TOPICS OF THE DAY
THE ESSENTIALS OF UNIONIST POLICY.
1r4ORD SALISBURY will be encumbered with every sort of advice as to how he should lead his Party. In spite of that, we are going to add to the deluge. There are three matters, in which we believe he is at heart with us, which we hope he will not allow to fall into the back- ground, but will, even at the risk of a certain amount of controversy, keep strongly to the front. The first of these is the retention of the name and policy of Unionism. It is true that in the narrow sense Unionism has been regarded as meaning exclusively the maintenance of the. Union with Ireland. But that has gone ; therefore, it is argued, the name must go. We see no such necessity. Unionism means something much more than a special Irish policy. For us it has meant much more, and also, we believe, for the larger part of the readers of the Spectator. Unionism means the maintenance of the moral, political and commercial fabric of the nation—opposition to that dangerous, fissiparous tendency which tolerates every kind of disruptive action. Unionism was the cause to which Lincoln gave his life. As Walt Whitman so well put it, Lincoln discovered a new political virtue—the virtue of Unionism, of keeping the nation together and preventing reckless men from destroying the solidarity of the community. That is a great political ideal and a great political duty, and it is one which the Unionist, Constitutional and Conservative Party ought to undertake as their essential principle. Unionism goes, however, even beyond the Empire. Its aspiration is that the whole English-speaking race shall be united by ties which, though they cannot interfere in the very least degree with the sovereignty and absolute independence of each of the two halves of the race, yet assume that the bond of speech and blood, and so of brotherhood, can never make Englishmen or Americans foreigners. War between them may come, but if it does it will be civil war as much as that between the Blue and the Grey.
Unionism, again, means the union of forces and of hearts at home for the internal welfare • of the nation. Lastly, Unionism, in a quite different sense, though a perfectly legitimate one, means the union of men of all types and degrees who want to see certain political ideals prevail. Though the Spectator, in view of recent events, in view of its past, and with a clear intention as to its future, must remain an organ of public opinion tied to no Party, it will `always support the principles which we have just described. Another practical point on which we judge from his public utterances that Lord Salisbury agrees with us must, in our opinion, be kept to the front. It is the proposal to endow the People with the right of veto by a direct vote over legislation on which the opinion of the nation is doubtful. We would ask him with all the power at our command not to yield to the talk of those who wish to make a feeble and even ridiculous Upper Chamber as a substitute for the House of Lords. The present body, with all its faults, is, at any rate, dignified and intelligible. A second Chamber to be of use in itself as a controlling check upon the House of Commons must be based on purely Democratic principles. Nothing less could be or ought to be effective. But, if we get that, it will be nothing but the House of Commons under a new name. It will also be just as much exposed to the evils of Party as is the House of Commons. What we have got to include in the Constitution is a definite power of veto over factious and irresponsible actions by Representative Bodies. Such bodies, if left to themselves under a hard-and-fast Party system, without question tend to minority rule. The groups and the caucuses which command them fix on the legislative dishes which are to be laid on the Parliamentary table, and then force them down our throats, not because they are the Will of the People whom the Commons are supposed to represent, but because they are ordered by a cleverly organized minority. The electors must be given the right of veto over the vagaries of their representatives. That they must rule and execute their decrees through representatives no one will dream of denying. But the People must have the last word in cases of doubt as to their wishes, or when and if their representatives have been tempted either to betray or to neglect their trust.
The danger can be avoided only by lodging the right of veto in the hands of the people themselves. How serious the danger is can be seen by observing the extreme un- willingness of all good Party men, especially on the Liberal and Labour sides, but also in the Unionist caucuses, to agree to any proposals whatever for submitting legislative measures of a doubtful kind to a Poll of the People. The Party Managers realize that if the Poll of the People were to be introduced, those legislative " deals " of which they are so fond and which they use so skilfully to keep themselves in power would become impossible. You will never find a caucus politician who does not view the Referendum, i.e., the lodging of the veto power in the hands of the People, with something akin to horror. He knows that in the case of the caucus it means that Othello's occupation is gone.
Lord Salisbury and his followers, if they are wise and do their duty, can make the nation safe by insisting on the Referendum. If they neglect to do this, we shall one day be at the mercy of minority rule in some vital matter. Remember we are getting very near the edge of the precipice. As the Liberal Coalition Whip reminded us the other day with evident satisfaction, the new Parliament is going to be one of four or five groups, no one of which groups will be in a majority or anything approaching it. But that is only too likely to mean minority rule secured by a deal between those who will join themselves by what the American politician called join the cement of public plunder."
The third point which we want to impress upon Lord Salisbury's mind is this. Will he not insist that the way of getting our finances on the secure basis on which they ought to be, and on which they can be placed, is to begin, not at the expenditure end, where the Government always begin, and where even the excellent Geddes Commission began, but at the taxation end ? First, let us find out what is the amount of taxation which can be borne by the country without injuring the essential sources of national wealth. In a word, let us find out what is the safe maximum of taxation. When that is discovered, let this eight hundred or eight hundred and fifty millions a year, or whatever it may be, be distributed with the greatest possible care among the Depart- ments. But let it be made absolutely clear that it is of no use for a Department to say " We must have this," because the answer will always be " You can't; unless you can persuade the Government to give you a piece from the allotment intended for some other Depart- ment." Depend on it, if we approach the thing in this way our difficulties will vanish. If we do not, we shall be cutting down expenditure with one hand and putting it back with the other. The case for expenditure, especially in such a matter as public education or national defence, is always an overwhelming one if you look at it, not from the point of view of your bank book but from that of what you consider desirable. 'How many men this year are having to say to their wives, or even to their doctors, " I cannot have an expensive holiday. You say I must, but I can show you in five minutes from my pass book that I cannot. The money is not there, and cannot be raised without ruin." It is here we as a nation stand now, Of that there can be no doubt whatever.
Previous page
