TOPICS OF THE DAY
LORD LANSDOWNE'S GLASGOW SPEECHES.
AT last we find in Lord Lansdowne a Unionist leader who shows himself aware of what is due to Unionist and Conservative principles, and is ready to point out to his party the imperative duty of maintaining them. By that we mean the duty of preventing the country being com- mitted to schemes of Socialistic legislation, involving, on the one hand, vast burdens on all classes of the community, and, on the other, striking at the greatest of national assets, —the energy and independence of the people.
Of late thinking Unionists, uo matter which side they may take in the Fiscal controversy, have been depressed and perplexed by the failure among their leaders to give any clear call to resist the proposals of Socialism. Not only does Mr. Balfour remain almost silent, or even show a certain dangerous acquiescence by telling the country that if we are to go in for a policy of social reform—the easy euphemism for Socialism—we shall want a great deal of money, and must be prepared with new ways for raising it. That is unsatisfactory enough. But what is to be said when one who aspires to be a Unionist leader, or at any rate who is hailed as a Unionist leader by a very large section of the party—we mean Lord Milner—actually lifts his voice in favour of the worst and most dangerous of all Socialistic proposals,—the proposal for the regulation of wages by the State? This particular piece of Socialism was tried in the Middle Ages with injurious results both to the State and to labour, and was also attempted in revolutionary periods in modern times, but has always been accompanied by disaster. To take another specific case, moderate Unionists have seen with alarm the demand for old-age pensions not checked but actually encouraged by Unionist chiefs and Unionist organs iu the Press. While Mr. Balfour has not only refrained from speaking on the question, but has allowed the repeated declarations of his opponents that both parties are now committed to old-age pensions to go uncontradicted, Lord Milner has expressed approval of the policy. At the same time, a considerable section of the. Unionist Press has either failed to condemn the scheme, or else has boldly. given assent to the principle, though, according to the usual party convention, it may have strongly criticised the Government proposals in detail or have attempted to represent them as inadequate. We believe, indeed, that we are right in saying that the Spectator has stood almost alone amongst Unionist papers in actively condemning root and branch the whole policy of the State provision of old-age pensions.
In these circumstances, our gratitude is profound to the Unionist leader who has at last come forward to denounce the policy of old-age pensions in language so strong and unmistakable as that used by Lord Lansdowne in his speech at Glasgow on Friday, December 13th. That denunciation marks, we trust., an epoch in the history of the Unionist Party. Not only was it thoroughly sound in itself and thoroughly in accordance with Conserva- tive and Unionist principles : it has a further im- portance in that it directs the attention of the party away from those things which divide to those things which ought to unite them. It is, moreover, in effect, the offering of an olive-branch. That it was so intended we cannot doubt, for it was followed up by a speech in which Lord Lansdowne used language far more reasonable and far more conciliatory than any that has hitherto been addressed to the Unionist Free-traders. To show that we are not exaggerating the importance of Lord Lansdowne's attitude, we will quote his actual words in regard to old- age pensions :— " The attitude of the Government seemed to him one of incon- ceivable rashness, and he challenged their right to commit the country to such a policy unless they were able to show clearly that they could provide the means for giving effect to it. A gentleman of the name of Shearer wrote a letter to the Times the other day, in which he said:—' Let us then put aside all attempts to solve the difficulties on economic lines, and recognise that, however impoverished, however criminal, however degraded a man (or woman) may have become in old age, that man is still an
Englishman Let us pay cheerfully in the knowledge that in the future this country will reap its due reward.' The country which adopted such a policy would reap its due reward, and it
would not be a pleasant one. They had surely a right to ask whether this was the policy of the Government. It was a policy which spelt disaster, and which meant a return to the methods of the old unreformed Poor Law system, which was ruinous to all classes. He would say nothing of the enormous cost involved. To his mind, infinitely the worst feature of such a system would be the demoralisation which it would bring to all concerned. The mischief will not stop with the recipient of a pension. How would such a system affect the duty of children towards their parents, of employers towards the men whom they employed, of each and all of us to our neighbour? Commission after Com- mission had shown that there was an immense increase of thrift in the country. Such a change as was now proposed would be a tremendous set-back, and would have a deplorable effect in dis- couraging frugality and saving."
That is an admirably wise, concise, and lucid presentment of the case against old-age pensions, and if Lord Lansdowne can only persuade his colleagues to join with him in taking action ou these grounds, we believe that the country may yet be saved from the great danger to which it is now exposed.
