UNIONIST POLICY.*

SEVEN years in the wilderness give a political party an excellent chance to get its mind clear on fundamentals. The first and best fruit of this period of enforced reflection was Lord Hugh Cecil's brilliant little tractate on Conservatism; and now within a space of two months we have been presented with no fewer than three re-statements of the principles and policy of the Opposition. Mr. F. E. Smith has collected a number of his recent magazine articles, in which, with all the authority of one high in the councils of his party, be defines the Unionist attitude on the chief questions of the day. Mr. Arthur Page, also a lawyer and a practical poiitician, has reprinted from Blackwood his acute analysis of Radical achievements and his sane and business-like counter-proposals. The third volume is less concerned with details of policy than with the creed and spirit behind them. Its author uses the word " Toryism " where Mr. Smith and Mr. Page write" Unionism," and he is above all things concerned to show bow the tradition of British Toryism can with historical and logical justice adapt itself to the latest needs of the nation. Through all three works runs the idea that since 1906 our politics have undergone a chemical change, so that the old constituents have been altered out of recognition. The nineteenth century emanclpated certain classes, and the traditional order of English life has failed to assimilate them. A new "culture type" has arisen, which has been noted by astute demagogues, who have used it for their own purposes. Unless Unionism can offer incor- • (1) Unionist Policy, and other Essays. By the Eight Hon. F. E. Smith, K.C., M.P. London: Williams and Norgate. [Ss. net.]—(2) imperialism and Democracy. 13y Arthur Page. With an Introduction by the Eight.Hon. Austen Chamberlain, M.P. London: W. Blackwood and Sous. Da. net.] —(3) National Retinal: a BeAtatemont of Tory Principles. With an Intzo- duction by Lord Willoughby de Broke. Loudon: Herbert jeukind. [24. 64. net..1

poration to this new type it will be condemned to eternal opposition. All three writers believe that such incorporation is possible without departing from the high traditions of the party, and they all repudiate the kind of " Tory democracy" which would try to outplay the demagogue at his own game. Of the three writers, Mr. F. E. Smith gives us swift and brilliant arguments, which have something of the fire of the spoken word ; and for the comfort of those who are not enamoured of party conflicts, he appends a delightful little essay on the different styles of modern parliamentary oratory.

Mr. Page's book is perhaps the most useful to the ordinary man, for he is extremely succinct, and he marshals his facts with lawyerlike sobriety and clearness. The anonymous

-author of National Revival is. too fluent and rhetorical, and occasionally his meaning disappears in purple mists ; but for

the patient reader there is a good deal of serious thought in his swelling periods.

Mr. Smith gives us an excellent definition of the Conservative attitude. It involves a bias against change; that is to say, any new departure has to justify itself on its merits; it has no value merely because it is a new departure. And the reason is obvious :—

" An embryonic, unsettled, or inconsiderable State may make experiments without incurring the charge of extreme rashness, just as a deeply embarrassed business man may attempt to retrieve his fortunes by a hazardous speculation. An old and highly civilized country will do well to remember the eloquence and imbibe the spirit of Burke."

In 1906 the Conservative Party was defeated, but the revival of Conservatism began, for during long years of office the party bad forgotten its basis of principle. In the old days Opposition succeeded to Government as Amurath to Aniarath, without any special effort on its part But to-day new and ill-understood forces have arisen in our public life, and with a democratic franchise it seems certain that unless Conserva- tism can face these forces it will never again be a dotnimint national policy. There must be, of course, differences of opinion in its ranks, but on the essentials Mr. Smith is clear that the party is agreed. It is resolute on the necessity of

complete preparations for defence, on the effective union of the Empire, on a revision of our whole revenue

system, on a reform of our Constitution which, while pro- viding checks and balances, will give the people the ultimate voice, on the maintenance of an Established Church, on the abolition of class jealousies and the substitution of class- co-operation for class-hatred. He argues with great force that the Unionist Party cannot stand for a policy of mere efficient administration; there are problems to be met which demand legislation, and a deep unrest which, if it is not allayed by good policy, will be aggravated by bad.

