UNIONIST REUNION AND NATIONAL TRAINING.
WE have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Long's speech at Syresham made on Friday, April 5th, gives more encouragement to the policy of Unionist reunion, which we have so often advocated and so strongly desired, than anything that has been previously said from the Tariff Reform side. It was a speech conceived in the spirit of true statesmanship, and if Mr. Long's colleagues will only support him and act with him, we do not see why the country should not once more possess a united and effective opposition to the forces of Socialism and national disintegration. What makes the olive- branch held out in Mr. Long's speech—which, by the way, was far more fully reported in the Morning Post than in the Times—of special importance is the fact that Mr. Long made no effort to represent himself as anything but a strong Tariff Reformer. The first part of his speech, indeed, was taken up with an ardent defence of the Chamberlain policy. "But," said Mr. Long, "if those whose minds had run ahead of their fellow-men on this subject were determined to set the pace, and not let it be set by those who had not gone quite so far as they had, then they would apply to the chain a strain which would break it, because they would have forgotten that the strength of the chain was in the weakest and not in the strongest of its links." Unionists wanted Fiscal Reform, but, he went on, "they wanted a great many other things." We had better, however, quote textually from the Morning Post report in order to avoid any risk of seeming to exaggerate the significance of Mr. Long's words :— " They wanted to resist any attempt that would tend to break up the Empire. They wanted to resist Socialist legislation. They wanted to resist legislation which was conceived, he pre- sumed, in the interests of a section of the working class, and entirely forgot the middle class, whose claims wore just as strong and just as much entitled to consideration as those of any other section of the working classes of the country. They wanted to see that land legislation was wisely conceived, if it was necessary at all, and that it was not likely to break up the land system of the country, which after all had worked on the whole fairly well. To do this work with success they wanted ba keep within their funks every Unionist, even though upon one question he might for the moment differ from them. It was obit, \rrent to think that they should be willing to part lianas with Unionists who had stood side by side with them in many a hard fight, and who had contributed to the triumph which they disxl allaharodin enjoying;
that they should be offered the cold shoulder because, for the moment it might be, they were strongly convinced that the policy was wrong, and were unable to agree with other Unionists, or compelled even to oppose them in one detail of their policy. The Unionist Party did not exist for one object or policy alone. They had a far greater inheritance and responsibility than that."
To our mind, that is a most admirable statement of Unionist policy. It leaves out the one point upon which Unionists find it impossible to work together, but states with force and conviction those subjects upon which they can agree, and shows how many and how certain to command the confidence of the best portion of the nation these are. Very different was the spirit in which the other day Mr. Austen Chamberlain told the Unionist Free- traders that he and his friends had no use for them, and that the sooner they left the Unionists bag and baggage the better it would be for the party. He claimed, in fact, the monopoly of Unionism for his section, and excom- municated all those who did not agree with him. Mr. Long, on the other hand, goes, we are glad to say, further than even Mr. Balfour has ever ventured to go in suggesting co-operation with the Unionist Free-traders. He not only recognises the right of men who hold Free-trade views to remain in the Unionist Party, but, what is far more important, recognises that they are compelled to oppose their fellow-Unionists in one detail of their policy. This is a very great advance. The consequence of conceding the right of opposition to Tariff Reform, as the whole of the passage we have just quoted clearly concedes it, is to admit that while the Unionist Free-traders are con- scientiously compelled to hold the views they do hold, the duty of the Unionist Party is to take action only upon the matters upon which agreement can be arrived at, and to leave the one point of disagreement in the background. That Mr. Long, out of loyalty to his chief, alludes in a somewhat perfunctory way to Tariff Reform as the first constructive policy of the party is not material. What is material is the declaration that Unionists must concentrate upon the matters on which they are agreed, not upon the matter on which they are disagreed.
