THE LEICESTER ELECTION.
WE cannot conceive what satisfaction a true Unionist can derive from the Leicester election, except, indeed, the very slender satisfaction that the Conservative vote was a little larger than even in 1885, and considerably larger than in 1886. There is real reason for satisfaction in that, nor is it diminished by the explanation that it was due only to the very high esteem Mr. Rolleston was held in by the people of Leicester, whatever their nominal political opinion ; but it would have been much great( r if Mr. Rolleston had not made such serious concessions to Radical demands. Confidence in character is the root of the kind of Conservatism which we value most highly. Where character triumphs over yolitical partisanship, there we see one of the highest types of true moderation, even though it be in the person of a party antagonist. Mr. Rolleston is a Conservative ; but even if he had been a Gladstonian, and had secured his election by the personal respect in which he was held in Leicester, we should have considered that in such a victory there was more ground for satisfaction, and that its antiseptic influence in the presence of wide-spread political indifference and decay would have a more wholesome effect, than there would be for satisfaction in the seating of a shady and superficial Unionist through the rhetorical artifices of an agreeable tongue. So far as Mr. Rolleston was able to swell the total Unionist vote we regard his success as one of the best kind, for the very reason that it was won through the high personal respect felt for him. But unfortunately this ground of congratulation, though solid, is extremely slender. Mr. Rolleston polled 6,967 votes, 217 more than the total Conservative vote of 1885, and 1,281 more than the total Liberal Unionist vote of 1886. The increase over the Unionist vote of 1886 was substantial, but Mr. Rolleston's poll barely surpassed the Conservative vote given nine years ago. That is not satisfactory. During the last nine years enough has happened to convert a large portion of any electorate from the error of revolutionary ways, especially in a constituency whose most popular repre- sentative has been so extreme and windy a Radical as Mr. Picton. That gentleman's rashness and inconsiderateness should have alarmed even those who had been attracted by his genuine sympathy with the helplessness of the poor. To our minds, it is the thoughtless friends of the poor who are most likely to injure their prospects by ill-considered and dangerous generosities. We admit that in a constituency of which Mr. Picton has for so long a period been the popular mouthpiece, we should have expected and hoped to see a far more considerable Conservative reaction in the last nine years than that which is represented by Mr. Rolleston's moderately increased poll, especially when we are told that no fewer than seven hundred and seven of the electors divided their votes between Mr. Rolleston and the Labour candidate, who professed himself ready to perjure himself by taking the oath of allegiance to the Queen, in the interest of that Labour which he thinks he should really have served by that immoral feat. Though we rejoice that Mr. Rolleston rallied a larger party to the Conservative banner than any that has been rallied during the last ten years, we cannot congratulate ourselves very highly on it, when we remember how he gave way on two of the most important questions of the day, and that so many of his supporters also wished success to the advocate of Mr. Burgess's and Mr. Keir Hardie's violent political views. There is but little meaning in the kind of Conservatism which holds up one hand for Mr. Rolleston and the other for Mr. Burgess. But the ground on which Mr. Rolleston is con- gratulated by some of our contemporaries, is that he came so very near to beating the second Gladstonian, Mr. Hazell, who polled only 217 more votes than be did. Well, what does that mean ? It means that Leicester had become so discontented with ordinary Gladstonianism, that after returning Mr. Broadhurst easily at the head of the poll, it greatly preferred what we may call the unscrupulous Socialist candidate to a candidate who only goes as far with the Progressive party as the moderate Gladstonians. Only 2,072 of Mr. Broadhurst's supporters voted for Mr. Burgess,—a number not very greatly in excess of Mr. Burgess's plumpers, which numbered 1,547. More than half of Mr. Burgess's supporters did not vote for either of the other Gladstonian candidates. In fact, so far as Mr. Rolleston was at all near being returned, he owed it to the large number of discontented Radicals who were pure extremists, and did not care for moderate Gladstonians at all. That seems to us very far indeed from the kind of political result of which Unionists should approve. Leicester appears to be still on the downward path, craving a more and more sensational type of Radicalism,—one that would rather see the ordinary Gladstonian defeated than such an election as occurred in 1886 or 1892, when Gladstonians like Mr.
MacArthur and Sir James Whitehead were returned in conjunction with the extreme Radical, Mr. Picton. Radicalism in Leicester is still sowing its wild oats.
It still desires to show its great distaste for anything like moderation. It still wishes to surpass all other English boroughs in the excessive character of its Radicalism. And even if by the eagerness of that desire it had succeeded in defeating its own object and seating a Conservative, we do not think that a true Unionist would have felt any legitimate satisfaction in the result.
What a true Unionist should desire to see, is the growth of a feeling of disgust with this violent an' impatient Radicalism ;—a preference of the Unionist, of course, so far as his Unionism goes, to any other candidate, but still a preference of the moderate and official Gladstonian to screaming Socialists. Most of all, true Unionists should feel a positive horror of that flaring sort of politician who flourishes his preference for needless perjury toanything like steady-going constitutionalism even of the most advanced kind. The sort of fluke which might have given us a, Conservative Member on the ground of the constituency's growing dislike to conventional Gladstonianism, does not seem to us worthy to excite the smallest satisfaction. We would rather see a. growing spirit of political moderation, even at the cost of the Unionist voting power, than a growth of the Unionist voting power through the increase of the party of screamers represented by Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Burgess. With growing moderation we might hope for political prudence and peace, if not to-morrow, yet the next day. But with a widening and exasperation of the dis- sensions amongst our opponents, due to the morbid appetite for more violent Jacobinism, even if we are stronger to- morrow, we shall be so much weaker the day after. Divide et im. pera is not only an unprincipled, but a very foolish maxim in politics. Rather than that the Gladstonians should lose by the growth of a much more violent party, we would rather see them win another Pyrrhic victory. The kind of victory we desire can never be due to the further subdivision of political groups, but only to the steady advance of thoughtful, cautious, and courageous sympathy with the most generous traditions of the United Kingdom.
Previous page
