the Tories may do, the Liberal Unionists will not fail in magnanimity. There are a great many more nominal Tories in the country than Liberal Unionists. .But there are a. vastly greater number of real Liberal Unionists than there are of Tories, The true Tory is as extinct as the true Dodo.
Previous page