We are not so foolish, of course, as to think that every- thing is won because an active Unionist leader has made a conciliatory speech. There will, no doubt, be a great deal of spade-work required before Mr. Long can educate his party to the statesmanship of view which is shown by him- self. No doubt, also, he will be savagely attacked by many Tariff Reformers for the line he has taken. If, however, he is wise enough to stick to his guns, and to refuse to be in- timidated, we believe that the Unionist Party will gradually rally round him. Englishmen instinctively like a working compromise, and respect a conciliator who conciliates on business lines and not on mere grounds of sentimentality. That Mr. Long will have the courage to stick to his guns we have great hopes, for, after all, he belongs to a class of statesmen who, if we look back on English history, have again and again proved their political tenacity, moderation, and good sense,—the class of English country gentlemen. When the men of that class have, as Mr. Long has, the requisite ability for political leadership, and also the requisite experience of the House of Commons, they make admirable party leaders. In spite of Radical vituperation, we venture to say that no body of men have better traditions in regard to moderation of view and respect for the rights of others than the great country gentlemen, be they Peers or commoners.
There is one point we miss from Mr. Long's state- ment of Unionist policy which we sincerely trust he and his colleagues may very soon find it possible to include in their programme, and that is universal national training. We speak with the fullest sense of responsibility when we say that the Unionist Party will not do itself justice, and will not render its due service to the nation, if it neglects to give a lead on this point, and to include the training of the youth of the nation to arms among the subjects which it deems of capital importance. We are prepared to be told that in thus urging that the adoption of universal military training should become one of the foremost positive items in the Unionist programme —if not, indeed, the foremost of all—we are endanger- ing the cause which we have so greatly at heart National training, it will be said, should be kept out of the political arena, and made a non-party question. We understand fully the arguments which
induce many people to take this point of view, and we should be most loth to see the matter so much identified with party that no man on the other side could advocate universal military training without being liable to the charge of party disloyalty. Again, we do not suggest for a moment that the Unionist Party should make it a cause of complaint against their opponents that they are at present unwilling to take up the question of universal training. What we desire most is to see both parties advocate universal training. We are convinced, how- ever, that it will never be possible to get the question under way if both sides refuse to take it up owing to a punctilio that it ought not to be touched from the party point of view. Questions which are left in that condition never emerge from the academic stage or reach the region of practical politics. It is an essential condition of our political system that if a question is of vital importance, it must be taken up and discussed in the party arena. To put the matter in a concrete form : If Mr. Balfour and his colleagues in the leadership of the Unionist Party are to refuse to state their opinion on the question of universal training, and are to abstain from treating it in their capacity of chiefs of the Unionist Party, while a similar reticence is to be shown by the Government, we shall never get what those who advocate universal training desire. We would therefore, with all respect, ask Mr. Balfour, Mr. Long, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, and the other leaders of the Unionist Party to take an early opportunity of declaring their views on this most vital problem. If they can only be induced to do this, the question will at once become a living issue. The Government must either declare themselves as not opposed to it in which case the project will have made very great advance, or else they must oppose it, in which case there is a clear issue to put before the country. It should be noted, however, that even if the Government oppose, it will by no means be necessary for all members of the Liberal Party to take a similar line. It is, in any case, absolutely essential, if we are to get universal training within a reasonable time, that it should come prominently before the country at the next General Election, and meantime should be discussed at all by-elections. If a'decision is not taken on the matter at the next General Election, we shall have to abandon all hope of conferring the benefits of universal training upon the country during the next ten or twelve years. No Govern- ment, we are sure, would ever venture to propose BO great a change as that involved in universal military training unless the matter had been thoroughly discussed at a General Election, and the opinion of the voters taken thereon.
While urging that the Unionist leaders should have the courage to commit themselves and their party boldly on the question of universal training, may we be allowed to give a word of advice to the institution which advocates universal training,—viz., the National Service League? That League is a non-party organisation, and is supported by Liberals and Radicals as well as by Unionists. We sincerely trust that whether the Unionist Party does or does not take up the question, it will remain a non- party organisation. Further, we would urge that while at the next General Election and at by-elections the League should make its electoral influence felt, it should exercise that influence irrespective of party. To accom- plish this we suggest that when two candidates are before a constituency, it should ask its local representatives to ascertain the views of those candidates. If both of them are in favour of universal training, then the League should take no action whatever, and its members should vote according to their political convictions on other matters. If, however, only one candidate—say, for the sake of argument, the Liberal candidate—expresses himself in favour of universal training, then the League should ask its supporters in the constituency to put aside all other political considerations for the moment and give their vote and interest for the candidate in favour of universal training. In other words, though we desire that the Unionist leaders should vitalise the question by making it an item in their political programme, we by no means suggest that the National Service League should lose its non-party character.
