TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WILL THE UNIONIST PARTY TOLERATE AN UNPATRIOTIC OPPOSITION? A'ATE pointed out last week that if the Unionist Party was to regain the confidence of the nation, it was essential that it should show itself capable of constituting a patriotic Opposition,—that is, an Opposition which would not make unnatural alliances either with the Irish Party or the extreme Labour Party in order to em- barrass a Free-trade Government. A patriotic Opposition would not try to hound the Government into violent measures by giving encouragement to extremists, but would exert its influence in a truly conservative direction. But though such a course is essential to the resurrection of the Unionist Party, and though we still trust that it may be adopted, we are bound to confess that Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Halesowen gives us grave ground for misgiving. Not only did Mr. Chamberlain in that speech once more nail his Tariff Reform colours to the mast, and declare that it would be "the business of that small minority who will join me in the House of Commons when it meets" to keep alive the principles of Protection, but he endeavoured to show that the present Government were Without sympathy for the unemployed, or, as he described them, " those classes whose sufferings the Government pitied so long as they had no responsibility."
Those who, like ourselves, are not Socialists, and believe that the welfare of the nation and of the working classes will be best consulted by a moderate and genuinely conservative treatment of the unemployed question, have marked with growing approval the manly and straight- forward way in which Mr. Burns has addressed himself to the difficult problems with which he is specially confronted in his Department. Mr. Burns, as a working man who just now is being assailed with a good deal of acrimony by members of his own class, and who is watched everywhere with jealous and un- friendly eyes, is under no small temptation to "play to the gallery" in the matter of unemployment, and to show that he is going to prove more sympathetic and easygoing in regard to State aid for the poor than any of his predecessors. Mr. Burns, like most politicians, whether working men or members of the upper or middle classes, may very likely in the heat of oratory have said unwise things, and held out hopes which it would be ex- tremely difficult to satisfy in practice. But if this is so, surely it is to his credit, when he finds the problem before him more intricate and more difficult than he supposed, if he boldly faces the risk of dis- appointing his followers. Is he to be condemned for doing that rather than appearing to satisfy them, while in reality injuring their essential interests ? That being the position, one would have supposed that a leader of Opposition such as Mr. Chamberlain—that is, a leader who professes to represent the conservative and moderate elements in the nation—would have refrained from saying a word which might be likely to commit Mr. Burns to unwise or dangerous action as regards the unemployed ? Instead, however, of refraining from anything which might tend to force Mr. Burns into taking a false step, Mr. Chamberlain taunts him with his moderation and states- manship, and encourages the extreme Socialistic cry that Mr. Burns has deserted his colours, and now that he has become a Minister has gone over to the enemy and is callous about the sufferings of the poor.
To show that we are not exaggerating, we will quote Mr. Chamberlain's own language :—" What did Mr. Burns say since he had become President of the Local Government Board ? He had developed into a hard official of the most ordinary kind. When Mr. Burns received a deputation on the subject he thought they must have failed to recognise the mob orator of Hyde Park in the smug and respectable gentle- man who read them a lecture on thrift and sobriety, and begged them to have confidence in him, and said that he had looked after their interests. It reminded him of the lines of a Radical poet of many years ago—Tom Moore—who said on a similar occasion :— The Minister's answer is always so kind— I starve—and he tells me he'll keep me in mind.' If there were any who still believed that Mr. Burns, who had made such extraordinary promises, now that he had to carry them out had any scheme ready in his pocket, they would before long find out their delusion."
These words seem to us among the most reckless and irre- sponsible used by any statesman of the present genera- tion, and should be condemned by all moderate men, and by all who, like ourselves, are most anxious not to see any rash experiments made in the Socialistic direction, and wish to prevent the recognition of the principle that it is the duty of the Government to provide work for the unemployed. We do not disguise from ourselves that there is a portion of the Radical Party who will urge upon the present Government the recognition of is droit de travail, and that it may be difficult to prevent the present House of Commons from inclining to sanction wild schemes of this nature. Apparently, however, the leader of "that small minority who will join me in the House of Commons when it meets" cannot be relied upon to withstand such madness, but will use his influence to force the Government to yield to the extremists. That is what we mean by unpatriotic opposition, and that is the kind of opposition which we trust that the rank-and-file of the Conservative Party in the country will set their faces against like a flint. They may have been beaten on the question of Protection, but that is no reason why the nation should be hurried over the Socialistic precipice by Mr. Chamberlain. The country is not Socialist, nay, has a horror of Socialism, and if it finds the Unionists, from party considerations, endeavouring to shunt the Govern- ment on to Socialist lines, we are certain that the only. result will be to ruin the Unionist Party even more than it is ruined already. No doubt we shall be told in certain quarters that we do not understand how the political game ought to be played, and that it is the business of the official Opposition to rally and incite all other forms of opposition. To this we will only reply that though we are no political purists, and perfectly well recognise the ordinary working of the party system, there are some matters upon which a Conservative minority cannot afford to play the party game. Such a speech as Mr. Chamberlain's at Halesowen is an example of what we mean.
