Progress and Catastrophe
Toryism and the Twentieth Century. By Walter Elliot. (Philip Allan. 3s. 6d.) MAJOR WALTER ELLIOT, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is one of the lights of the younger . Unionists and one of the most interesting speakers in the House of Commons. At present he is a better speaker than essayist, although this
essay which examines the philosophy of " Toryism " is as stimulating a piece of work as we have read for many years.
But although it carries the reader along at a gallop it has not the continuity which Major Elliot considers to be the prime quality of Toryism. In a speech a lack of coherence is not always, or even often, noticeable ; it can be amply made good by the personality of the speaker, by changes of his voice, even by gesture. Antaeus had to touch mother- earth to renew his strength, but Major Elliot does not return to his mother-thesis frequently enough. To change the metaphor, he is lost, and we are lost, in the wilderness 04 biological speculation. And when at last, under his guidance, we come out of the jungle, he simply says in effect : " All these confusing - tracks we followed were really leading us
all the time to the precise point where we have now arrived." The precise point is that " Toryism " is in perfect concert with the orderly and purposive principles . of the cosmos.
Mr. Baldwin, who has written a brief preface, seems to have been rather puzzled. All the same, we should have been extremely sorry not to have had this delightfully provocative and exciting little book.
Major Elliot's thesis is that in England—let us pause to note the phenomenon that a Scotsman uses " England " to include Scotland—the beliefs of the Right are descended from the beliefs held by a mass of people for hundreds of years and are based on the observation:of life and not on a priori reasoning.
They are associated with a humility of the intellect—in other words with a preference for authority, which in turn connotes a trust in continuity. Men and women of the Right are convinced that whatever has worked once may work again.
Finally, they could not be thus convinced if they did not believe that the universe is on balance friendly to mankind.
This attitude was challenged by the rationalists and the mathematicians who grew continually in power from the sixteenth century onwards and became practically supreme in the early nineteenth century. These men were arrogant of intellect and frankly disbelieved in tradition. They thought that a thing that had worked once was probably obsolete. The theory of the Left is in fine a theory of mistrust and pessimism.
Mr. Baldwin does not think it practical to draw such a clear distinction between instinct and reason. We cannot pursue the argument at length, but must note some of Major Elliot's startling statements by the way. He suggests that most history books are but political pamphlets. Only a few days ego' Mr. Baldwin said in a speech that he rather liked biassed history. Generally it is true that if there is not a very distinct point of view the narrative. is dull. Lord Macaulay wrote a history which enthroned the Whigs for generations, but his' descendant, Mr. George Macaulay Trevelyan, has recently published a history which is as readable as a first- rate novel yet is impartial. Mr. Trevelyan in a most important sense is right to adopt a middle judgment, for the popular judgment in politics—and politics is inchoate history—is in England usually just and sound in the long run.
Major Elliot himself points out most truly that English people never allow a great deal of power to rest in the same hands for very long. The reaction is always at work. The spirit of 'revolution was dying out in the Long Parliament, long before that Parliament came to an end. The Grand Remonstrance was carried by only a tiny majority. The present writer 'remembers coming upon a member of the staff of the Encyclopaedia Britannica who was working upon a new edition. " What are you doing now ? " the present writer asked. The laughing answer was : " I am turning every article with a Royalist bias into an article with a Cromwellian bias." Such are Time's revenges ! And the pendulum motions of British thought are of course aided by the checks and counter-thrusts provided by the Constitution. Nothing is more penetrating in Major Elliot's analysis than his emphasis on the tremendous determining power over domestic politics exerted by the municipalities and the determining power over foreign policy exerted by the Dominions. There is much clamour about the " veto of the Lords," but most people do not notice that the veto is already elsewhere. The permanent officials alone have a more powerful veto than has belonged to the House of Lords for a generation.
From Major Elliot's instinctive optimism to the highly rationalized alarm of Commander J. M. Kenworthy is a far cry. Mr. Kenworthy has little hope of the League of Nations as a keeper of the peace. He thinks that it has funked the bold policy which might have put it in command of the situation-. Mr. 11. G. Wells in his introduction, of course, agrees with this. .He thinks that the League for all the larger purposes is " beneath contempt." Mr. Kenworthy draws a ghastly picture of the havoc which will come from the new gases if there is another great war. What is to be done ? He suggests an alliance to suppress war and points out that Great Britain, the United States, Holland, and Switzerland could prohibit war to-morrow if they liked. He thinks that there is no time to lose, as if we drift on our present course was with the United States is not by any means " unthinkable," but on the contrary, quite possible. It might, he argues, come about circuitously without either side ever intending war.
Another contrast to Major Elliot's optimism is the jeremiad of " A Gentleman with a Duster." In this denunci- ation of the vices of mankind the author is more sententious than ever, though here and there he states a truth (as for example about Materialism on page 50) with singular force and vivacity..
Previous page
