THE PECKHAM ELECTION. T HE journalists and the platform speakers are
full of ingenious and far-fetched explanations of the Peckham election. To the independent onlooker, how- ever, whose mind has not been manured with party platitudes the lesson of Peckham is plain enough. The country is in 1908 as determined to resist Socialism in all its forms as it was determined to resist Protection in 1906. The balancing electors, who in this country are essentially moderate and "Left-Centre," made it absolutely clear at the General Election that they did not want the Fiscal policy of this country altered, but intended to maintain a system which had served them so well in the past. In other words, the Tariff Reformers, who though anti-Radical in name are essentially Radical in aspiration, dashed them- selves against the rock of British conservatism, using that word in its strict rather than its party sense. Just now the present Government are doing much the same thing. They are ignoring the essential conservatism of the nation, and are meeting with the same reward. When, however, we speak of the essential conservatism of the British people we do not want to fall into the politician's habit of grandiloquent exaggeration. Instead of saying that the British people as a whole are conservative in feeling, it would perhaps be safer to say that that section of the British people which is committed to neither party in the State, but holds the balance, and thus has it in its power to make and unmake Governments, is always Central and conservative in its opinions. Peckham, like all the by-elections for the past ten mouths or so, shows that the balancing electors have become con- vinced that the danger of the moment is Socialism, and not Tariff Reform, and they are acting accordingly. Timid critics are inclined to find in this apparent change of attitude a dangerous fickleness. For ourselves, we do not share that alarm. The motto of the typical Briton is always "One thing at a time," and, though there is a certain danger in this opportunist attitude of mind, it works well on the whole. After all, the danger of the moment is Socialism, and the balancing elector concen- trates on that, regardless of the fast that in his rebuff to Socialism he may appear to be reversing the decision which he gave so emphatically in 1906 in favour of Free-trade. "I was in danger of a flood then," he seems to say ; "now the danger is fire, and I am using the flood-water to put that out ; but if the flood peril appears again, I shall know how to deal with it."
It is a peculiarity of politicians to imagine that they are always in front of the electors, whereas, in reality, they are generally behind them. The Liberal wirepullers and, electioueerers, it is clear, are completely puzzled by results such as Peckham. They feel that the balancing electors ought still to be thinking of the danger to Free-trade, and that they may be induced to support Socialistic measures and Socialistic candidates out of dread of Protection. As a matter of fact, as we have just said, the mind of the balancing elector has moved on to the problem of Socialism, and has taken a turn quite unexpected by the politicians,—a turn which makes the party managers in their heart of hearts curse the lightness and untrust- worthiness of democracy. Yet a very little thought should have shown them that, as Bright and Cobden knew so well, it is utterly inconsistent to advocate Socialistic measures in the name of Free-trade. Every sound argument honestly used against Protection is bound to tell also against Socialism. The proofs and facts and figures that go to show the enervation of character and the waste caused by interference with the laws of supply and demand in the vain hope of protecting industry and labour tell with equal force whether the proposed instrument of Protec- tion is a tariff or an Eight Hours Act, an anti-sweating law or a Bill to endow unemployment. Party Liberals would, of course, like to put an embargo upon this kind of reasoning, and to make it penal to apply Free-trade arguments except in the matter of exports and imports. But such embargoes, unfortunately for them, cannot be maintained. Dickens described Jefferson, the Southern and pseudo-Jacobin President of the United States, as a man who 'dreamt of liberty in the arms of a slave, and awoke to sell his children at public auction.' The Socialistic Radical dreams of Free-trade founded on Protection, and awakes to introduce a Bill to hamper and restrict free exchange, and to shield Labour from the free play of competition. When the present Government became aware of the political situation, one might have supposed that, as men of experience and ability in public affairs, they would have put on the brake, and tried. to prevent themselves sliding any further down the slippery slopes of Socialism. Unhappily, they seem to have adopted an exactly opposite course. Many of them were, no doubt, %incerely anxious to preserve Free-trade, at any rate in the matter of exports and imports. What conclusion did they come to as to the best method of preservation ? Strange as it may seem, they decided that the best way to help the cause of Free- trade was to render it popular' by associating it with Socialistic and semi-Socialistic measures. Thus, it would be most impolitic, the Westminster Gazette hinted several months ago, to make the democracy imagine that the price they would have to pay for maintaining Free- trade was the abandonment of those Socialistic measures upon which they were supposed to have set their hearts,— such as, for example, old-age pensions. Accordingly the Government plunged into what we can only describe as the mad policy of concealing the plain and wholesome food of Free-trade in bumper teaspoonfuls of Socialistic jam,—the assumption, of course, being that the country was doubtful about the merits of the plain food, but very eager for the jam ! What has been the result? Instead of helping the Government or defeating Protection, the policy of Socialistic jam has proved an utter failure. Ever since Mr. Asquith nailed old-age pensions to the mast by earmarking a portion of his Budget for that policy, and thus irre- vocably committed the