The passage dealing with Mr. Burns was not the only one in which Mr. Chamberlain showed that if he is to lead. the Opposition, it will not be a patriotic Opposition, but one reckless and irresponsible. At the end of his speech he dwelt with complacency upon the fact that the Irish 'Nationalists were all opposed to Free-trade. "Every Irish- man, almost of necessity, was a Protectionist." He then went on to point out that the primary object of the Labour Party was also Protection,—the protection of Labour. "Sooner or later they would find that they could not protect Labour without protecting also the products of labour." These references indicate, in our opinion, that Mr. Chamber- lain, with the impetuosity and want of judgment of his latest phase, is preparing to do a "deal" in the interests of Tariff Reform both with the Nationalists and with the Labour Party. We have always believed that he would be prepared to do so in • the end, but we hardly expected the invitation to be issued so soon,—before, that is, the polls have finished or the House of Commons has met. We can only say once more that if Mr. Chamberlain is allowed to carry out this policy, the Unionist Party will be practically wiped out of existence. The country has shown plainly enough that it has little use for a Unionist Party which wishes to restore Protection. To a Unionist Party which in addition is willing to work with the Nationalists and the Socialists, and which does not hesitate to incite the latter to regard those who do not yield to their claims as enemies of the poor, the nation will, we believe, , extend no tolerance whatever. A Coalition based on Protection, Nationalism, and Socialism will be even more odious to the British people than was the Coalition of Fox and. North.
It is not enough to point out the dangers presented to the Unionist Party by Mr. Chamberlain's speech. It is- essential to suggest some means of preventing the irre- mediable ruin which menaces the party before it is too late. We would appeal, first of all, to the great interests which have hitherto looked upon the Unionist Party as specially favourable to themselves, and as forming a, bulwark against rash and violent measures, either legislative or administrative. The propertied classes—and by the pro- pertied classes we do not mean the great capitalists, but ill° men of moderate means throughout the country who realise that their material prosperity depends upon the maintenance of a stable Government and of sound policy in economic matters—have hitherto felt that they had a sure safeguard in the Unionist Party. Up to June, 1903—up to the time when Mr. Chamberlain began to destroy the Unionist Party, and Mr. Balfour stood by and encouraged him in the work—the Unionist Party was a truly national body. It represented not merely the old Conservative Party, but, owing to the inclusion of the Liberal Unionists —of men of the stamp of the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Goschen, Lord James, and Mr. Arthur Elliot— it represented also Liberal and enlightened ideas. Again, it numbered amongst its adherents the very flower of the working classes,—men of strong individualistic tendencies and of intellectual independence, the men who sixty or seventy years ago formed the bulk of the Radical Party, and who looked to Cobden and Bright as their leaders. Surely the propertied classes, as we have defined them, will realise the necessity of re-establishing the party on the old lines. But if this is to be done, they must place an instant veto on such speeches as that at Halesowen and on such action as is evidently advocated by Mr. Chamberlain.
Another of the great interests in the State has hitherto looked with confidence to the support of the Unionist Party. The Established Church throughout the last generation has relied on it to support causes which it deems essential to the national welfare. Surely those who have the true interests of the Church at heart cannot be pleased, not merely with what has already been done to the Unionist Party, but with the policy which Mr. Chamberlain now contemplates, and which Mr. Balfour apparently does not wish to gainsay. The fact that for the first time in our history the adherents of the Church of England are in a minority in the House of Commons is well worth the notice of Church- men. If they ask the reason, there can only be one answer. Their leaders have allowed the Unionist Party to be connected—we trust not irrevocably connected— in the minds of the people with a cause so essentially unpopular that the determination to destroy it overrode all other considerations. When Mr. Chamberlain began his Fiscal propaganda, we ventured to appeal to the leaders of the Established Church to make it clear to the electors that the Church of England would have nothing to do with any attempt to tax the food of the people, and that though the Church could not interfere with ordinary political questions, the question that had been placed before the country by Mr. Chamberlain was a moral one, and therefore did con- cern the Church. The interests, as we pointed out, of the very poor are in a special degree the concern of the Church, and as the taxation of food for Protective purposes must, whatever else it did, injure the very poor, the leaders of the Church should, we urged, dissociate themselves from the new policy. Our warning unfortunately fell on deaf ears, and though, as we know, vast numbers of Church- men have voted at the present Election for Free-trade, the general result of the Election has been injurious in a high degree to the interests of the Establishment. The party to which the Church looked for support has, as we have said, become connected in men's minds with a cause which the people hold in absolute detestation.
It is, however, no good to cry over spilt milk. The essential thing is, it seems to us, for the leaders of the Established Church to consider now whether they will call a halt, or whether they will allow Mr: Chamberlain and his colleagues to sink the Unionist Party still further in public consideration. If the friends of the Church and of the propertied classes, joined by the other sane and moderate elements in the Unionist Party, will even now make their influence felt, we believe that they may save the remains of the party. If they do not, and if they allow the party to drift in the Chamberlain current, only one thing can happen : they will be carried over the cataract. It may be said that this advice does not come well from us, since we fought so hard to secure the defeat of Protection. Possibly ; and for that reason we would much rather see some Unionist who up till now has followed Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain hoist the danger- signal. Since, however, no such signal has so far been raised, and since we are acutely conscious of the perils we have described, we have felt it our duty to speak out.
Only through a patriotic Opposition can the Unionist Party be saved ; and, unless we are mistaken, it must be saved from the bottom, and not from the top. If throughout the constituencies the ordinary Conservative and Liberal Unionist voters will only make it known in their organisations and in the Press that they are determined not to have an Opposition such as Mr. Chamberlain has foreshadowed, they will, we are convinced, soon find leaders to give voice to their views.
Previous page
