24 SEPTEMBER 1892, Page 7

THE LIBERAL UNIONISTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. T HE Birmingham Daily Post

has fallen foul of the Spectator for the answer we appended to Sir Thomas Bazley's letter last week, raising the question of the proper attitude of the Liberal Unionists to the present Government. Sir Thomas Bazley's letter concluded with the words :—" we (the Liberal Unionists) shall find it hard, now that a Liberal Government is in power, to vote for Tory Unionist candidates, who, though willing enough to prevent Mr. Gladstone's Irish bedevilments, would also do their best to hinder sound Liberal measures of re- form ; " and, with this chiefly in mind, we replied :—" The answer to Sir Thomas Bazley is, that he must wait till Home-rule is struck out of the Liberal pro- gramme. Till then, and the Kingdom is safe from dismemberment, the duty of a Unionist is to resist a Home-rule Government." This advice was, per- haps, somewhat unguarded in expression, but it is not easy to see how it can be construed, as the Birmingham Daily Post construes it, to mean that " Unionists are bound to contest, and, if possible, to reject, all measures proposed by the present Administration ; and also, if possible, by using any combination—however in- congruous, or however compromising—that may offer the opportunity, to expel Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues from office." This was certainly not our meaning. Sir Thomas Bazley's letter seemed to us to betray some easily intelligible and not unnatural irritation at the position in which those Unionists who are also fervid Liberals, find themselves,—cut-off from the party to which they rightfully belong, and with whose past, whatever they may think of its present, they identify themselves. pursued with taunts of treachery by their former friends, and forced to co-operate with those whom they regard as traditional enemies. But, however galling he and others may find this position, they are not yet released from the duty of endurance, and that was what we intended to convey in our answer. The patriotism which is incapable of a certain amount of self-abnegation is not worth very much. When, in 1886, those Liberals who were con- vinced of the paramount necessity of defeating Mr. Gladstone's newly adopted Irish policy decided to form an alliance with the Conservatives for the purpose of resisting it, they must have been prepared for some sacrifices. The sacrifices required proved too much for the constancy of a few, and have undoubtedly been a heavy burden to those who have persevered. But it must be remembered that they have not been all on one side. Conservatives, too, deserve all honour for the readi- ness with which they have abandoned minor prejudices and convictions for the sake of a great national object. We think it would be a great misfortune if anything should now, at the eleventh hour, occur to disturb the harmony which has endured so long. The alliance, which in 1886 was to Liberals more or less a leap in the dark, to which necessity compelled them, has since justified itself by the passage of a long list of Liberal measures by the late Administration ; and if any-Liberal has found the rate of progress too slow, or is distressed at the prospect of its utter cessation for a time, let him reflect that, if one- half of a nation chooses to run after such a will-o'-the- wisp as Home-rule, the nation as a whole cannot expect to escape all the evil consequences naturally attendant on such folly. At any rate, it is no sufficient reason for Liberal Unionists refusing to vote for Conservative candi- dates that some foolish Tory " spoke the other day of John Bright having ' turned' Unionist."