"The disastrous spread of ostentatious luxury on every side has united with the controversial necessities of Mr. Lloyd George to focus the feelings of discontent into a dangerous head. Motor-cars have manufactured more Socialists than all the eloquence of Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Lausbury ; and although in many well- paid trades the attitude of labour is unreasonable and grasping, the wrongs under which many poor persons labour are so cruel and so undeniable that it is astounding that any school of political thought should conceive a policy of inactivity to be possible. . . . The question, then, to which constructive Conservative statesman- ship should be directed is not whether further reforms will be necessary, but bow can these reforms be effected with the least mischief to our public and private finance ; and the question which requires scientific treatment in relation to the great staple industries of the country is ; What is the point at which taxation so hampers English capital in the field of international com- petition as to impair production and diminish employment ? "

The author of National Revival argues much to the same

purpose, somewhat in the language of the Oxford " Greats " school. He believes in what seventeenth-century jurists used to call the "law fundamental"; popular sovereignty is limited by certain ethical frineiples which no parliament can tamper with, and does not mean that "men can do what they like, provided only they be strong enough to win elections." The State is founded upon duties rather than rights, and the only iight is the opportunity to meet the responsibilities of patriotic citizenship. To him there are no interests, only equities, and he insists with eloquence upon the moral signifi- cance of his creed. His confession of faith, embodied in twelve articles, would probably be accepted by most thinking men. The value of the writer lies in his sincere desire to moralize " his political creed, his insistence that a true jimaliey should- offer -not bribes - but "larger opportunities of patriotism," and his enthusiastic belief that this involves nee harsh break with the past, that "the paths which tradition has made honourable, change has left serviceable."

Turning from definition to detail, one thing must strike tile- reader of Mr. Smith and Mr. Page. For the first time for generations an English party stands pledged, if returned to office, to undo many parts of their predecessors' work. It makes an unfortunate break in the continuity of policy on which we have prided ourselves, but it is logically inevitable. Mr. Page provides much trenchant criticism of recent measures,. all the more effective for its moderate phrases and its full. historical annotations. On the negative part of Unionist policy every soul in the party is agreed. The Parliament Act. must be sterilized by the adoption of the Referendum as the- sound method of deciding a Parliamentary deadlock. Home- Rule, if it should ever be passed, must be repealed. So must the preposterous and futile land taxes in the 1909 Budget.

Othermeasures, such as the Insurance Act, will require- drastic revision. When we pass to constructive work, though, there may be some differences in emphasis in certain sectione-

of the party, we are inclined to think that the views or Mr. Smith and Mr. Page will in most cases c,ommandi

assent. Nothing could be better than Mr. Page's admirably balanced survey of the real problems in connexion with the future of the Empire, with the Church, with temperance._ with the Constitution, with labour troubles, and with Ireland. He buttresses his argument with many apt quotations from; the great Liberal statesmen of the past. He is the true Conservative, and never stultifies a principle by arguing on; a low level of financial advantage. For example, be is far less concerned with the unfairness of disendowment than with the far deeper evil which must- result from disestablishment- As an expression of what seems to us the rational and, businesslike attitude towardi social reform we will set down two passages from Mr. Smith and Mr. Page. Here is the first writer :—

" The laissealairs Conservative or -Whig wishes the State to' touch nothing; the Socialist, and in a lesser degree the Radical- Socialist, wishes the State to touch everything and to touch-it im the wrong way. The modern Conservative, like the• old Tory,. wants the State to touch some-things, but to touch thew in the- right way. . . . There is only one test of a tariff or social measure : 'Does it or does it not add to the total productive- efficiency and prosperity of the whole people?' If it does so add,. it is justified by the national and patriotic doctrines of the-party; if it does not so add, it must bewbistled down the wind, though it were the most attractive lure for votes that even the mind of the- Chancellor of the Exchequer ever conceived."

That is the common-sense view, the view of the plain man,. equally distinct from the two opposite schools of doctrinaires. The same truth, from a slightly different standpoint, is put no- less well by Mr. Page.

"Unionists wish to level up; Progressives, whether they-be- Radicals or Socialists, wish to level down. Unionists believe that- the State should be moulded by individual citizens ; Progressives. believe that individual citizens should be moulded by the State_ Progressives desire the State to control both its subjects and its resources, and therewith to provide a livelihood for individuals Unionists hold that it is the duty of the State to assist individual citizens to provide a livelihood for themselves. The difference in outlook between the two parties is fundamental and irrecon- citable."