TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHERE ARE THE CONSERVATIVES?
WHERE are the conservatives ? Are they all asleep, all drugged into unconsciousness by the sophistries of the Tariff Reform League ? To judge by what has happened in 'Parliament during the past month, there are no conservatives or moderates left, at any rate in the Unionist Party. The House of Commons has been filled with wild schemes of a Socialistic kind proposing to dissipate not merely the material resources of the nation, but, what is infinitely more precious and more difficult to redeem, the moral strength of the people. One would have imagined that the lead against these dangerous schemes would have come from the remains of the Unionist Party, and that men would have arisen among them to show that even though following Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour in their fiscal proposals, they had not abandoned the whole of their Conservative or Liberal Unionist opinions. Yet, strangely as it sounds, almost the only effective and capable attempt to show the better way has come, not from the Unionist, but from the Liberal side. It was left to a Radical Member, Mr. Harold Cox, to lead the opposition that was offered to the dangerous and unnecessary proposal to feed the children in our elementary schools. Again, the most potent voice raised in Parliament against the wrong-headed and injurious measure for•the taxation of site values in Scotland was that of Mr. Cox, though here we are glad to note that he received support from a Unionist Member, Sir Henry Craik. Even when a measure so fraught with grave issues as Mr. Hudson's Trade Disputes Bill came before the House, the Unionist opposition was perfunctory and unimportant. Mr. Lambton, it is true, made a good speech against the proposal to place the Trade-Unions in a position of privilege ; but, then, Mr. Lambton is a Unionist Free-trader, and not a follower of Mr. Balfour. Mr. Chamberlain, the actual, if not the nominal, leader of the Opposition in Mr. Balfour's absence, did not, apparently, think it worth while to stay in London for the debate, and * such criticism as was made from the Opposition Front Bench by Mr. Wyndham was directed rather to exposing the admittedly weak and unsatisfactory attitude of the Government in regard to the Bill than to offering a clear and outspoken protest against its leading principles. Worse than all, less than half of the members of the Unionist Party took the trouble to vote against the Bill, while an appreciable number of Unionists actually voted for it.
With these facts before our eyes, can we be said to be exaggerating if we ask whether there are any conservatives and moderates (we use the word "conservative" in its wider sense) left in the House of Commons? A condition of affairs so unsatisfactory, nay, so alarming, confirms us in all we have said during the past three years as to the almost irreparable damage done to the forces of conservatism and moderation by Mr. Chamberlain and his abettor, Mr. Balfour. In destroying the foundations of the Unionist Party, and substituting for its old creed the essentially Socialistic and disruptive principles of Pro- tection, they did a deadly injury to the cause of true con- servatism. It confirms us also in the position from which we have never varied, that it was and is 'the duty of Unionist Free-traders not to join the Liberal Party, even though it was right and necessary for them to make their Free-trade views effective by voting against Pro- tectionist candidates at the General Election. Their duty, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is to hold together and act together as a separate Unionist Free-trade group to which the best Conservative and Free-trade elements in the nation may rally, and which later on may be able to reconstitute the Unionist Party on a Free-trade basis,— a basis also of moderation, sane Imperialism, and anti- Socialism. The need for the formation and the mainte- nance of such a Unionist Free-trade group has, we venture to say, been demonstrated beyond doubt by the events of the present Session. The official Unionist Party, weakened and demoralised by the poison of Protection which it has swallowed at the bidding of Mr. Chamberlain, at first with the tacit and then with the open approval of Mr. Balfour, has shown itself utterly incapable of providing the check upon the present House of Commons that is so urgently needed. All that .it has done, or apparently has desired to do, has been to embarrass the Government, to force them wherever pos- sible into an extreme position, and to place them at the mercy of the more violent section of .their supporters.
