TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE RESULT OF THE ELECTIONS. THE will of the people on the question whether we shall or shall not abandon the policy of Free-trade has been taken in half the constituencies, and it is already absolutely certain that the national verdict will by an overwhelming majority be in favour of Free-trade, and against Protection either in its Chamberlainite or Balfourite form. The result, as our readers know, is no surprise to us. From the moment that Mr. Chamberlain first inaugurated his Fiscal propaganda we had no doubts as to the answer of the people of Britain, and the effect of the policy of Tariff Reform on the Unionist Party. On May 23rd, 1903, the earliest day on which we could address our readers after Mr. Chamberlain's first Protectionist speech, we pointed out, under the heading "Tied-House' ' Imperialism," the ruin that must result should Mr. Chamberlain's proposals ever be carried into practice. On May 30th we noted that the large bodies of Unionists who would refuse absolutely to adopt Mr. Chamberlain's plan "would be quite numerous enough and quite important enough to secure its defeat." "Just as Mr. Gladstone split his party by insisting on adopting Home-rule, and by ignoring the protests of the Liberal Unionists, so Mr. Chamberlain, if he is foolish enough to force his present proposal to an issue, will shatter the Unionist party into fragments." That was our comment on the party aspect of the new policy. Insurrection in a party, we argued, was analogous to insurrection in a State,—only to be justified by success, and by an intolerable and oppressive strain upon loyalty. But we went on to insist that in the case in point insurrection would be amply justified, and would attain its end. Writing on the following Saturday, June 6th, we once more insisted that if the Unionist Party became identified with Protection, "the prospects of ,Unionist candidates would be irretrievably ruined in hundreds of constituencies, and that the party would receive a crushing blow." On June 13th we made a last appeal to Mr. Balfour to lead and not to follow, to oppose the capture of the party by Mr. Chamberlain, and so save it from disruption and ruin. On June 27th, just a month after Mr. Chamberlain had launched his fatal scheme, we declared that if he per- sisted in it, "there must be something in the nature of a political land-slide." "Unionist seats," we wrote, "will be tumbling down in every direction, and everywhere the Unionist poll will show a great falling off." We went on to warn the leaders of the Unionist Party that Unionists who feel strongly about the question of Free-trade will not be content to grumble, or even to abstain. "If they see one candidate who wishes, to tax the food of the people, and another who does not, whatever may be his views on other matters, they will support the Free-trader. But such a transfer of votes will be quite enough to produce the electoral 'land-slide' we have been describing."
We have quoted these words not to glorify ourselves, or to show that we were right and others were wrong. As a matter of fact, no particular credit is due to us for foreseeing events so obvious. We quote them for another purpose, and one of supreme importance. There is at the present moment a tendency among Opposition speakers and writers to pretend that the victory of the Government is not a Free-trade victory, but is due to other causes. This we absolutely deny. The victory is a Free-trade victory and nothing else ; and in support of this contention we recall the fact that we were quite as confident two and a half years ago that Protection would destroy the Unionist Party, while it was itself being destroyed. by a popular vote, as we were last Saturday morning. Remember, when we wrote in 1903 the Chinese Labour Ordinance had not been passed, and the question was nowhere in dispute. Again, the Government had not then done any of the things which later on made them so unpopular with large classes of the community. We based our assertions as to a " land-slide " solely on our knowledge and conviction of the determination of the British people to refuse their sanction to any form of Protection. We do not, of course, pretend that Chinese labour has not influenced, and rightly influenced, a large number of votes ; or that the way in which Mr. Arnold-Forster was allowed, with the approval of the late Cabinet, to harry the Volunteers, to threaten the Militia, and generally to throw our military_ forces into confusion, did not affect the minds of the people. The surrender to the brewing interest embodied in the last Licensing Act no doubt also had its effect; while the Education Act, it is universally admitted, increased the unpopularity of the late Government. But these were only contributory causes, and did not, we venture to say, turn any very large number of votes. They chiefly affected those who on the main issue had already made up their minds to oppose the Unionist Party as a Protectionist party. The number of people who were Protectionist at heart, but voted for Liberal candidates because of Chinese labour, Mr. Arnold- Forster's Army policy, the Licensing Act, or the Education Act, is, we are convinced, infinitesimal. The immense transfer of votes which we have witnessed was due to the fact that Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour proclaimed their intention of getting rid of our system of Free-trade, and of substituting one opposed to Free-trade. Their methods might be slightly different—to use Mr. Gerald Balfour's phrase—but their objects were the same. But the country was determined to maintain Free-trade, and therefore voters sprang from the ground to withstand Protection, and men took part with eagerness in the struggle who had never voted at a Parliamentary election before.
