THE UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM. T HE newspapers have been full
of comments on the speeches made during the last ten days by the Unionist leaders, Mr. Balfour and the Duke of Devonshire, but strangely enough, the most important and significant portions of their utterances have been passed by almost without notice. Those speeches were, for the purposes of practical politics, chiefly remarkable from the fact that they contained a full and public declaration of the adhesion -ef the Unionist party as a whole to the schemes of Social Reform put forward by Mr. Chamberlain. These schemes have hitherto been regarded, we will not say as an un- authorised programme—that would imply that, up till now, there had been a certain latent hostility among the rest of the Unionist leaders, which has in reality been anything but the case—but at any rate as an unofficial and individual series of suggestions. From now, they must be considered as definitely a portion of the party's policy. That there may be no doubt as to this, we may recall the fact that Mr. Balfour, when he was distinguishing at Manchester between the Socialistic legislation which was to be avoided, and the Social legislation which, when wise and temperate, was to be encouraged and adopted, deliberately linked Mr. Cham- berlain's proposals with his remarks. For one item indeed in Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, as we have shown elsewhere, Mr. Balfour expressed not only approval, but the strongest sympathy. The purchase of their homes by artisans is evidently a question which touches him closely. The Duke of Devonshire was even more specific in his adoption of Mr. Chamberlain's projects. The passage is worth quoting in full :—" Mr. Campbell- Bannerman," said the Duke of Devonshire, "objects to the policy of social legislation which has been most fully described and set forth by Mr. Chamberlain and adopted by the other leaders of the Unionist party, Conservative as well as Liberal. He objects to that policy in the first place because he says no one can tell that we are all agreed. We are all agreed. So much for that." " We want none of these constitutional and political changes at this moment," continued the Duke of Devon- shire. " We ask Parliament to address itself to the task of considering measures for the improvement of the con- dition of the people, measures which need not necessarily injure a single man, rich or poor, but which we hope may and will produce some improvement in the condition of the poorest and most suffering of our fellows."
As we have said above, these utterances of Mr. Balfour and the Duke of Devonshire, coupled with what Lord Salisbury has already said in regard to Mr. Chamberlain's plans for Social Reform, bring those plans at once within the range of practical politics, and make their considera- tion and discussion among Unionists a matter of the first importance. It is well enough for the leaders to have determined upon adopting them, and we do not in any sense challenge their action in the matter, but if they are to be carried to a successful issue they must be clearly understood and heartily endorsed by the party as a whole. What, then, are the various items in Mr. Cham- berlain's scheme ? They may be read in a concise form in a leaflet recently issued from the Central Offices of the Liberal Unionist Association. One of the chief items, the provision of old-age pensions, we have already dealt with at length, and we will only say here that it is most unfair to speak as if Mr. Chamberlain wished to embark upon an enormous general scheme of old-age pensions instead of, as he does, advocating a scheme under which the members of Friendly Societies shall be stimulated and helped by public aid to make a minimum provision for old age. At the present rate of interest, it is impossible, or at any rate most difficult, for a working man to make provision for old age. We see no reason why, within moderate limitations, the State should not give help which will, as it were, secure a rate of interest sufficient to make saving worth while. The item next in importance is Mr. Chamberlain's proposal in regard to compensation for injuries to workmen. His object may be best expressed in his own words :—" No greater boon," said Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham on October 11th last, " can be given to the working people of this country than to secure to them as a matter of right and certainty, without the risk of litigation, that in all cases in which they suffer from accidents or injuries received in the course of their employment, they them- selves and their families shall be fairly provided for. I say this charge may be met by insurance in the same way as you meet accidents by fire, or accidents by a boiler explosion." Unquestionably, this is an ideal worth working for. Mr. Chamberlain believes that the end can be obtained by an insurance scheme, in which the State shall join and assist the employers and the workmen, and we see no reason to hold that it will pass the wit of man to work out a plan which will be fair to all parties, and yet not impose too great a burden on the State. Mr. Chamberlain's next scheme is directed towards making artisans the owners of their own houses. It is not necessary here to go into the details given by Mr. Chamberlain, for, we take it, he meant them rather by way of specific illustration than as a definite unfolding of his proposals. Suffice it to say that he proposes that the benefits of the excellent credit of the State shall be em- ployed under proper guarantees and limits, and subject to municipal initiative and control, to enable artisans to buy their houses by instalments. It is said, and no doubt often said truly, in regard to this, that artisans do not want to own their own houses, because they are more or less nomadic, and follow their trade physically as well as morally. But these moving artisans do not constitute a tenth of the working class. Though many move, many are stationary, and would greatly prize any easy way of becoming owning occupiers. If they can be safely helped to do so, and can be touched with that magical wand. of Property in immovables which the Socialist dreads so greatly, all the better for the country. In no case is the argument that the artisan does not want to buy very damaging. If the artisans do not want to buy they will not buy, and the scheme will not come into operation, and no public money will be spent. In any case, it is absurd to argue, as has been argued, first, that no one will buy, and, secondly, that