Ministry, the Government have lost by-election after by-election. Instead of old-age pensions strengthening the Ministry, and proving the value of a little judicious cynicism in politics, they have been the beginning of their ruin. Once again the politicians have had brought home to them the lesson, though it is a lesson which we do not in the least expect them to remember and take to heart, that you cannot bribe men with their own money. The working classes are quite sharp enough and well instructed enough to know that old-age pensions are not given to them ovt of their private pockets by a set of kind-hearted middle-aged gentlemen sitting at Whitehall called the Cabinet. Those who are in favour of old-age pensions know quite as well as those who are against them that the money will have to be found by the country as a whole, and. that if old-age pensions are voted the electors will vote them to themselves, and not receive them as a present from the Liberal Cabinet or the Liberal Party. Hence the offer of non- contributory old-age pensions has left the country abso- lutely cold. Those who were already in favour of them no doubt remain so, but they are inclined to say "Thank you for nothing !" or else to be exceedingly suspicious that instead of getting their full measure they are to be fobbed off with a scheme which will only relieve a limited number of people, and under inquisitorial conditions such as are always hated by the British people. On the other hand, those who have always been against the pensions scheme —and they are numbered by the million—realise, as we have so often pointed out in the Spectator, that the ques- tion is a crucial one, and that if old-age pensions are once granted, and the country is committed to an ultimate expenditure of thirty millions a year, not only must Free- trade go by the board, but we shall be involved in a position of the gravest financial difficulty and danger. There is no getting out of it that old-age pensions are a test question. Those who support the scheme are, consciously or unconsciously, supporters of Socialistic Protection, both in fact and theory. Those who are opposed to it occupy the true Free-trade position.
In writing thus of the Peckhamelection we have dwelt upon what we feel sure are its main lessons. At the same time, we are, of course, not blind to the fact that the unpopularity of the Licensing Bill and the activity of the brewers, dis- tillers, and publicans played a very important part in the result. Whether, however, the voting strength possessed by the trade is quite as large as is supposed we rather doubt. We by no means feel sure that the Licensing Bill, though it has no doubt alienated a great many voters who voted Liberal in 1906, has not also sent a good many votes the other way. Though they keep quiet, there are plenty of Tariff Reformers who are also temperance men, and also a very large number of Churchmen who follow the Archbishop of Canterbury in regarding the present Bill as a possible basis for a just solution of the licensing question, and who are by no means inclined to take the extreme trade view. The attitude of the Morning Post is, we believe, representative of a very large body of Unionist opinion. Thus, though we do not fail to recognise the part played by the Licensing Bill, we are still of opinion that the real factor in the election was the detestation of Socialism felt by the balancing elector, and his deter- mination to condemn root and branch those who have shown themselves willing to make terms with the upholders of a creed so fatal to the national welfare.
Will Mr. Asquith and his colleagues understand and. take heed of the lessons of Peckham and. the preceding by-elections ? If they will, there is yet time to save them- selves and. their party from ruin, and to prevent the cause of Free-trade receiving serious injury in their fall. Both inside and outside the House very many Liberals are saying that they had better be done with the extremists, and show a more conservative and moderate frame of mind. But it is no good. merely to talk like this in private. To make such opinions worth anything action must be taken, and. the only effective action will be action decisive enough to show that the Government and the party have adopted a real change of policy. Will Mr. Asquith when he becomes Prime Minister, as we fear it is certain he will become in the course of the next few weeks, it is admitted that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman will not, in any case, retain the Premiership after Easter —have the pluck to tell his party and. the House of Commons that the Government have come to the con- clusion that they were wrong in promising old-age pensions, and that on further consideration they hold. it would be unwise to commit the country to financial responsibilities so vast and. so growing ? Instead, therefore, they mean to use their surplus to reduce taxation and to abolish the Sugar-duty. We believe that if Mr. Asquith would take up an attitude of this kind he would confer a great service on his party as well as on his country. No doubt the extremists would howl, but they could not force a Dissolu- tion, and meantime the Government would be gradually regaining the confidence of serious men, and would be finding that in Western as in Eastern countries those who tax the people least are those who most surely gain and keep their confidence. But though we are certain that this would be the wise line for the Government to take, we have little hope that they will take it. Mr. Asquith has many great qualities, but, as we point out elsewhere, his mind and character are affected by a certain pessimism which prevents bold and self-confident courses. He will, we fear, go on with old-age pensions in spite of all the warnings he has received. In spite of the roar of the waters which is sounding so plainly in his ears, he will, we do not doubt, let the boat drift till it is too late to save it from being swept over the falls. We do not pretend to think that the prospect is without risks to Free-trade. Nevertheless we hold. that in the end the British people will make good their determination to have neither Socialism nor Protection.
Previous page
