THE DECAY OF RADICALISM P ERHAPS the strangest of the many
strange facts connected with the present condition of the Liberal party is the decay of Radicalism. The name, of course, remains, and is more widely adopted than ever, but the thing itself has almost ceased to exist. Proof of what we say is easily found in the various speeches made at the meeting of the Council of the National Liberal Federation held this week at Leicester. Radicalism means, or used to mean, all that is thoroughgoing and untrimming,— that which goes to the root of things, which is determined, which is clear, which is unsophisticated. The Radical, whatever else may be his faults, ought to know his own mind and his own intentions, and mean you to know them too. Radicalism, again, is, or ought to be, based on well-defined and easily understood principles, and conveyed, not in vague and shadowy utterances, but in straightforward and uncompromising language. Can any one read the speeches made at Leicester and profess to find himself in the presence of such a spirit as this ? The whole atmosphere reeked with sophistry and trim- ming, with vagueness and superficiality. The very last thing that any of the speakers ventured to do was to go to the root of the matter. Instead of thoroughness and courage, there was timidity and hesitation. Instead of being uncompromising and clear-cut, the utterances were hedged and befogged with a cloud of words. The only speaker who showed the slightest tendency towards the Radical spirit created a scandal, and was suppressed as soon as decency permitted. A Mr. Thomson, from Kingston, condemned the Report of the Federation, as well he might, as a "weak and flabby document." It reminded him, he said, of the "sermon given by a gentle- man in a rural chapel, which was described by an old lady as a powerful discourse, flowing in its periods, eloquent in its language, but with not enough gospel in it to save a tom-tit. It was a shame that they should have a Report like that brought before them." There was no suggestion that Mr. Thomson was a traitor or an enemy in disguise, but yet his words caused the utmost indignation,—so entirely had the old Radical spirit deserted his fellow members on the Council. Their im- mediate instinct seems to have been to get rid of this inconvenient advocate of thoroughness, plain speaking, and. hard hitting.
If Mr. Thomson found the Report weak and flabby, what must he have thought of the speeches to which he had to listen as a member of the Council ? Let us see how the various points dealt with by the speakers look like when viewed in the light of bond-fide Radicalism. Take the manner in which the question of the House of Lords was mentioned. It is perfectly clear that if the House of Lords is to be dealt with on Radical lines, the hereditary principle must be got rid of, and the right of the Peerage to join in the work of legislation put an end to. That is a clear and intelligible proposal. To carry it out will, of course, require a severe struggle, and therefore the Radical must be prepared with the means as well as the end. Now there is only one practical way of abolishing the hereditary principle, and so the House of Lords, and that is the creation of sufficient Peers to carry the necessary legislation. Hence no Radical should allow a Liberal Ministry to take office unless that Ministry can first obtain an understanding that the Sovereign will, if necessary, make Peers for the purpose of abolish- ing the hereditary element in the Legislature. We are not, it is needless to say, in favour of any such course ourselves, nor do we think it likely that any Home- rule Ministry will ever be able to extort such a pledge ; but then we do not want to abolish the House of Lords. Our contention merely is that if the Radical spirit had any vitality, it is in this thorough and un- compromising manner that the matter would be treated. But of such a way of treating the problem there is not a trace in the speeches at the Federation. There was a vague hint in Dr. Spence Watson's speech about obtaining a reform of the House of Lords if necessary by withhold- ing supplies, but no one can take such threats seriously. It would indeed be difficult to find a more fatuous proposal, for it is not the Lords but the Commons who appoint the Government, and are responsible for the public services. Fancy explaining to the country that the Cabinet did not mean to pay the Army and Navy or their own official salaries because the Peers were mis- behaving themselves = Please, Sir, Jane is so naughty to-day that I have had to send Jack and Harry to bed without their supper.' In truth, this threat of withholding the supplies does not mean business the least bit more than Sir Charles Foster's weak and whirling words about "sweeping away the autocratic power of the House of Lords." You cannot sweep without a broom, and the only broom available is a final creation of Peers. Not till the Radicals demand from their leaders a solemn pledge that no more Peers shall be created in the ordinary way, and also that they will never take office again till they have obtained her Majesty's assurance that she will not refuse a wholesale creation of Peers, if such a course should be deemed necessary, shall we believe in a revival of the Radical spirit in regard to the House of Lords.
The proposals for electoral reform made at Leicester no more evoked a reanimation of Radicalism than did those in connection with the House of Lords. Mr. Birrell provided his hearers with a very fair definition of what in the abstract would be the proper Radical way of approaching electoral reform. "Liberals," be said, "were seeking to maintain and keep alive that tradition,—to make the spirit of the Reform Bills an active and real thing, and to make an extended fran- chise a reality and not a sham." Are they ? The spirit of former Reform Bills was always Radical,—i.e., intel- ligible, logical, and; as far as they went, thorough. Can that be said of the present proposals ?—for electoral reform is the one item on which we have a little light. What is proposed is not to give universal suffrage and equal electoral districts, but simply to tinker the regis- tration laws. What amount of Radicalism is left in a party when not a single voice is raised in it to do away with the monstrous over-representation of Ireland and the equally monstrous under-representation of England ? There is not much of the spirit of the old Reform Bills in leaving a minute town like Newry to return as many Members as a huge borough like Wandsworth. Surely the best way of making an extended franchise a reality and not a sham is to take away Members from the minute con- stituencies of Ireland and to give them to places like Wands- worth. Of a truth, there cannot be much Radicalism left in a party in which the over-representation of Ireland is a subject which is absolutely tabooed. Imagine the older Radicals never alluding to Old Sarum because it happened to return a Radical ! But, in reality, we have no right to be surprised at the decay, or rather the absolute dis- appearance, of Radicalism. The adoption of Home-rule was bound to destroy, and did destroy, Radicalism. It was no mere accident that made almost all the true Radicals —Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Charles Villiers, Mr. Rvlands, Mr. Taylor, and so many others— refuse in 1886- to adopt Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy. The alliance with the Obscurantist party of Ireland could not but poison and wither up the leaves of Radicalism. Ultramontane clericalism, Protection, and State action as opposed to Individualism,—these are the civic ideals of the Nationalists. Can it be wondered that Radicalism perished under such influences ? Not till the alliance is at an end can we expect to see any revival of the Radical spirit. But will the alliance with the Nationalists ever come to an end? We confess we see small signs of it. There is friction, there is uneasiness, there is dissatis- faction, but in spite of that there is a frenzied desire apparent to retain the Irish vote. The iron of the division list has entered deep into the Liberal soul, and by the measure of the Whip, and of the Whip alone, the policy and principles of the party are estimated and adopted.
Previous page
