LIBERALISM OR REACTION?
1VIR. BRYCE concluded his speech at Aberdeen on Monday by saying that reaction never prevails here long, and that the tide of Liberalism must flow afresh and with more force than ever directly the temporary ebb is over. Now if he had said only that the pendulum must swing back, and that he should look for its swinging back before long, he would have said no more than Lord Salisbury himself has said, and we should have agreed with him perfectly. But when he insists that the party which is in possession of the field is in any sense one of reactionaries, and that the party which was defeated at the General Election was in any sense one of pro- gressives, he goes beyond what the facts warrant or even suggest. Both parties are, and are in the same sense, popular parties, just as both parties in the United States are, and are in the same sense, popular parties. There they call them Democrats and Republicans, and it is very hard to say whether Democrats or Republicans are the more popular. It used to be held that the Republicans were the more conservative, because they insisted more on holding together the Federal Union and on defeating the centrifugal politicians who put State rights above federal rights. But recently it has been very difficult to say which has been the more conservative party. It is true, of course, that Mr. Bryan, with his attack upon the capitalists, appealed in the first instance to the Democratic party, but it is also true that the Democratic Administra- tion which was in command of the Union offered him the most uncompromising resistance, and that he was beaten by the alliance between the Democratic Government and the Republican Opposition. Nor can any one determine whether the State rights sympathisers have not generally had more of political tradition on their side than the Nationalists of the Federal party. When the cause of
4
Civil Service Reform was taken up so strongly, it would be hard to say whether it received more support from Democrats or Republicans. Certainly it brought a Democratic Administration into power, though it can hardly be said to have carried out the policy of putting down the policy of " the spoils to the victors," for which it was originally formed. It would be impossible now to say whether the Democrats or the Republicans have been the more progressive. The Republicans abolished slavery not because they were the more liberal, but because they were the more conservative, party of the Union, and found slavery tending towards a break-up of the Union. The Democrats, again, have been on the whole much the better Free-traders not because they were the more progressive party, but because they relied more on the South, who had sugar and cotton to sell which Europe wanted, and which they could sell better to Europe if they were willing to take European manufactures in exchange, than if they followed the policy of Protection. If we had to say which of the two parties, the Democrats with their Free-trade and leaning towards State rights, or the Republicans with their federalism and their Protectionism, are the more "progressive," we should find it exceedingly hard to discriminate. Both parties are equally popular, but are popular on somewhat arbitrary lines. We might almost call it a matter apparently of political accident which of the two parties is the more conservative and which the more liberal. The distinctions which applied in England before the suffrage was thoroughly popularised, do not fit either the United States, where the suffrage has always been universal since the Union, or this country since household suffrage was given to the counties in 1885.
The Gladstonians always insist that Home-rule is in itself a popular movement, but that entirely depends on what unit we are thinking of. Home-rule for Ireland was popular in Ireland no doubt, but it was by no means popular either in England or Great Britain. It has always been felt that Home-rule for Ireland leads to " Home. rule all round,"—i.e., to the break-up of the nation into cantons, and cantons, moreover, of very different and sometimes very hostile tendencies. The Gladstonians, again, assert that they are the popular party because they are the more willing to tax the rich heavily for the benefit of the poor. But in a democracy it is always very doubtful whether the people at large are not much more hostile to the infringement of any of the rights of property, even though it be primarily of the property of the rich, than they are to the relaxation of principles which defend their own property rights, and may be appealed to in their own defence when they become rich in their turn. In peasant States nothing is more unpopular than any infringement of the rights of property, since it is the great mass of the people who tremble when any relaxation of proprietary rights takes place. Then, again, the principle of nationalism is as dear to a democracy as to an aristocracy or despotism. and the willingness to break up the nation for the grati- fication of one of the smaller sections of the nation, generally proves far from popular. That was, indeed, the feeling which brought the present Government into power, and who can say that it was not a thoroughly popular feel- ing, and no more reactionary than the vehement unionism of the American Civil War ? Indeed, even the naval policy of the present Government has been as thoroughly popular as the Little England policy has been un- popular. Mr. Morley may say, perhaps, that all the prudence has been on the side of the party opposed to too rapid expansion, but the question we are discussing is not what may be said for or against the policy of the Radicals, but whether the policy of the Radicals, in relation to foreign and colonial policy, represents the progressives or the reactionaries, and, for our part, we do not doubt that they come much nearer to repre- senting the reactionaries. So it was again in relation to the most unpopular of the measures of the late Govern ment, the Local Veto Bill. Could Mr. Bryce himself maintain that the Local Veto Bill was a progressive measure ? We should describe it as the most reactionary measure ever introduced to the English people, and as reactionary in spirit as it was unjust and unreasonable in details. Even on the issue touching the Employers' Liability Bill, we have the greatest doubts whether the Radical Government was on the popular side. Doubtless it was on the side of the Trade-Unions. But as there are more Non-Unionists then Trade-Unionists, and as the Trade-Unions become very despotic when their authority over the workmen is challenged, we have grave doubts whether Mr. Asquith's policy was really popular, though it may have commanded the better-organised groups of working men.
Again, there is the great issue between the Church Establishment and the Disestablishment party. No one can say with any authority which side of that controversy was the most popular. In Wales there is no doubt that the late Government represented the majority of the people, though by no means so large a majority as had been supposed, or the late Government would not have lost so many seats in Wales. But neither in England nor in Scotland do we believe that on the whole the attack on the Established Church was popular. The people were proud of the old traditions, and did not want to see the great Church which made them feel that they belonged to the past as well as the present, collapse. We should be disposed to think, that barring Wales, the Disestablishment policy was, and is, definitely unpopular, and that in Scotland even there is a decidedly larger party against the Dis- establishment of the Presbyterian Church than there is in its favour. The time for identifying the Radical policy with the popular policy is past. No doubt the pendulum will swing back in time, the Conservatives will become languid and supine, and the Radicals will have another innings; but when they come in they will be afraid, if they are wise, to push their Radical policy far. They will find that their aggressive policy will do them harm rather than good, and they will find it to their interest to waive a good many of their traditional cries, and to keep Mr. Labouchere and his tail in the background.
Previous page
