TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE POLITICAL CRISIS. TN spite of the renewal of the die in the last ditch" cry this week, we are still confident that good sense will prevail, and that the Unionist Party will not force a creation of peers. All that is really in dispute now is whether the Unionists shall act with dignity and prevent a loss of prestige to their party, or whether they shall suffer the maximum of disconsidera- tion and obtain the minimum of credit with the electors. To make good our confident statement that the Unionist Party will not force a creation of peers by insisting on the Peers' amendments is no difficult task. In the first place one has only to examine critically the pleas of that portion of the Unionist Press led by the Daily Mail, which calls for "resistance to the death." The Daily Mail has published a series of articles in which it has beaten the big drum and blown the brazen trumpet with all the magnificent flourishes of a political drum sergeant-major, and has de- nounced with angry iteration the very wise advice tendered to the Unionist Party and the Peers by the Daily Telegraph. If we brace ourselves to the effort of analysing the Daily Mail's rhetoric, we shall see quite clearly that, in spite of its brave words, preparation is all the time made for a final surrender. The policy of the Daily Mail and of those who are foolish enough to follow it is not really to die in the last ditch, but only to shout in the last ditch. The policy is a policy of bluff, a policy of screaming "No surrender" till the zone of fire is actually reached and then running away. We say frankly that we can see no possible advantage in such a course and a great many disadvantages. The Unionist Party needs, more than anything else at the present moment, power to inspire the moderate and non-party section of the people—which, after all, is a very large section—with confi- dence in its wisdom and good sense and in the sagacity of its leaders. Nothing would create this confidence more surely than an exhibition of a party's ability to know what is good and what is bad ground for giving battle to the enemy. The Duke of Wellington gained his great hold upon the people of this country, and especially upon the neutral section, not because he bluffed or talked big or declared he would die in the last ditch, but because men saw that he could estimate when it was wise to yield, and even to acquiesce in a policy which he disliked intensely. He acquired the confidence of the nation because he yielded on Catholic Emancipation and on the Reform Bill and because he was inspired by the practical good sense which led him to say that "the King's government must be carried on." All this will sound no doubt very commonplace to the subtle-minded men who have per- suaded themselves, and are trying to persuade the country, that it is the height of political wisdom not to measure the strength of your foes or to attack them when they are at their weakest, but to make the assault at the point where they are strongest. Commonplace or not, it is, however, commonsense, and with all the earnestness in our power we would invoke the example of the Duke of Wellington, and would say to the leaders of the Unionist Party : "Go and do likewise, and your reward shall be as his."
No doubt we have not covered the whole ground when we say that those who are calling out that the Unionist Party must die in the last ditch only mean that it shall shout very loud in the last ditch. We do not forget the fact that there is a group of politicians who actually believe that there would be no great harm in the creation of 300 or 400 peers, and that indeed such action would prove a blessing in disguise and strengthen the forces of true Conservatism. We need hardly say that though we think them mistaken we have much more respect for those who honestly mean to push matters to the extreme point than for those who advocate shouting in the last ditch. Those who are prepared to argue that no great harm will be done by a creation of peers at any rate mean business, and have the courage of their opinions. It will be found, however, on investigation that their numbers are exceedingly small. Look what happened on Wednesday when the apostles of " thorough" made their great demonstration in the House of Commons. Some eleven stalwarts summoned a meeting of Unionist Members of Parliament to urge the Peers to fight to the bitter end. They circularized every Unionist whom they thought it possible they could influence, and in. a word moved heaven and earth to commit the party to their policy. Yet less than forty members attended the meeting, and of these none can be regarded as men of real weight or experience in the party, except perhaps Sir Frederick Banbury. The extremists have played their card, and we now see what it is worth. It was signi- ficant that neither the Unionist Whips nor any person appointed by the Whips to represent them, directly or indirectly, attended the meeting. When a meeting like this takes place inside a party, if the leaders mean in the end to do what they are being asked to do, there is pretty sure to be someone present who will get up and say that there need be no anxiety as to the action of the men on the Front Bench, that they know what their duty is and will do it, but that they must not he unduly pressed, &c., &c., &c.
We are still prepared to declare that the result will show that the Unionist leaders are not ultimately going to take any action which will force a creation of peers. They recog- nize what would be the effect of such action, and they know also that the talk about a Unionist revolt is the merest moonshine. The moment the Parliament Bill is passed the Unionist leaders will call upon their followers to turn their minds and energies to the essential problem of the situation, the problem how best to resist the Home Rule proposals of the Govern- ment, and to attack the Ministry at the place where they are most vulnerable. When this note of pre- paration and assault is sounded, does anyone in his senses suppose that the revolting Unionists will be able to carry out their disloyal threats, or even to sulk and declare that they will not defend the Union because their advice was not listened to as regards the forcing of a creation of peers ? Of course tkey will do nothing of the kind. The force of circtm- stances and of public opinion, if nothing else, will oblige them to form up behind their leaders in resisting Home Rule.
And here we may note a proof, which is not wanting in humour, of how unreal is the talk of the extremists. The Daily Express, though we admit less heady and strident than the Daily Mail, is nevertheless a "shout in the last ditch" newspaper. In its issue of Thursday, on its front page, it had an article of political news headed "Resistance to the End." The meeting of the Unionist Members in sympathy with a fighting policy on the Parliament Bill was described, though with some naivete it was remarked that "a much larger attendance had been anticipated, and one of the Grand Committee rooms had been bespoken for the occasion." What, however, was really significant was the final paragraph, which ran as follows :— "A fact of significance in the present situation is that both parties are preparing for campaigns contingent on the passing of the Parliament Bill. On the Unionist side arrangements are being made for a great anti-Home Rule agitation during the autumn, while Liberals are setting on foot organizations in support of Home Rule and of Welsh DisestabEinnent. In these movements the ultimate passage of the Bill is necessarily assumed."
In other words it is admitted that, while the shouting up to and in the last ditch is being provided for, the practical men of the party have already begun to withdraw their forces and to prepare for action on a different ground, and one far more likely to ensure suwess for the Unionist Party. Those who are unduly anxious about the final result of the situation would do well to keep the paragraph we have just quoted in mind. When the party is adopting a course of action which assumes the ultimate passage of the Bill, there is no need to fear political suicide. We may he asked then why we have thought it necessary to write as we have written. Our answer is plain. We are not anxious as to the ultimate result, but we are most anxious to do what we can to avoid a loss of dignity and of prestige to the Unionists. We cannot believe that it can be wise for the party to which we belong to go through the solemn farce which it is now proposed to go through. The whole country knows that the Unionists are only bluffing. But mi man and no party can bluff without loss of prestige when the bluff is admitted.
Previous page
