"STEADY."
_LiCARICATURE published in the Pall Mall Gazette of Tuesday represents with great skill. and without malice a real doubt in the mind of many sensible people. The Premier as shown in the drawing is being pulled down the hill towards an abyss of Socialism by a ball, labelled "Majority," too heavy for him to stop or to control. The sensible people of whom we speak perceive that in the new Parliament new couches sociales will have immense influ- ence, the fifty Labour Members not representing their full strength, which will be increased by a great number of Members who, though not exactly representatives of Labour, owe their seats, or at least their heavy majorities, to the adhesion of Labour voters. A fear is therefore expressed by persons who usually are very moderate in opinion lest the new Parliament should be some- what carried away in the Socialist direction, or at least in the direction of rash experiment for the removal of admitted evils. We do not ourselves believe that this apprehension is well founded. The Cabinet is really composed for the most part of very moderate men, amongst whom the Premier may certainly be reckoned ; the House of Commons is positively choked with lawyers, who are seldom favourable to rash experi- ment; the House of Lords is not threatened except by the few who are fond of dwelling on abstract pro- positions ; and we see no sign that the people at large are demanding anything which can fairly be described as revolutionary.
Nevertheless, there may be real need for a serious caution both to the Government and the moderate Members. It will be necessary for both to steady the new men, who are many, and the extreme men, who, though they are few, may try to obtain for proposals that are really wild a momentary importance. This can be best effected, as we believe, by conceding to their suggestions frank and respectful discussion. They are neither fools nor robbers, and are accustomed to meet in their Councils or Unions or political clubs with very direct and argumentative opposition. The danger from them, such as it is, is not a moral but an intellectual danger. They are apt to exaggerate the strength of the State, especially in regard to expenditure, to be slightly bewildered by very large figures, and to believe that great demands on the Treasury do not matter if only the money is expended in what they think a beneficial manner. They do not, as is so often said, think of the State as possessing the purse of Fortunatus, but they do think that it possesses a very deep one, which when necessity arises, as, for instance, in war, is very readily drawn upon. They want to see the same readiness shown when their philanthropic schemes are in question, which, as they argue, are quite as necessary and much more beneficial. They forget that such schemes are many and frequently recurrent, while war is one and rare. To disabuse them of such projects, the best way is not to tell them that they are "revolutionists," or "dreamers," or "enemies of property," but to ask them to calculate as actuaries would do the cost of their suggestions. Men talk very easily, for example, of "nationalising the land of England," or "restoring their landed property to the people," who would be perfectly horrified if they were once convinced that to realise their ideas might treble, and would certainly more than double, the National Debt. Of all who have proposed to grant old-age pensions to worn- out toilers, as we grant them to soldiers or policemen, who have served the community in other ways—in itself an excellent proposal if the national fortune will allow it— scarcely one has stated definitely what amount that effort of national philanthropy would add. yearly to the national expenditure, or has suggested a definite and tolerable scheme for raising the needful money. Do they mean the money to be a dole, or are they suggesting a grand system of popular insurance ? It is absurd to scold men for being over pitiful or over sympathetic ; but before their kindly dreams can be fulfilled they must be asked, "How much will you spend, and who is to be the paymaster ? " Education is always a good thing, but it is quite possible to spend on education till all general pleasure in that best of philanthropies and most impera- tive of duties is exchanged for a restless criticism of a burden felt to be too oppressive. The way to prevent mistakes of this kind is not to grow abusive or sarcastic, but to demand definiteness, as any decent landlord would when asked for " improvements " which have not been estimated. Most men—probably all men in one way or another—are in favour of binding the Mother-country to her Colonies by even stronger bonds than at present ; but it is quite possible—quite easy, indeed, if Protectionists get their way—to make those bonds so costly as to produce a revulsion to the ideas of the time—not so very long ago—when really able men considered Colonies burdens on the Mother-State. The last attitude in which Colonists wish to picture themselves, or sensible men wish to picture them, is that of poor relations. The Government will have to be steady as well as their supporters ; and to show steadi- ness, they must be very definite in their proposals, and very brave in resisting anything that seems to them vague. They must not avoid, as Mr Balfour did, the expression of their own convictions. If they do, they may find, to take concrete examples, that the advocates of economy will expand their ideas till the country is left inadequately defended, and that the men who at first seek only a fair compromise about the religious question, which is em- bedded in our systems of education, have suddenly thrown the whole dangerous and complex question of Disestablish- ment upon the floor of the House. People grow im- moderate, not to say unreasonable, when the forms through which religious conviction is to be expressed become subjects of public dispute. It may be as necessary to steady debate upon that subject as upon proposals for new expenditure, and it will be found in practice infinitely more difficult.
We are by no means anxious to prevent the Government from keeping the pledges which they have given, though some of the Liberal schemes must necessarily be whittled down in debate ; but we are anxious to prevent what in this country we regard as the most serious of dangers,—the sudden appearance of a fissure between the well-to-do and the workers, or between the sincere advocates of the State Church and those of the Free Churches at large. Property is always overtimid ; State Churches always expect explosions from below ; Imperialists always fancy that resistance to their ideas implies secret Little Englandism. Very hot things will be said by Members unaccustomed to Parliamentary ways, and every hot thing said will be used as a, weapon by the other side. There is as much necessity for caution and steadiness in 1906 as there ever was in 1832, and it will be most difficult to display them if the moderate Members do not resolutely support the Government in compelling their opponents to use argument instead of invective, or what we may best describe as philanthropic poetry. All will go right with time, or the long history of England utterly misleads us ; but we do not want the regular progress of the State towards a kindlier democracy to be broken by spasms of that sort of verbal bitterness and class warfare which for the last two centuries has in this island taken the place of the resort to actual force. No Government ever wishes to create suspicion in the minds of the masses of its people ; but it is nearly as important to avoid creating it in the directing classes, and that can be avoided only by the steadiness of a strong Government with a will as well as a mind.
Previous page
