Our Centenary :
Confession of Faith BEFORE ' seeking to draw up our confession of faith we must express once again our grief that St. Loe Strachey is no longer with us. How eagerly he would have entered into the plans for producing the Centenary issue of the Spectator, and what a help and inspiration his mature experience, enthusiasm and devotion to worth-while causes would have been. In the three and a-half years since the change in the proprietorship and the editorship of the Spectator took place, we have sought to carry on the paper on the lines which he laid down and which were frequently discussed with him.
We shall not take much space in delving into the past, for in this week's issue will be found a series of articles giving a survey of the Spectator's life from 1828 to the present day. It is with special satisfaction that we print contributions from Miss Townsend, the daughter of Meredith Townsend, and of -Mr. John Strachey; St. Loc Strachey's only son. Two former members of the Spectator staff, Mr. John Buchan and Mr. Charles Graves, record some of their recollections of the old days at No. 1 Wellington Street ; Mr. J. B. Atkins, the oldest member of the Spectator editorial staff, who succeeded Mr. Buchan in 1907, brings the story down to more recent times. During the anxious War years, when Mr. Strachey's health incapacitated him for many months, it was Mr. Atkins who carried on single-handed, and the Spectator owes a lively debt of gratitude to him. We should have liked in this issue, had the space been available, to have thanked by name every member of the staff, editorial, commercial, advertising and printing.
A thrilling story of the political and social history of the last hundred years is unfolded in the following pages. We start by making the journey from Dundee via Edin- burgh with R. S. Rintoul, the Radical Scotsman who founded the paper, and who remained its editor and proprietor till 1858. Rintoul was a great editor, but he chiefly used the brains and pens of others to carry out his purpose. He was in no sense a party man, and, as his obituary notice stated in these columns, " he set himself to promote social and civil reforms irrespective of party." There have never been wanting those among the readers of the Spectator who have been irritated by the course pursued by the paper, but, as the writer of Rintoul's obituary notice said at the time, " the sub- scribers swore at their leek, but they ate their leek too, for the greater part of the regular readers of the Spectator have always been of a class which is not affected by partisan spleen." The practice of publishing letters with which the editor disagreed, and whose purpose was frequently to the disadvantage of the Spectator, was first established by Rintoul—a tradition which change of ownership has never affected. Rintoul was endowed with a far-seeing patriotism, which did not consist in thinking that his country was always in the right, but in the earnest desire that she should be.
After a brief interregnum we come to the memorable partnership of Meredith Townsend and Richard Hutton. The year 1886 was an important milestone, for, as a result of the Liberal Government's Home Rule Bill,. the paper forswore its allegiance to Mr. Gladstone and, became Liberal-Unionist, and such it remained for many years. During the first part of his editorship St. Loe Strachey was a Liberal-Unionist, and it will be recalled that in the election of 1906, when he was championing the Free Trade cause throughout the country, he appealed to his readers to support the Liberal Govern- ment. Subsequently he .became a Unionist, although never abandoning his allegiance to Free Trade. _ During- the last years of his association with the paper lie described his politics as " left centre," although he sup- ported Mr. Baldwin. By this he meant that the solidarity and stability of human tradition should, above all things, be preserved ; but that it was the special duty of those men who valued our great traditions to strive for sound reform. The party of stability should never become the party of inertia.
Our first allegiance must always be to the causes for which we work. None the less, we are whole-hearted admirers of Mr. Baldwin, and we warmly support the Unionism for which he stands. In home affairs, we put the problem of housing in the forefront. If the Unionist Party hopes to retain its hold on the country, it must come forward with a far-reaching and comprehensive scheme of slum clearance. The present mode of living of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens is intolerable. Whatever the cost, there must, be a speedy end to it. The relief of unemployment and the rationalization of industry must be high up in our programme.
On the subject of Protection versus Free Trade we remain convinced Free Traders. Like St. Loe Strachey, we recognize that times have changed since the War, and that as a temporary measure the safeguarding of certain industries may be desirable. But despite this we welcomed the findings of the International Economic Conference, which met in Geneva last year, and whieh stated that among Europe's greatest dangers were high tariffs. We know that there are many ardent young spirits to-day in political life who think, because the Unionist Party largely represents the interests of the property- owning classes, that it will always range itself on the side of the " haves " versus the " have riots." We refuse to believe this. The Unionist Party must not become merely a party of privilege. It is as deeply concerned with the welfare of the whole community as any party, and it recognizes that the foundation of privilege is the right to serve our fellow-citizens. No one, in oar view, more readily admits the injustices of our present social system than the Prime Minister. Mr. Baldwin's hold on his fellow-countrymen is due to the fact that they believe in his integrity of purpose and his desire to remove existing social injustices. Our only quarrel with the Prime MiniSter has been that sometimes he has not made his voice heard clearly enough. We . doubt whether he knows what a following he has throughout the country. He is by far the greatest asset of the Unionist .Party. If he would but take his courage in his hands, and give a clarion call to the nation in the election next year with a bold programme of social betterment, we are sure that he would have no reason to complain of the result.