But though with the virtual extinction of the Unionist Free-traders in the House of Commons true conservatism and moderation seem to have disappeared, or are to be found. only in the moderate wing of the Liberal Party, we do not for a moment doubt that in the country there are still a vast number of people who are conservative in the true sense. We believe that it is as true now as ever it was that the majority of thinking Englishmen and Scotchmen are at heart " Left-Centre," and that though they felt obliged, and rightly felt obliged, at the General Election to cast their votes against Protection and in favour of Free-trade, they are in no sense prepared to enter upon any wild schemes of Socialistic experiment. The Unionist Free-traders, though they are so meagrely represented in the present House of Commons, in truth turned the scale at the late Election. It should surely be the objet of wise Unionist leaders to recover these votes for theieparty. But these votes can never be recovered unless the Unionist Party, besides abandoning Protection under all its aliases, also shows an honest and effective desire to withstand extreme and Socialistic measures, and to help whatever Government may be in power to resist the proposals of the extremists. What temptation is there to moderate men who hold views such as we hold in regard to national affairs—and there are many more of them than the Chamberlainites and Balfourites will admit—to go back to a party which not only coquets with the Labour Members, but offers no coherent or reasoned opposition to such measures as those we have enumerated above ? The men of moderation and con- servatism may feel anything but satisfied with the action of the present Government in regard to domestic measures, and may regret, as we regret, their unwillingness to say " No " to the Radical and Labour wings of their party. But they recognise that in the Government, at any rate, there is an important section who are opposed to Socialism, and to that reckless expenditure of money which Mr. Chamberlain and his followers now openly hint is the first and necessary step towards the carrying out of Tariff Reform. The Government may be weak, and the Liberal Party as a whole swayed by a dangerous combination of recklessness and senti- mentality ; but, deplorable in the highest degree as such a state of things is, who can deny that a Government of Tariff Reformers inspired by the spirit which has been moving the Opposition since Parlia- ment met would be infinitely worse ? Not till the Opposition can show the nation that it feels a genuine sense of responsibility, and is more eager to preserve the country from Socialism and its attendant financial burdens than to make party " scores " off the Government or to further the policy of Tariff Reform which has been so emphatically, condemned at the polls, will it be able to rally to its side the Left- Centre men, who, in the last resort, must always control the destiny of a sound and vigorous Unionist Party. At present the moderates and conservatives in the nation see clearly enough that an Opposition controlled and in effect, if not in name, led by Mr. Chamberlain is thinking far more of how—as Mr. Chamberlain has himself made us understand— to convert the Trade-Unionists to Tariff Reform than to resist a Socialistic programme. Mr. Chamberlain has often been singularly out of touch with the nation as a whole, and has therefore often failed in his political diagnoses. At present, as we have said, the men he is thinking about and the men whose votes he is angling for are not the moderate Conservatives and moderate Liberal Unionists, but the anti-Individualist section of the working men. His hope is so to manoeuvre and so to manipulate the Parliamentary situation that these men may become disgusted with the Liberals on the very grounds that moderate men are inclined to support them, and then by the votes of these extremists once more to regain power. We are certain that this policy is doomed to failure, and that if persisted in it will only sink the unfortunate Unionist Party deeper and deeper in the political slough, while at the same time vastly increasing the dangers of Socialistic legislation. What is wanted is npt tactics of this kind, but an honest, plain, straightforward, and intelligible opposition to extreme proposals. Such an opposition will gradually rally to itself all the best elements in the nation. Inci- dentally it will also drive the poison of Protection out of the Unionist Party. Whether some leader will arise on the Unionist side who will gradually organise such an opposition we do not know, but our hope lies in that direction. What we are certain of is that opposition con- ducted on Mx. Chamberlain's principles can never restore the party to vigour.
It will be said, perhaps, that to have written as we have written above is a confession of failure, and shows that we ought not to have taken the line of decided and effective opposition to Chamberlainism and Balfourism which we took before, and at the time of, the General Election. On the contrary, instead of a. confession of failure, we regard it as a proof of the soundness of the con- tentions which we then set before the country. We fully realised that the adoption of the Protectionist policy meant the ruin of the Unionist Party. We also believed, and still believe, that the adoption of a Protectionist policy must mean the ruin of the nation and the Empire. Not only would it involve the worst and most dangerous form of Socialism at home, but it would introduce a disruptive element into the Empire which must bring about its ultimate ruin. Therefore we were bound not merely to oppose Protection by verbal protests, but to make our protests effective. We never disguised from ourselves, however, that the opposition which we felt it was absolutely necessary that the Unionist Free-traders should offer to Mr. Chamberlain and his aiders and abettors would involve a heavy sacrifice in many directions, and must be paid for at a heavy price. But those sacrifices had to be made. In the affairs of nations, as Of men, there are times when it is necessary to pay a great price rather than to risk irreparable ruin. We felt that it was far better to risk a Parliamentary situation such as that which now exists than to risk the carrying out of the Chamberlain policy. That we said before the event. After the event, and in full view of all the dangers which may arise from the Socialistic temper of the present Parliament, we are convinced that the price was one which it was necessary to pay. It is from those who, by refusing to restrain .Mr. Chamberlain in the early days of his propaganda, forced the nation and the party to pay* that price that expiation for their cowardice and weakness must be demanded.
But it is little use to regret the past. What we have to deal with is the present and the future. And here the course for Unionist Free-traders is clear. They must stand together and redouble their efforts to reconstitute the Unionist Party upon a basis of Free-trade, a basis which necessarily involves moderation, and essential con- servatism. In a country like oars there is no policy which makes more for true conservatism and true moderation than does Free-trade. No true Conservative Party can ever be the party of Protection, for Protection is always the parent of passion and unrest.
Previous page