We should have liked to leave the matter here. Un- fortunately, the comments of one of the leading Tariff Reform newspapers on the conciliatory tone adopted by Lord Lansdowne at Glasgow compel notice. Let us , assure our readers, however, that in dwelling on these comments we have no desire whatever to make mischief or to say anything which may prove embarrassing to Lord. Lansdowne. Our gratitude to him for his courage and statesmanship in pledging himself to opposition to old-age pensions would, even apart from other considerations, forbid any such action. In dealing with the attack made upon Lord Lansdowne in the Birmingham Daily Post in its leading article of Monday we are influenced solely by the desire to impress upon the leaders of the Unionist Party the dangers with which the party are threatened unless they are resolved to act in the true spirit of Conservatism, and to reject the dangerous doctrine of trying to gain support by outbidding their political rivals in the establishment of Socialistic schemes. The Birmingham, Daily Post, after a few con- ventional compliments, begins its strictures on Lord Lans- downe by calling him to account for seeming to infer that sacrifices might have to be made in order to carry out proposals for Colonial preference, and for suggesting that no final judgment of these proposals can be given until it is ascertained what the amount of the sacrifices may be. Still more injurious, in the opinion of his critics, is Lord Lansdowne's declaration that the time for people to express their opinion as to the sacrifices will arrive when a Unionist Administration has consulted with the Colonies and formulated a detailed plan. Equal objection is made to his most sensible appeal to Unionists " not to waste their energies and disintegrate their party in the discussion of these matters. Rather let them pull together and keep an open mind." The passage which follows we may quote verbatim :— " Our demur to this advice is two-fold. We think it cannot possibly be followed; and even if it could its adoption would leave the party powerless to give practical effect to the objects which moved Mr. Chamberlain to raise the fiscal issue, and which are at the back of the general principles laid down by Mr. Balfour at Birmingham. We cannot conceive of the country giving power to a party which has an open mind' on the subject placed first in the programme proposed to be followed. There may have been a time when generalities appealed to the electorate, but that day has gone by. The voter has sufficient intelligence analytically to examine a political issue, and whether he be right or wrong in his conclusions—which, after all, is beside the point—be is entitled to demand something more than an open mind' of one who is appealing for his suffrage. We are disposed to think that many seats were lost at the last General Election because of the haziness of opinion to be found in Unionist candidates. Those seats will not be regained unless candidates are prepared to discuss the fiscal question in considerable detail The ineffectiveness, even from a tactical point of view, of any attempt to subordinate the fiscal issue becomes more apparent when one considers the position of those whom, presumably, it is intended to conciliate. Unionist Free Traders have from the beginning been the only people within the party who have resisted the proposals to which Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour have committed themselves. Had there been no Unionist Free Traders, there never would have been any dissension in the party or any need to appeal for unity. Appeals for unity now can be directed to no one else. We pointed out a few days ago that there was, unfortunately, no evidence in the proceedings at the annual dinner of the Unionist Free Trade Club to encourage one to believe that Mr. Balfour's Birmingham speech had made the slightest difference to their attitude. They were still irreconcilable ; still marsteta5. reform." mi co-operation conditional upon the abandonment of From Lord Lansdowne the Birmingham Daily Post turns to the Spectator, honouring us with the description of the " recognised organ of the small dissentient section." After declaring that it need not stop to demonstrate that our proposal for a truce on the Fiscal question is impossible, it boldly challenges our declaration that the Unionist Party can have no hope of returning to power so long as Fiscal Reform is retained in the party programme. " We think, on the other hand, that the combination of fiscal reform and social reform gives a policy best calculated to restore the fortunes of the party." The Birmingham Daily Post then sets forth the situation with which we declared the Unionist Party would find itself faced if it would not agree to a truce and reunion. Either the dissentient Unionists would be compelled, since in so many cases they cannot again vote for Liberals and do not mean to abstain, to run third candidates, or else Unionist Free-traders would join with a dissentient section of the Liberal Party to form a third or " Left-Centre " Party. " After this," says the Birmingham Daily Post, " it is hopeless further to attempt to conciliate Unionist Free Traders—an extremely small section, by the bye, as is shown by the absolute unanimity with which the fiscal resolutions were passed at the last annual conferences of the Liberal Unionist and Conservative Associations. But the matter cannot end here. Sooner or later it will have to be determined whether Unionists who are prepared to do serious, perhaps irreparable,' injury to their party can longer be treated as members of the party at all. We have never been advocates of ostracisation, but the active pursuit of the policy advocated by the Spectator would compel a review of the situation, which, it seems to us, could have no other outcome. Liberty of conscience is open to all ; but this is an entirely different thing from liberty to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare." In other words, the Unionist Free-traders are told that they are not wanted in the Unionist Party, and had better clear out. That, we are sure, is not a policy which will be approved by Lord Lansdowne ; but we suppose the next step—for there seems no madness of which the extreme Tariff Reformers are not capable—will be to tell Lord Lansdowne and those who agree with him that if they think it is worth while to make some sacrifices to unite the party, they, too, had better be gone.
We fully realise that, as a rule, we cannot claim to represent a majority of Unionists. We venture, how- ever, to express the belief that, outside Birmingham, the majority of Unionists, and even the majority of Unionists who are opposed to us on the Fiscal question, will agree with us when we say that if such a spirit as that which animates the Birmingham. Daily Post once takes possession of a party, that party is doomed, or at any rate doomed until it can be reanimated by a saner spirit. We have thought the majority of the Unionist Party misled in regard to the Fiscal question, but we have never thought them demented, and we do not think so now. Therefore we have confidence that Lord Lansdowne's influence will prevail over the influences represented by the Birmingham Daily Post. If ground for this confidence is demanded, it is, we hold, to be found in the attitude which the wider Unionist public has adopted towards the Spectator. Though we have had occasion to speak out frankly in regard to what we believe the truth, partly perhaps in the heat of argument, and partly also because we believe that Englishmen like plain dealing better than a policy of " smoothing down when vital issues are in dispute, our attitude has not been unduly resented except by the extremists. If we may be allowed to say so, we have been not a little touched by the fact that so many of our readers who have thought us in the wrong have yet been perfectly willing to admit that we took the line we did, not out of prejudice or lack of loyalty to the Unionist Party, but because, rightly or wrongly, we sincerely believed that our attitude would in the end conduce to the good of the country and the Empire.
Previous page
