TOPICS OF VTR DAY.
THE NEW WAR PARTY.
rESE are days of political topsy-turvydom, in which former classifications have little meaning ; the old labels have been wrenched off, or else (which we think generally happens) are allowed to remain, and to describe in the most misleading way principles which have entirely changed their character and intention. Liberals who have cast the old skin of "retrenchment," which only a few years ago was considered of quite equal importance with " peace " and "reform "—indeed, " reform " actually meant the prevention of extravagance—still serenely call themselves Liberals, as though they were the heirs of an unbroken policy. Conservatives, who until Mr. Chamberlain preached Tariff Reform accepted Free-trade as an integral part of the air they breathed, have made a complete change of front, and, with a composure as unruffled as that of their Liberal opponents, talk of the Conservatives who stand where they did as having "left the party." The Radicalism of Bright, and even of Gladstone, is dead, yet appeals are made to their authority (whenever convenient) with an unblushing countenance. Amid all the curious changes, perhaps the most remarkable has been the gradual rise of a new war party, for such we cannot hesitate to call it. The war party of a generation ago was, or was supposed to be, made up of a land-grabbing, blustering set who willingly accepted the risks of war in order to paint the map red. A map diluted with other colours could hardly be looked upon without humiliation by such self-respecting patriots. These Jingoes talked a good deal more of building an Empire than of governing it. They talked a good deal too much also of the flag, as though it were in itself a glorious achievement to fly it over some new territory without any reference to what the people of that territory thought of the institutions symbolised by the flag. That party is happily half, if not quite, dead. All the Imperialists who count to-day would shrink from taking over a new possession unless they clearly saw their way to providing it with a competent Civil Service. Recent experiences in East Africa suggest that we are very near the line beyond which it would be impossible to go in the matter of expansion without disgrace to ourselves. Even if events there convey only a warning, and not a pro- hibition, it is still a warning which has been thoroughly taken to heart in both political parties. The common feeling, we have convinced ourselves, is that we have "bitten off as much as we can chew" for the present. The old war party, then, has ceased to have an occupation. But what of the new war party ?
The new war party has very different principles from the Jingoes, but the dangers to which it exposes the country are the same. It does not want to take away other people's property, but it does want to interfere freely and (as would be thought) obnoxiously in their affairs. It is not acquisitive ; it is inquisitive. It is not bloodthirsty ; it is intensely " humanitarian." An example of its principles was given this week in the assertion that the British Government ought to have made representations to Spain on the subject of Ferrer's trial. We do not pretend that there would be any risk of war with Spain whatever our Foreign Office cared to say to her, or any danger to our security if war with Spain did happen to follow. But an accumulation of unwarrantable acts of interference, however small, would assuredly produce the very undesirable impression throughout the world that we were a prying people, whose behaviour was incalculable, and that we were altogether an uncomfortable kind of neighbour to have. If we fell into such relations with other nations, it would mean, of course, that we could never feel sure of the durability of a single friendship. Nations, like human beings, are always inclined to round on the interfering person. And the country which may be "rounded on" at any moment has either (need we say ?) to 'be particularly careful that it can defend itself—in other words, it must not stick at great expenditure on its Services—or it must be prepared to eat humble-pie at the direction of some nation which resents being dictated to. This is the general and constant danger to which the new war party of Socialists and Radicals would like to expose the country. But the new war party has made proposals much more dangerous than that of this week. Let us consider a few instances. When the Tsar of Russia came to England an. attempt was made publicly to insult him. This was to be done in the interests of the political prisoners in Russia. For all we know, the political prisoners were the victims of more tyranny than was ever revealed. But we abide by the old-fashioned belief that you do not 'make a man any the more amiable in his own household by insulting him and badgering him about affairs which you cannot very well understand, and in which you have no right to interfere. If you go into a business partner- ship with him, there is a very fair chance indeed that you may be able to influence him; - you have acquired an actual right to advise him, and he has formally admitted your right. Thus, much may be done while peace is preserved. But if you cease to be on speaking terms with the man, you can do nothing what- ever to influence his conduct except by force. Would it be believed by any one who did not live on this singular planet that that is the very alternative which was chosen by the politicians who profess to be in favour of banishing war from the world ? They wanted to end the partner- ship with the Tsar there and then. Again, when Persia appeared to be falling to pieces under our eyes, and it was clear that only the hold which we had. upon the policy of Russia (through the Anglo-Russian Convention) was preventing a partition of Persia, the humanitarians who provoke war at every turn while professing to abhor it chose that moment to propose that the British Government should require the Russian troops which had entered Persia instantly to retire. That would have meant the end of our friendship, or partnership, as we have called it, with Russia, and very likely war. For Russia said that her troops in Persia were there not to occupy territory, but only for precautionary reasons. Sir Edward Grey accepted that explanation, with very happy results. The reactionary, Shah has been got rid of by the Persians themselves ; Constitutional Government has been established ; and Russia has already withdrawn most of her troops, and has promised to withdraw the rest.
Now we come to the crowning absurdity of all. The politicians who compose what we call the new war party are the very men who demand that our means of making war should be greatly impaired. We who believe in a very strong Navy, and in national service, appreciate, we flatter ourselves, the blessings of peace, and do not under- estimate the unknown hazards of any war whatever. But the new war party has no misgivings. Nothing gives it pause. Radicals have no admiration for a Foreign Minister like Castlereagh, yet they have to admit that, with all his repudiation of their principles of liberty, he took an un- faltering course in helping to bring about the abolition of the slave trade. They pretend to look in vain for an explanation why modern Ministers who profess much more achieve much less. Yet it is easy to supply the explana- tion. England had a confidence in her sea power which she has not now. If Sir Edward Grey, for instance, feels himself unable to demand in unmistakable terms the fulfilment of the conditions of the Treaty under which the Congo Free State came into existence, the reason must be that he is not convinced that our sea power is overwhelming enough to ensure acquiescence. Behind all international discussions lies the calculation by each country of the other's strength, for the ultima ratio is force. If the Northern States in America had not been willing to fight the Southern States, slavery would probably exist in the United States at this moment. It is possible that those who think as the new party does—for it includes nearly all the Labour Members of Parliament— will fill posts of responsibility in increasing numbers as time passes. We hope, therefore, that it will be under- stood very clearly before it is too late that Treaty rights alone give us a title to interfere in the affairs of another country. And even in that case the degree of our authority will be exactly the degree of our ability to enforce our will if the necessity should arise.
Previous page