We have no wish in the moment of victory to use harsh or boastful language in regard to the vanquished cause. Nothing is more useless or more odious than such barbaric shoutings. We must, however, protest against the view of those Protectionists who declare that the country has merely been swept by a wave of un- reasoning Radicalism, and will soon return to its better senses. The decision of the people in 1906 is no act of madness or fanaticism. On the contrary, the Election has been essentially, and in the true sense, a victory for Con- servatism. The electors were asked to leave an old and tried policy, and to adopt a new and glittering scheme, set before them with every device of the demagogic art ; but, true to their innate conservatism, they refused absolutely to desert the good cause. The country would not look at "the poisonous plant whose touch is death, though it is not the tree of knowledge." It was their failure to realise this innate conservatism of the British people which was perhaps the most remarkable error of the many errors committed by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain. Had they known and understood the British people, they Would have realised that it would not suddenly abandon ,Free- trade at the bidding of any statesman, however magnetic and however distinguished.
We have said that on the general issue we wish to avoid any language which may seem violent or exaggerated ; but if this is our wish in regard to the abstract considerations, it still more strongly represents the spirit by which we desire to be guided in dealing with the personal elements of the situation. As Free-traders, we cannot pretend to regret that Mr. Balfour has lost his seat in East Man- chester, for that sacrifice was absolutely necessary to the cause of Free-trade, and. we do not doubt that the verdict of the great Free-trade city had a considerable effect in other parts of the country. It was also a good thing that Mr. Balfour should be made to realise that the British people expect leadership from a leader, and that they desire that great issues shall be dealt with in a great spirit. But though it was inevitable that Mr. Balfour should receive so sharp a lesson, our feelings towards him are not touched in the slightest degree by anything approaching vindictiveness, and we trust that some con- stituency which has already declared itself as opposed to Free-trade will be found to send him to the House of Commons. His exclusion from political life is in no sense an object which we desire. Since the principles of Retaliation and of opposition to Free-trade in the true sense must be represented in the House of Commons, we would much rather see them represented by a man so distinguished as Mr. Balfour than by some political nonentity whose only idea of statesmanship is to repeat the stale fallacies of the Tariff Reform League leaflets. There must be a Statute of Limitations in political as well as in civil life, and we do not profess to assert that Mr. Balfour can lister more play a useful -part in our political life, even though he may have shattered our confidence in his courage and his judgment. If there must be Fiscal Reformers in the House, let us at any rate have the best examples of the sect. What we have said of Mr. Balfour applies in an equal degree to Mr. Chamberlain. We should have liked to have seen Mr. Chamberlain rejected by Birmingham ; but at the same time we do not wish to see him driven from political life and the House of Commons. As long as his reckless and injurious schemes receive the treatment that they are receiving, and there is no danger of their being carried out, his presence in the House of Commons will do less harm than good. Every Goveminent is the better for strenuous criticism, even when that criticism is in essentials unsound, and we have no desire to deprive the Liberal Government of a useful tonic.
We have only one more word to add,—that is that the decision come to by the nation confirms us in our belief in the ultimate good sense of the British elector. Once more our people have shown that strong common- sense and that political instinct which have marked their actions throughout history,—qualities which are far more valuable than the quickness and brightness shown by other nations in the conduct of political affairs. The kind of reasoning used. at election times in Britain might make a visitor from some other nation imagine that the average Briton was a very crude and a very muddle-headed person. Our election arguments are often put very badly, and the appeals for good causes are often made in the worst possible way. But when the polling day comes all the scum and froth of the election are blown away, and the elector, taking matters into his own hands, decides as a general rule according to the true merits of the question presented to him. Of this we have just seen a conspicuous example. The elector knew that he had to decide between the maintenance of Free-trade and its abrogation, and that being so, he refused to allow his mind to be deflected by any talk of Home-rule or Socialism or Little Englandism. He kept his eye on the object, and voted according to the guidance of his reason and his instinct. Pessi- mists tell us that we shall have a wild House of Commons, and one which will be intolerant of control. We do not believe one word of it. The House of Commons takes the colour of those who elect it, and although in individual cases it may be possible to say that weak or flighty men have been chosen, we have the utmost confidence that as the verdict of the people has been given for soberness and truth, so we may trust the new House of Commons to do nothing which is contrary- to the true interests of the nation. The Government, at any rate, constitute as sound and sane an Administration as any of recent years. It is now the will of the people that they should continue their tenure of office with the support of a majority which will make them independent of all sectional interests.
Previous page
