THE UNIONIST PARTY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sni,—You have appealed to Liberals and Socialists not to make partisan use of Lord Cecil's resignation. As one who has been impressed by your appeal, I am asking for space to expose some of the reasons which almost persuade us to reject your advice.
I am not certain what degree of partisan advocacy you would have us abstain from. Our first temptation, of course, is to use an attack on the Government's foreign policy as a means to our end of gaining our own way in all other branches of policy. That certainly would be objectionable. Secondly, we would have the opportunity of honestly persuading the electors not to vote Conservative because of the Government's alleged disloyalty to the League and the cause of disarmament. If we honestly believe that the Government is disloyal, it is difficult to refrain from acting on that belief.
In one passage of your comments you seem to be placing limits to the frank discussion of foreign policy. "By all means," you say, "let the Government be told in and out of season that they will lose the confidence of the country if they do not devote themselves heart and soul to disarma- ment and to the conciliation of Europe through the League. But do not let us give scoffing and malicious Continentals a pretext for saying that only Liberals and Socialists in Great Britain believe in the League and that, therefore, the League is done with and need not be bothered about any more." But what is a citizen to do when he considers that the Govern- ment is not devoting itself heart and soul to the cause of the League and when he is encouraged in such a view by Lord Cecil's action ? It is useless to warn a Goverrunent that it will lose the nation's confidence if we are deprived of the ultimate sanction behind that warning, namely, the right to criticize, accuse and attack. And would not these Continentals scoff more maliciously than ever if we gave them ground for believing that a British Government, disloyal or incompetent in League affairs, was, by means of an inter-party agreement, to be free from losing electoral support on that account ? It cannot, I know, be your intention to advocate obscurantism in the discussion of foreign affairs, but that might be the effect of your policy.
Certainly no one would assert that only Liberals and Socialists believe in the League." But would it be wrong to say that it is mainly Liberals and Socialists who so believe ? Recent events entitle us to ask whether amongst Conservatives the sincere friend of the League is not the exception as in the Liberal and Labour Parties he is the rule. Are the pro-League Conservatives sufficiently numerous and powerful to determine the policy of their party ? In Radical circles Lord Cecil is universally respected and admired. Is it entirely wrong to suppose that, on account of his devotion to the League; he is the object of very lukewarm appreciation and often of covert sneers in his own party ?
It is my experience that very few Conservatives are anxious for our Government to place that confidence in the League which alone can give it power. Although I move in University circles where there is a maximum of open-mindedness and where political ideas of all kinds receive unusual tolerance, I find that the Conservatives, in their attitude towards the League, are generally indifferent and frequently contemptuous.
It would be interesting to know how the Spectator would assess the measure of real support which the League enjoys among average Conservatives. On this subject the views of enlightened Conservative journals such as yours and even the public utterances of ministers are not decisive evidence. Your opponents suspect that there is a hard and impenetrable core of hostility towards the League within the party and that the well-intentioned efforts of the minority are liable to be ineffective in League affairs. Can you assure us that these suspicions are entirely baseless ? At present it may still be right to keep the League out of politics, but it may not always remain so. Is it not for the pro-League Conservatives to disarm radical criticism by asserting their power within their party, rather than to bind us over to inactivity on the gravest of all political questions ?
There is one more point which causes us misgiving. You try to reassure us by saying that," No government could keep the respect of this country if they were disloyal to the League.". Unfortunately, we have an electoral system which makes it possible for a party to gain office and continue in office even when it has not the respect and support of a majority of
Previous page
