THE POLICY OF WALKING OUT.
not be persisted in, and that in the end the Unionist Free- traders will realise that they cannot refuse to vote for a Free-trade Resolution without doing a grave injury to the cause they have at heart. With the motives which induced the half-hearted Free-traders to prefer the policy of walking out it is unnecessary to deal at length. They have shown repeatedly that though they are no doubt intellectually convinced Free-traders, they do not care sufficiently for the cause of Free-trade to make it the ground for a supreme sacrifice. They would like well enough to defeat Protection and to deal Mr. Chamberlain a shrewd blow, and they desire to see the time return when the Unionist party shall be re-established on a Free-trade basis, but they cannot face the idea of making their Free-trade views effective by voting against Protection whenever the issue between Protection and Free-trade is presented to them. They may be willing to wound Chamberlainism, but they are evidently afraid to strike it. If men could prevail without an effort and conquer without strife, there would be no more glad and triumphant conquerors than they. Since, however, the making of their Free-trade views effective requires a sacrifice, they refuse the struggle, and choose the course of inaction and indecision rather than of determination. But it is foolish to wonder at such an attitude. The half-hearted Free-traders were certain to decide on walking out. It is the course that such persons inevitably take when tried by the presentation of a momentous issue. They hide their heads in the sand, and think thereby that they have avoided the consequences of their indecision. In reality they have done nothing of the kind, and in the end the fate overtakes them which attends the half-hearted in all warfare. The enemy treat them just as harshly as if they were active com- batants, and those on whose side they nominally fight cannot regard them as true and trustworthy friends.
But if we find little difficulty in determining why the half-hearted Free-traders decided to walk out, what are we to say as to the decision to follow them adopted by those who are undoubtedly whole-hearted Free-traders, and who have made and are prepared to make great sacrifices for the cause of Free-trade ? The bulk of the Unionist Free- traders in the country will, we fear, find it very difficult to understand such action, and will be inclined to regard it as a sign of weakening on the main issue. But though we are sure that this is not the case, we cannot wonder that the impression has been produced. In reality the decision to follow the half-hearted is due, not to any weakening on the main issue, but only to a mistake in judgment. What misled the whole-hearted Free-traders was the desire to keep their group together and'to arrive at a unanimous decision. ' If,' they doubtles argued, ' we can keep our half-hearted members from actually supporting the Government, and so voting against Free- trade, by abandoning our own determination to vote for it, the result achieved will be worth the sacrifice. We shall have done more good to the Free-trade cause by keeping the half-hearted with us than by taking the course which our own feelings prompt.' Now we are far from saying that in no circumstances is it right to let the laggards set the pace for the whole company. In many cases it is wise and necessary to go slow, or even to pause for a time in order to maintain unity and common action. But in this case such a course is not wise. We are confronted at this moment with the greatest and most momentous issue that the nation has had presented to it for the last fifty years. The country is deeply stirred, and everywhere men are taking sides in regard to it. Those who take the Free-trade side realise that it is no small and unimportant struggle in which they are engaged. They see their opponents led by the most active and astute politician of the day, supported by zealous fol- lowers, and followers with the command of immense wealth and all that wealth can secure in the matter of energy and organisation, and they know that unless they are prepared to spare no effort in opposing the policy of Protection that policy will prevail. They realise also that in politics, as in war, the only effective form of defence is the counter-attack, and that unless they are prepared to meet energy with energy, zeal with zeal, and to oppose conviction and enthusiasm to wealth and the type of organisation which wealth brings with it, they will be beaten. This being the actual situation, the Unionist Free-traders in the country—the men who mean to maintain both the Union and Free-trade--appeal to their leaders in Parliament for strong and fearless action. And what is to be the response to that appeal ? If the resolve of the Free-food party in Parliament is not to be recon- sidered—as we still trust it may be—instead of strong and fearless action they are to see those leaders adopt a policy of weakness and indecision. When they ask for bread they are to be given a stone,—the stone of inertia and of feeble compromise. The House of Commons is asked to condemn the present Government, not on their whole policy or on any mere party issue, but because they have given proofs which cannot be misunderstood that instead of opposing Mr. Chamberlain's proposals they are willing to give those proposals their countenance and support. With this issue before them, are the Unionist Free-traders to refuse to con- demn the Government? Such a refusal would mean that Free-traders are unwilling to condemn those who support the opponents of Free-trade. Concealed though this may be for the moment, the Unionist Free-trade electors are certain to discover before long the true meaning of the policy of walking out, and are as certain to condemn it. Though the view may not yet be accepted. in Parliament, in the country Unionist Free-traders hold that those who profess to lead them should not hesitate to condemn the supporters of Protection.
For these reasons we trust that the Unionist Free- traders will reconsider their decision, and that even at the sacrifice of unanimity the whole-hearted Free- traders will be left free to condemn the Government for the part they have played in lending countenance and support to Mr. Chamberlain's schemes. It is possible, too, that in the debate Mr. Balfour or his lieutenants may go further than they have yet gone— though that has been almost the whole way—in openly proclaiming their sympathy with and support of Mr. Chamberlain's policy. In that event those who are bound to the policy of walking out will be unable to mark their sense of the new situation in the only effective manner open to them,—that is, by their votes. In truth, the decision to walk out places the convinced and whole- hearted Free-traders in an utterly false position. By abstaining they tell the world that they cannot agree that the Government have done anything worthy of condem- nation. Yet we all know that in their hearts they hold that the Government have incurred the condemnation of all sincere Free-traders for the course they have pursued. in regard to the Chamberlain policy. But they will have done worse than merely deal an indirect blow at Free-trade. They will have injured deeply the cause of Unionism. They will have failed to make the much-needed protest that a man has the right to be both a Unionist and a Free-trader, and also the right to make his Free-trade views effective by voting against Protection. If the electors have not that truth presented strongly to them, they will get to believe—as Mr. Chamberlain desires—that a man who is a Free-trader must leave his party and become a Liberal, and thus men who might have been retained for Unionism will be lost to it. Surely the Unionist Free- trade Members of Parliament will not miss the great opportunity which will be given them on Monday night to show the world that a Unionist may also be a Free-trader, and a Free-trader not merely in name but in deed.
RUSSIA AND NEUTRAL RIGHTS.
Previous page