• The Spectator has always taken a deep interest .in British agriculture, and we regard with concern the increasing amount of acreage going out of- cultivation. By adopting an enlightened policy many millions of pounds which at present are spent outside this country, supplying the British breakfast table, might be diverted into the home producer. We do not think that artificial support, such as bounties and tariffs, are needed. The way of salvation lies in harder work, more up-to-date methods and the application of science to farming, and a superior agricultural education for *all classes. In the right use of the land Northern Europe has many lessons for us.
On the subject of alcohol, despite many attempts to make us change our position, we- continue to subscribe to St. Loe Strachey's belief in the disinterested .manage-- ment of the drink trade. It is a national disgrace that the sale of drink should be left in private hands. We explained the reasons for our views at length last year ; we repeat once again that the influence of the drink trade is too powerfully represented in the inner circles of the Unionist Party. We have no quarrel with the distillers and brewers, who naturally seek every oppor- tunity for increasing the sale of their products ; they are no better and no worse than their fellow-citizens: But so long as the drink trade is privately owned, it must of necessity seek increased output and increased dividend's.
The humane treatment of animals is a cause we have much at heart and we shall leave no stone unturned until the use of the humane killer is made compulsory in this country and until the private slaughterhouse, that relic of an unenlightened age, is abolished.
In foreign affairs, we are warm supporters of the League of Nations, and, at a time when there appeared some likelihood that enthusiasm for the League might be regarded as the prerogative of the Liberal and Labour Parties, we decided to devote a weekly page to its progress. In our view the Unionist Party is just as much interested in the welfare of the League as either of its opponents, and confirmation of this view was supplied last week by Mr. Baldwin's splendid speech at the tenth anniversary meeting of the League of Nations Union at the Albert Hall. We have never heard a better presentation of the League's achievements or a more convincing appeal for its support than was then made by the Prime Minister.
It would be affectation to say that we have been entirely satisfied with the Government's conduct of foreign affairs recently, but Mr. Baldwin's speech has helped to "clear the air and we have his assurance that there has been no change in the orientation of British policy. We do not propose to cry over spilt milk and we recognize that Sir Austen Chamberlain's illness, from which we are glad to hear that he is recovering, came at a particularly unfortunate moment. The old system of alliance and counter-alliance must be banished from Europe. A policy of balance of power may have been necessary in another age, but it must make way for more enlightened doctrines. The path to greater security lies by way of the League, the' Locarno Agreement and the Kellogg Peace Pact. Our entente must be not with any one Power, but with all nations working for world peace.
In matters concerning the welfare of the British Commonwealth, we continue to advocate the closest co-operation with the Dominions, always recalling the findings of the last Imperial Conference, when the doctrine of " equality of status " was recognized once for all. In the Colonies and Dependencies of the Crown our only consideration must be the welfare of the inhabitants for whom we are trustees, and we must never seek by tariff walls to exclude other nations. The lessons of the American War of Independence and of many of the trade struggles of the past, should have taught us that in exclusive tariffs future trouble lies.
In world politics we remain unrepentant believers in the closest co-operation between the peoples of the British and American Commonwealths. Nothing that has happened since the Armistice shakes our conviction that the best way of safeguarding the cause of Western civilization and preventing war is to maintain a cordial friendship between the English-speaking peoples. In many quarters attempts are made to stir up misunder- standing and suspicion between the United States and ourselves, and we must be on our guard. Before the War Germany was our chief trade rival ; to-day the United States occupies that position. There is no reason why trade rivalry should lead to political hostility. In the British Empire there are many cases of keen rivalry between cities and districts—Sydney and Melbourne, Montreal and Toronto, Glasgow and Edin- burgh, Liverpool and Manchester are cases in point. But the keenest commercial rivalry in the modern world should not imply hostility and war talk. Such an out- look belongs to the civilization of ancient Greece, when city was leagued against city, rather than to our day. Both at the Geneva Naval Conference in 1927 and during the recent Anglo-French Naval Pact discussions there was a lack of appreciation of the American point of view. This is not to say that the arguments were all on one side —far from it, but with the Washington agreement to go on, it should have been possible to arrive at an under- standing and to show the world that our recognition of naval parity with the United States was no empty affirmation. Great Britain, as the Prime Minister said last week, has no intention of building in competition, with the United States.
To conclude on a personal note. As our readers will recall, with a view to safeguarding the future position of the Spectator, and copying the excellent example of the Times, we took steps early this year to establish a Committee to prevent the sale of the paper to the highest bidder, apart from other considerations.
We shall continue to speak our minds in accordance with our convictions when we believe the public welfare is at stake. If the time of testing comes, we hope we may not be, found wanting.
Previous page
