TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE BREAK-UP OF THE CONFERENCE. THE Conference has broken up. We do not want to exaggerate the dangers and difficulties of the crisis with which the nation is now face to face, but on the other hand it would be foolish not to admit that these are many and great. It is clear that the break-up of the Conference must be followed, very possibly immediately, by a Dissolu- tion and appeal to the people. That appeal will ba on the question of the House of Lords and the abolition of its so-called right of veto. The country will be asked to sanction the Government's proposals for what is in effect single- Chamber government, concealed by the retention of an unreformed and paralysed Upper House. If the Government proposal is carried, the House of Commons will be absolutely supreme over all legislation, though there may be a certain delay in carrying out their wishes, —the kind of delay imposed by stringent and somewhat dilatory Standing Orders. That is all. Otherwise the will of the Commons will be in all matters within these their dominions supreme. Remember that it will not be necessary for the Government to secure as large a majority as they have at present. They may lose a very con- siderable number of seats and yet have quite enough Parliamentary support to place the Constitution at their disposal, for we may dismiss as idle the notion that the King could resist, even if he so desired, which is an assumption we have no sort of right to make, the pressure which will necessarily be put upon him should the Ministry be given a new lease of life. It would be madness to throw the Monarchy after the Second Chamber supposing the country should decide on single- Chamber government. The King will be bound by the decision .of the people, whatever it may be. The only effect of suggesting the contrary at this juncture would be to drive thousands of voters who might otherwise vote on the right side into the enemy's camp. For good or ill, the British people are going to rule themselves, and they will not brook being told that they cannot do what they want because the King may conceivably think otherwise.
It is the business of Unionists to see that the people have an opportunity to decide the problem upon its true merits, and not upon a misunderstanding. The first thing that Unionists must make clear to the country is that, though the decision which it will be called upon to make is nominally concerned with the House of Lords and the blunder of the rejection of the Budget, what is really before the voters is the Union, and the demand to break up the Legislative Union of these islands. There is the real issue. If the so-called veto of the Lords, or, to put it fairly and candidly, the right of the Upper House to co-operate in legislation, is abolished, the destruction of the Union is already accomplished. The moment the right of the Lords to refer a Home-rule Bill to the country has gone, Irish Nationalists will demand their pound of flesh. A Home-rule Bill will instantly be introduced and passed by means of the "guillotine." Then nothing will remain but the slight delay imposed by the Government's scheme. How- ever much concealed, then, the votes now to be given must be votes for or against the Union. Unfortunately it will not be an easy task to make this clear. In the first place, the issue, as we have said, will be confused with talk about the " insolent demands of hereditary legislators," and so forth, mixed with reminiscences of the blunder committed by the Lords in 1909. Further, a great deal of dust will no doubt be thrown in the eyes of the electors owing to the idiotic tactics of those so-called Unionists who have been preaching their spurious Federalism up and down the country. The electors will be told that all Unionist professions about devotion to the Union are nonsense, and proof will be alleged to be found in such preaching. "They were willing enough to do what they now call breaking up the Union if only they could have got into office in that way." That will be the Radical allegation, based upon the miserable weakness with which the Unionist leaders and large sections of the Unionist Press met the talk of Federalism. It is true that in reality this talk was merely the vapourings of a few academic dreamers ; but, except by ourselves, it was not stamped upon months ago as it ought to have been stamped upon by the Unionist Press. We may feel sure that the supporters of the Government will work this vein for all they are worth.