Our readers know already our grounds for advocating universal military training for a period of four or five months for every youth between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one. We may, however, express them shortly once more. As we have said elsewhere in our issue of to-day, when we saw the immense benefits, moral, physical, and even intellectual, which were conferred on the lads of the Spectator Experimental Company by their six months' training:, we felt it was little short of a crime to with- hold those benefits from the rest of the population. Though from many points of view the richer classes would benefit quite as much as, or even more than, the poorer from a short period of intensive military training, we are also convinced that such training would tend to remedy a capital error in our system of elementary educa- tion,—an error pointed out in a letter by Mr. Christopher Thomas Gardner in our issue of to-day. The great defect of that education is its want of that supreme factor in the making of a good citizen, discipline, and the inculcation of the sense of duty to one's country. The poor have an innate sense of duty quite as strong as the rich, but unfortunately little is done in their educa- tion to develop it. They bear, and quite properly hear, of their rights ; but though we would not infringe those rights by an iota, they should hear, and hear even more strongly, of their duties. Let us never forget that it is by the enforcement of duties that the State wins the love and respect of its citizens, not by conferring benefits upon them. It is the universal law of human nature that we love those who call on us for sacrifice, not those who shower benefits upon us. Strange as it may seem, the State which asks a man to be ready to die for it is far more likely to be loved than the State which gives him an old- age pension without his earning it. But while it is chiefly on moral grounds, and because of the vital importance of developing the ideals of citizenship, that we desire universal training, there are plenty of other arguments on which it can be advocated. We believe, for example, that such training will enormously increase the commercial and industrial efficiency of the race. The hundred young men of the Spectator Company realised this when they told us in the examination-paper set to them that one of the chief reasons which induced them to go through the training was that it would improve their chances of getting on in life,—a belief that has been justified by the fact that they have almost all managed to find good and useful employ- ment.
But though we think the moral and economic grounds for universal training the strongest, we do not overlook the military advantage which would also accrue. If the whole male population had learned to shoot and knew its drill, and if our Navy still kept its pre-eminence, we very much doubt whether any foreign enemy would ever attempt to invade this country. Again, if the whole of our male population had been trained to arms in their youth, as is the Swiss population, we might, if engaged in a great overseas war, find no difficulty in raising quickly a very large body of efficient volunteer soldiers. Mr. Ward, the Labour M.P., in a speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday night which contained a curious mixture of things sound and unsound, spoke of the way in which Englishmen would be certain to come forward to fight their country's battle if she were invaded. We do not doubt for a moment that he is right in saying that they would spring to defend her ; but he forgets how comparatively useless, under the conditions of modern warfare, would be the patriotic fervour which would be shown in the country.
We can conceive nothing more pathetic and nothing more terrible than the rage and disappointment of the population of these islands who, burning to offer their aid to the Motherland in her peril, were suddenly forced to realise that, owing to waist of previous training, they were offering her what would be a worthless gift. Imagine the soul-shaking humiliation of the man who must say:—" I have strong arms, a steady hand, and a quick eye, and I long to put them at the service of the country ; but, alas ! I have never handled a rifle, I do not know the simplest form of military drill, I have never acted in my life with any other body of men, and therefore my service must be rejected as utterly useless. It is too late now to learn even the simplest of these simple things, and therefore, poor miserable creature that I am, I cannot help the Motherland in her distress." How different would be the feelings of the man who could say :—" I know how to shoot, I know how to act with my fellows, I have not forgotten my drill. I know how to take cover, how to carry out orders, and how to lead my fellows. Thank God, now the call has come and the enemy is here, I can be of real service, and can stand shoulder to shoulder with the men among whom as a boy I learned to defend my country."
Previous page
