MR. BALFOUR AND THE UNIONIST PARTY. ITO 51111 EDITOR Or
TIM “SPRCTATOR.1
SIR,—The number of people who proclaim themselves unqualified admirers of Mr. Balfour's Parliamentary tactics appears to be few. This is strangely sad when one remembers how little else there has been in his recent leadership which provided scope for admiration. But would not the number of the faithful have been fewer still if he had acted in the manner described by the writer of the article under the above title in your last week's issue P The passage I refer to runs as follows :— "Take, as a question in point, the adoption by the Liberal Party of old-age pensions as a part of its official programme. If Mr. Balfour had been alive to his duties as Unionist leader, he would surely have seized the opportunity to denounce such schemes, and to let the world know that he and his party meant to oppose them to the utmost."
The question, I understand, here is primarily one of tactics, and only secondly one of justice. As a matter of party policy, I can imagine no method which would more surely complete the ruin of the Unionist Party, morally as well as numerically, than for its leader to have "made it clear that be meant to lead his party against old-age pensions." Surely, Sir, the writer must have forgotten the General Election of 1895,'when the Unionist Party, from Lord Salisbury downwards, adopted Mr. Chamber- lain's proposals for old-age pensions, and when " old-age pensions" ums the fourth item on MT. Balfour's election. card. The Unionist Party won the Election of 1895 on their promise to give old-age pensions, and but for 'be war they would have lost the Election of 1900 for their failure to keep their promises. From a purely party point of view, all Liberals should rejoice to see their opponents com- mitted to a root-and-branch opposition of this great social reform. It is doubtful whether Unionists would hold a single county seat at the ensuing General Electibu. But remember- ing that the Unionist is the only party which has officially promised old-age pensions to the people in return for votes, the morality of such a proceeding would be little abort of an outrage. Anybody who has lived in a village and caught something of the spirit and tragedy of the labourer's lot will know bow deeply the hope of avoiding the workhouse as the end of all things has entered into the people's hearts and minds since the promises of 1895. It may have been a crime to have promised pensions then ; but would it not be adding thereto a crowning folly to oppose them now, and to oppose them before there is an/thing tangible to oppose P—I am,
38 Norbury Court Bead, S.W.
[We deny that the Unionist Party promised State-paid old-age pensions in 1895. Mr. Balfour was, we admit, culpably careless as to the items printed on his election-card, and deserves censure for such carelessness ; and there was no doubt a good deal of loose talk about old-age pensions among politicians at that time; but the proposal that the State should grant pensions to all persons over sixty-five, as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith now propose, never had any official sanction.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
