• Election were the only important one, and as if
it mattered comparatively little who was the actual Member sent to 'Parliament, —provided that he was sound on the main issue. Since, however, Parliament administers as well as legislates, and administers through a Committee chosen out of its Members, it is impossible to sink individual considerations. The electors, no matter how much impressed with the necessity of deciding the main issue, must also consider the characters of those who seek to represent them. They must make it clear to the whole world that unless a candidate has character as well as other qualifications, he cannot hope to be sent to the House of Commons. Parliament must be in the • widest sense a House of sound men as well as of sound opinions.
The size of modern constituencies, and the complicated organisation required not only to carry on a contested • election, but to make the preparations for such an election, render it all the more necessary for the electors to insist that they will give its true value to character, even in the • heat of party strife. Under existing conditions it is • impossible to expect that candidates can come forward on their own initiative to contest a seat with any hope of success. You cannot expect the man worthiest to • represent the people in any particular town or district to select himself, and ignore nomination by a party orgailisa- , tion. , This being the case, what the electors must do who desire that character shall always be given its true weight, and who will not be content with 'cleverness, • eloquence, wealth, standing, or position Unless they • are joined' viitli charaitei, is to pay attention to the nominating bodies—that is, to the caucuses or associa- tions, Liberal "or Unionist, Free-trade or Protectionist —in ' whose bands rests the selection' of the Parlia- mentary candidates. Such bodies may have arrogated to themselves without warrant the right of nomination, and that arrogation may often be resented by good men on both sides. But whether right or wrong, the fact remains that the choosing of candidates does now rest with the political Associations, and that it is ' impossible to deprive them of it. For good or ill, we have got to accept the system of nomination by party organisations. What, then, the electors who mean that considerations of character shall be given their true value must do is to make it clear that if a man of bad or doubtful character is nominated there will be such a defection from the party who nominate him that he will fail to be elected. In the last resort, indeed, those who insist on the higher ideals in our public life must be even prepared to split their party by nominating another candidate. This is what is actually being done in the Thanet division of Kent by a body of men who deserve the gratitude of all Englishmen for their spirited and. patriotic action. The local party " machine " intend at the next General Election to nominate the sitting Member. With his qualifications on the score of character the body of Unionist electors just named have declared. themselves unsatisfied. They regard the sitting Member as unworthy to be their representative, although, as Protectionists, they fully agree with his views on the Fiscal question. And they have not been content with merely protesting or gruinbling at their local caucus. Instead., they have in effect said : Since you persist in your nomination, we must nominate a third candidate who will be worthy to represent the division. The result will probably be the loss of the seat to the Unionist party,—a result which, as good party men, we shall regret, but one infinitely less deplorable than acquiescence in the return of a man whom we do not consider fit to represent us in Parlia- ment.' To take up such a position at a moment when political feeling runs high requires no little courage and fortitude. But unless men are willing to take up such a position on adequate occasion, the degradation of our Parliamentary institutions is assured. If the " machine " politicians are not taught that they must give due consideration to character, the level of Parlia- mentary honour is certain to be lowered. If, on the other hand, they are taught by bitter experience that if they are not careful in their nominations they will wreck the party, they will make it their business to see that only men worthy from the standpoint of personal character are nominated.
Political organisations are, after all, very human. They want to win elections, and when they are made to realise that it is very difficult to do so with doubtful candidates, a premium is at once put upon character in politics. It has been said, and, we believe, truly said, that no man of really doubtful character is ever nominated for election as President of the United States, and this though the nominating bodies are com- posed of men who, for minor posts, habitually follow the low, and not the high ideal. In the case of the Presi- dency, however, they know that the people will rebel if they do not make character 'an essential qualification. They cannot afford in such a struggle to lose votes, and they therefore have to acquiesce in the public's predilection for placing only men of probity at the White House. But once make this view universal as regards the candidature of ordinary Members of Parliament, and an immense benefit will have been assured. What we want to see is the party wirepuller declaring to his committee :—"Mr. Blank would have been a splendid candidate, only, unfortunately, he would lose us a lot of votes, because people are so prejudiced against a man whose record is not absolutely clear. Therefore I fear we cannot nominate him, and the party will have to fall back upon Mr. White, who is, I regret to gay, very pig-beaded, and. will' be sure to give us a great deal of trouble." But the only way to make the wirepullers take up this attitude is to inspire them with the sense that if it is not adopted the electors will revolt.
• Mere dissatisfaction is not enough. They must impreSs On the " machine " that they mean business, and. that -if their views are ignored they-will. declare open war. As we have said, that is what a group of patriotic Unionists have done in the Thanet division, and their example will, we trust, be followed throughout the United Kingdom where occasion arises. If the Thanet Unionists can only win their battle, they will have taught the wirepullers, local and central, a lesson which is sure to go home.
But though we so heartily endorse what has been done in the Isle of Thanet, and though we do not think that too much importance can be given to character in choosing candidates, we must not be supposed to desire to set up any impossible standard. We have no wish to see anything in the nature of an inquisition held into the private characters of candidates. The matter must be looked at broadly and justly, and from the standpoint of sensible men of the world rather than from that of a narrow Puritanism. Nothing would be more disastrous to our public life than any attempt to expose the lives and characters of Parliamentary candidates to a microscopic inspection. It would, produce hypocrisy in one set of men, and in andther an indignant refusal to sacrifice their independence by submitting to any such ordeal. All that it is wise or just to do is to insist that the candidate's public record shall be considered, and if on broad lines that record is not satisfactory, to regard him as ineligible for a seat in Parliament. We all apply such considerations in ordinary life when we are choosing men for posts. That is, we do nothing that can be said to partake of inquisitorial methods, but we judge broadly, and to the best of our ability, on the question of character. Clearly, then, we ought not to apply a lower standard to those who seek to represent the people in Parliament. What we have to ask is : "Does this or that man's past record show that he cannot be trusted to fulfil the responsible duties of a Member of Parliament?" If the answer is favourable, then without more minute inquiry we may assume that be is not the kind of man who would yield to the many temptations for betraying his trust to which a Member of Parliament is exposed. No sane person wants to exact a standard for Members of Parliament only suitable for saints ; but because we cannot, and do not wish to set up an impossible code, there is no reason why we should act as if character had no value in politics. It has the greatest possible value, and the constituencies will never get good government, and never be well served by their representatives, unless they insist that character as well as opinion shall weigh with those who nominate the men who are to bear the party standards at contested elections.
■ ••■■••■•
Previous page