The Birmingham Daily Post does not attempt to justify Sir Thomas Bazley in his difficulties about voting for Con- servative candidates ; but, while recommending active opposition to the Government in the constituencies, thinks that this is a "widely different thing from constant and undiscriminating opposition to all Govern- ment measures in the House of Commons ; " and the latter is the policy it attributes to the Spectator. It is hardly necessary to say that this is a complete mis- apprehension, and that the Post is fighting with a shadow of its own creation. To any one familiar with the views of the Spectator, we should have thought it must have been obvious that the meaning intended was some- thing quite different. Looking to the present political conditions, we can see no prospect, in the coming Session at any rate, of Mr. Gladstone's Government proposing Liberal measures such as, to cite the words of the Post, " would have commanded the assent of the once unbroken Liberal Party." We think, then, that, as before the General Election it was the duty of every Liberal convinced of the supreme importance of maintain- ing the Union to give a general support to the Conserva- tive Government, whose existence was the chief obstacle to dismemberment, so it will now be equally his duty to act in general opposition to the Government which exists first and foremost for the purpose of making dismemberment an accomplished fact. This is the real question, if there is any, on which we differ from the Daily Post. Has the position been materially changed, as the Post declares, by the result of the General Election ? The Con- servative Government constituted an impassable barrier in defence of the Union, and therefore, says the Post, the Liberal Unionists were bound to give that Govern- ment their strenuous and undivided support. We cannot see how the fact that this impassable barrier has disap- peared releases them from their obligations. The existence of a strong and united Unionist Opposition is still a barrier for the defence of the Union,—whether impassable or not, remains to be seen. But it is none the less—or, rather, all the more—the duty of every patriotic Unionist, Liberal or Conservative, to do everything in his power to strengthen this defence, and to refrain from doing anything that might weaken it. We never thought of advising for this purpose " blind and blank opposition " to the measures of the present Government. Such a policy—bad in all cir- cumstances, and only worthy of a faction—would least of all be a source of strength to an Opposition like the present, vs hich claims to be national in its superiority to merely party interests. And, indeed, the Spectator, discussing immediately after the elections the true temper for Unionists, expressly discountenanced such a course of action.

If there is any difference of opinion among Liberal Unionists as to their attitude towards the neutral measures of the present Government, it is not likely to become of any practical importance. We have no objection to the way in which the Post defines the duty of the party in relation both to the Government and the Conservative Opposition. " On every matter relating to Ireland, on everything which may tend to strengthen the chances of Mr. Gladstone's Home-rule scheme, the Liberal Unionists will and must vote and work steadily side by side with the Conservatives." "But resolute and persistent opposition on this vital point, which in- volves principles and convictions that cannot be sur- rendered, does not prevent, and ought not to prevent, Liberal Unionists from fairly considering, and if that course should prove justifiable, from supporting really Liberal measures of general utility which may be brought forward by the present Government." But while the Post thinks the latter possibility real and important, we think it so remote as to be hardly worth considering. Sir Thomas Bazley believes that the Gladstonian Party has a sufficient majority to accomplish much useful Liberal work. Is he ignorant of the true character of that majority, or that, if diverted from the pursuit of Home-rule, it would vanish in a day ? If we could imagine the pre- sent Government, while retaining Home-rule as a pious opinion, devoting itself to the production of really Liberal measures of general utility, then a considerable divergence between the Conservative and Liberal sections of the Unionist Opposition might be possible. But the Govern- ment is in the hands of its Irish allies, and if it attempted to postpone Home-rule to questions of social or economic reform, it would at once lose their support, and not even the assistance of the Liberal Unionists could keep it in office. If, concurrently with the Home-rule Bill, or after its rejection by the House of Lords, other measures should be introduced, it will be easy to decide in each particular case how they ought to be dealt with. If, for instance, a measure of registration reform were brought forward, the fact that such a measure is Liberal in name would not, we suppose, prevent Liberal Unionists from rejecting it, if it took the form of an attempt to doctor the electorate in favour of Home-rule, and did not include provisions for equitable redistribution. On the other hand, an effort to deal with the question of Old-Age Pensions would be entitled to, and, we have no doubt, would receive, fair consideration on its merits from both sections of the Opposition. But there is no likelihood of the Government expending its energies on such disinterested experiments. In his letter to Colonel Duke, the Unionist candidate for South Beds, Mr. Cham- berlain puts the whole matter briefly and conclusively :- " The only hope for the Liberal reforms desired is the speedy return to power of a Unionist Government." There is no need for Liberal Unionists to forget their origin, or to swerve in any degree from the principles of Liberalism ; but, however eager for reforms, they must exercise patience and forbearance, and continue to exercise them till Home- rule is out of the way.