It is little use, however, to cry over spilt milk. Once more we must insist that what the Unionists have got to do is to make the country realise the true nature of the 'issue. To accomplish this purpose there is only one method, and that can be expressed in one word,— Concentrate. The need of the hour for Unionists is,— Concentrate, Concentrate, Concentrate. How is Unionist concentration to be secured ? We must get not only men of all shades of opinion in the Unionist Party, but all anti-Home-rulers in the Liberal Party—and they are to be numbered by the hundred thousand— and all the upholders of the Union in that great body of electors who do not belong to either party to unite on a common platform. What divides the Unionist Party now, and what prevents the accession to Unionism of those Liberals and those non-party electors of whom we have spoken, is the dread of Tariff Reform and of the imposi- tion of food-taxes. Tariff Reformers need not, as we have said again and again, sacrifice one iota of their convictions or give up their efforts to convert the country to Tariff Reform. What they must do, however, is to make it clear that no man by voting at the Election for Tariff Reform candidates will have his vote used to impose a tariff or food-taxes upon the country without a further reference to the electors. That the Tariff Reformers have enough patriotism and enough devotion to the Union to do this we do not doubt for a moment. What we do doubt is whether they have enough imagination to realise the situation, and to understand that unless they can con- centrate upon the Union and isolate the great Constitu- tional issue from all other problems, they will certainly be beaten at the polls. It comes down to this, then. What is wanted is a Tariff Reform leader far-seeing enough and courageous enough to tell his followers this necessarily disagreeable truth, and to ask them to make the requisite sacrifices. No doubt in doing that he will take his political life in his hands, but nevertheless nothing is more certain than that such boldness would have its reward. Is Mr. Balfour capable of running this risk ? We believe that he is, for he has never been wanting in courage. Unfor- tunately, and it is no good blinking the fact, Mr. Balfour is not in a position to do what we desire. He is suspected of being lukewarm by the Tariff Reform leaders, and, what is worse, he knows that he is suspected. Hence he would be specially liable to be attacked by the extremists with the outcry—an outcry which would of course be made use of in every possible way by the Liberals— that he was " jockeying " the Tariff Reformers.
In existing circumstances the only man who can produce the concentration of Unionist effort of which we have spoken is Mr. Chamberlain. If Mr. Chamberlain were now in full health and vigour, and fully in touch with the situation in its present developments, we should not hesi- tate for a moment to say that he would rise to the occa- sion, and by the sacrifice of his own personal views would bring about that concentration which we desire. Swiftness and boldness of action were his special gifts as a party leader. He had the eye of a great general, and knew exactly when it was necessary to re-form his line in order to strike the enemy down. Unfortunately, however, we have got to deal with the present and not with the past, with the situa- tion as it is, not as we should like it to be. This means that we have, in fact, to ask whether Mr. Chamberlain is able, owing to the limitations which his physical condition imposes on him, fully to realise the situation. No doubt his mind is as clear as ever it was, but there is a whole world of difference between following the political battle from an invalid's room and following it from a place in the fighting-line. When a party leader is ill and is in retirement, it is only human nature that his friends should communicate to him all the things that are cheerful and of good omen in regard to his party, and as far as possible conceal from him the bad news and the things which make for anxiety. "Let us," is their attitude, "console him with good news and keep the depressing things from him." Hence a leader placed as is Mr Chamberlain is apt to move in a region of undue optimism. We can hardly, then, expect Mr Chamberlain on his own initiative to demand from his followers the sacrifices necessary for concentration, though we may be sure that if he realised the true nature of the situation he would be the first to do so. But though this may be the fact, it does not leave the situation hopeless. Will not Mr. Chamberlain's friends and old colleagues make the matter clear to him and get him to make the appeal to the Tariff Reformers which we have suggested ? As we have said, there is no need to ask them to give up a single conviction. All that is needful is to appeal for concentration at the coming Election, and to give assurances that no vote given for the Union shall be used to impose a tariff without a further reference to the people. If the Unionist leaders will only explain matters clearly to Mr. Chamberlain, and ask him for that appeal which he alone can make successful, we have no hesitation in expressing our belief that, tremendous as would be the sacrifice asked of him, he would make it. If he did make it, and if this Unionist concentration were secured, the whole political situation would be changed in an instant. If the country understood that it was voting, not upon Tariff Reform, not upon any old quarrel about the Budget, but upon the question of the Union, the verdict would be assured, and the battle already as good as won. If that concentration cannot be secured, we shall be beaten. The Union is the sign in which we can conquer. If we paste over it such devices as "Tariff Reform and No Quarter," "Food-Taxes and No Surrender," the day is as good as lost. "The lot is cast into the lap." The question whether the Union shall be maintained or not lies with Mr. Chamberlain. He saved the Union once before. Will he not save it again?
Previous page
