T HE Protectionist Press acknowledges with frankness that the defeat at
Barkston Ash is a great blow to the Government. The advocates of that policy all state that, judging from electoral history, they regarded the seat, with its partially agricultural constituency, as in an unusual degree a safe stronghold of the Conservative or Protectionist party, which, indeed, had a right to calculate on a majority of over a thousand. They all admit with a certain cordiality that Mr. Lane- Fox was an excellent candidate, a man acceptable to the electors of the district for reasons outside politics, a good speaker, and personally most popular with all classes. That such a man in such a place should have been defeated is, they freely admit, a. disagree- able surprise. But then, after admitting these truths, -they all proceed to draw two conclusions, both of which we believe to be erroneous. They declare that Mr. Lane-Fox would have won if he had not "wobbled "- that is, if he had not receded from his first position as an undisguised Protectionist—and that the result ought to strengthen Mr. Balfour in his policy of refusing or delaying a Dissolution. The fallacy of the first conclusion can easily be exposed. Nobody can know the district better than Mr. Lane-Fox and his agents, and they obviously agreed that he would be beaten hopelessly on a purely Protectionist programme. Mr. Lane-Fox therefore "wobbled,"—that is, he described himself as opposed to any taxation on food, as a follower, in fact, of Mr. Balfour instead of Mr. Chamberlain. We believe that as a tactician he was altogether in the right. The Unionist Free-traders and the Liberals would have exerted them- selves still more strenuously to defeat a Chamberlainito ; the entire body of labourers would have deserted the Con- servatives; and Mr. Andrews, instead of his modest though conclusive majority, would have been returned by one as large as that which was assumed—though without a fight —to support Colonel Gunter, his Conservative predecessor in the seat. The Protectionists, in fact, would have been crushed instead of being merely defeated.
The second conclusion is at least equally rash. Even allowing that Mr. Balfour as a statesman has much to say for himself, he is as a party leader, we are convinced, making a huge mistake. He fancies that time is with him, and therefore refuses the Dissolution, whereas he has everything to fear from his long delay. The Protectionist programme has had time to reach the masses of the people; they have obviously decided in town and country to reject it ; and they are 'wearying for an opportunity to record their decision. They want Protection to be finally carted out of the way. They see clearly that while it is in the road nothing will be done, that the paralysis of Parliament will continue, and that all the improvements they wish for, and think the House of Commons could secure, will be postponed to the single object of keeping in power an Executive which has outstayed its welcome, and of which they are tired. So heartfelt is their weariness that even the successes of the Government have no effect upon them. Almost everybody approves of the new Anglo- Japanese Treaty, which on the Continent is considered an im teens° event, indefinitely increasing British prestige, and even British power. The entente cordiale with France, though its risks are perceived, has given to the whole people cordial pleasure. Yet it is just when the value of these two great "diplomatic triumphs" is most clearly perceived, just when they ought, in Conservative opinion, to have cheeked the flood-tide of by-election defeats, that Barkston Ash, a Conservative stronghold, announces that it can no longer bear the political situation at home, and that the Government must go. There is a feeling abroad about the Ministry—partly due, no doubt, to impatience of what are considered its trickeries, but mainly to its attitude on the Fiscal question—which even success in foreign affairs, visible success, success which makes all Englishmen prouder, does not soothe away. Where, then, is the evidence that it is wise for Mr. Balfour, from his point of view as a party leader, to gain time ? Is it not at least more likely that weariness will deepen into dis- gust, that election after election will reveal that even the indifferent are beginning to vote, and that the great Election will be marked by a " land-slide " from which it may take Conservatives of all shades of opinion a generation to recover? Mr. Balfour, it is said, believes that a. Redis- tribution Bill may rebuild his popularity, or at least distract the popular mind from its present set and flow towards anti-Conservatism. We are convinced advocates of Redistribution, as at once just and necessary, but it is still to be proved that such a Bill, even if a good one, will remake the popularity of any party. It is just as likely, more likely, to add to a general discontent a mass of local irritations and disappointments, which no doubt ought to be faced in the interest of the kingdom at large, but on which it is silly to reckon as a source of renewed party strength. If Yorkshire, as at present divided, is seething with the feelings betrayed at Barkston Ash, so will Yorkshire remain, divide it how you will, until a new Government has been formed. Our people are very patient of anomalies, and will not consider their removal a reason for surrendering or postponing other and nearer wishes.
We are not much disposed to believe in " bad " Parlia- ments, or " dangerous " Parliaments, or even " reckless " Parliaments. The representatives must more or less represent, the national character never changes, and the nation is always, to use the French definition, "Left Centre." If every Member returned were a Social Democrat, the House in three days would nevertheless be divided into men with Conservative or Radical' prOclivities. 'But we do believe that with our system of party govern- ment, and of trusting all ultimate control to the House of Commons, any Cabinet of any party needs to be criticised by a powerful and. hopeful Opposition. Without one 'there is no earnest and frank debate, no fresh young men come forward, and the Executive, sure of immunity, thinks out no proposal thoroughly or in detail. We have seen too much of this situation in the present Parliament, and in the general interest have no wish that it should con- tinue for another long period. Has Mr. Balfour ever reflected that, if he continues to irritate the electors by delay in asking them for the opinion which they are anxious to pronounce, the result may be a hostile majority against which his own minority, dismayed by a kind of plebiscite, may be too disheartened, too hopeless, effec- tively to contend even in debate ? There could hardly be a greater political misfortune, and it is one of the mis- fortunes which he is risking by his refusal to acknowledge that there are occasions when the pays legal and the true country appear to be hopelessly opposed, and when, there- fore, their reconciliation by an appeal to the people is absolntely needed to restore vigour both to legislation and to statesmanship. We acknowledge to the full Mr. Balfour's legal right to await defeat within the House of Commons ; but there are many legal rights which it • is most inexpedient to enforce, and one of them is that of wearying the electors till they postpone every other wish • to their desire for change. Let Mr. Balfour ask himself • whether he knows of an absolutely safe seat, and think, in the interest of his great party, what kind of a General Election that will mean.
Previous page