an intolerable burden to the finances of the State will be the result of such a refusal. Mr. Cham- berlain has strongly advocated several other social reforms of minor importance. Among these are his scheme for shorter hours in shops, and his proposals for the creation of a judicial tribunal in all industrial centres for the settlement of disputes. We may take it, then, that the Unionist leaders stand pledged, when and if they come into power, to deal with the more important of these questions of social reform in the spirit indicated by Mr. Chamberlain. Though we feel strongly the need for cautious going in all matters affecting State interference, we cannot express ourselves as otherwise than well satisfied that the Unionist party should set itself definitely and formally to find a legislative solution for the problems that arise in connection with the matters we have men- tioned. We hold that the conditions under which recourse should be had to legislative remedial action are two. First, there must be an admitted evil, and, secondly, there must be a strong desire among the mass of the people affected for help at the hands of the State, for without the fertilising influence of that desire, legislative remedies are apt to remain waste- paper. When there is both an admitted evil and a strong desire for a remedy, it is right that, wherever possible, our statesmen should think out, and our Legis- lature give effect to, proposals which shall strive to mitigate the evil. But it is clearly an evil that the workman, even when he wishes to provide against old age, should have such difficulty in saving anything appreciable ; that many of the men who are wounded in the industrial battle have no help in their mis- fortunes ; and that the owning of a man's home is so often entirely outside his reach. Clearly, also, these are matters on which the people concerned show the keenest interest, and desire to find a solution. Go to any meeting of English working men, and whatever else bores them, they will be certain to listen eagerly to talk on how to provide for old age, how to own their houses, and how to provide against injuries which are none the less bitter because they are a man's own fault. But though we are glad that the Unionists will take up these scheines in the sincere desire to find a solution, we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that, from a party point of view, they contain elements of danger. They all of them involve the expenditure of considerable sums of State money. If that expenditure is wisely and discreetly arranged, it is quite possible that Mr. Chamber- lain's schemes will be a benefit to the mass of the popu- lation, and involve no intolerable burden on the Treasury. If, however, they are weak, or rash, or ill-considered in their financial aspect, they may do the country grievous harm ; and as a lesser, but still great evil, injure the Unionist party. Most political questions turn in the last resort on the question of finance, but these schemes depend entirely, as regards success or failure, utility or harm, on the effective and careful use of the resources of the State. Now this being so, we hold most strongly that the states- man who is responsible for their inception, should, if the Unionists come into office, be the Minister charged with pro- viding and arranging for the money required in each case. In plain words, we do not believe that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme of Social Reform can be safely carried through un- less Mr. Chamberlain is made Chancellor of the Exchequer and accepts the fiscal responsibility involved in them. The three schemes would emanate from different offices. Their one common element would be the financial one, and it would be against their financial clauses that the chief attacks of the enemy would be levelled. We do not, in spite of Brigg and Evesham, want to count our chickens before they are hatched. It may be that the formation of a coalition Unionist Ministry is an event entirely remote from the region of probabilities. All we desire to point out is, that if the Unionists come in, the fact that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme has been adopted, makes it imperative that the fiscal responsibilities which will have to be incurred, should be incurred under his immediate direction. We do not in the least want to see Mr. Chamberlain given the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reward for his services to the Unionist party. Many and great as those services have been, they could not in themselves constitute a sufficient reason for depriving Mr. Goschen of a post which he filled so successfully in the last Ministry. It is not, and ought not to be considered as, a question of reward for services, but as a question of what is the best allocation of the posts in the Ministry. Mr. Goschen is much too good a Unionist to let personal feeling influence him in the matter, even if such personal feeling were at all likely to arise. It must be remembered that politicians, except in the case of the Prime Minister, have an instinctive dislike of returning to the old office,—especially if they have held it for a long term of years, and have made a conspicuous success in the duties they have undertaken. There is a tradition of our inner political life, that men always do badly the second time in a great office. It is by no means improbable then that Mr. Goschen would in no case care to go back to the Treasury.
It would have been doing Mr. Chamberlain an ill turn not to have spoken plainly, as we have spoken, on the fiscal difficulties that will have to be met and surmounted before his schemes can be carried to a successful issue, difficulties which, if not surmounted, will bring us ruin and discredit. The fiscal part of his series of social reforms will want care and fore- thought as well as courage. But Mr. Chamberlain, even if his words be sometimes over-eager, is by no means with- out these qualities, and we have every confidence that he would prove as able and clear-seeing a Chancellor of the Exchequer as he was President of the Board of Trade. All that we are anxious for is that the responsibility for launching the schemes shall not be separated from the responsibility of finding the money with which to carry them out. But whoever undertakes the departmental work, Mr. Chamberlain must be responsible for the final shape the measures will assume. It is right, then, and prudent that his also should be the responsibility for the fiscal requirements of his schemes.
Previous page
