Page images
PDF
EPUB

the ways, but it would be sanguine to anticipate that the view which so plainly presents itself to an independent like Lord Esher, will equally commend itself to politicians who are constitutionally terrified of telling the people the truth about National Defence. Their timidity is not unnatural, because the admission that the country is unsafe under the voluntary system, would involve a transformation fatal to powerful personal vested interests. Had we a Roosevelt to arouse our people to do their duty we should have no anxiety as regards the future, but in the absence of any great democratic leader, to awaken the democracy from its trance, the outlook is grave. Lord Esher's warning should at any rate prevent politicians from throwing further cartloads of dust in the eyes of the people.

Australia's
Example

IN progressive circles in this country-progressive because they are progressing towards disaster-universal service is regarded as "undemocratic "though its very name belies the imputation. But if it were undemocratic it would be none the less urgent, because the law of life governs democracies no less than autocracies, and the British democracy will either defend itself, or it will perish, leaving the world to the undemocratic. We refuse to believe that if the facts were put plainly before our people by their political leaders there would be any hesitation as to the response; but naturally, if the Unionist leaders, the Radical leaders and the Labour leaders are unanimous in denouncing military service as retrograde, unnecessary and un-English, and as a positive handicap on the defence of the country, the masses cannot reasonably be expected to think otherwise. Give the British working man a chance of proving his patriotism and denounce him if he won't take it, but don't denounce him while his so-called "betters" proclaim their present opinions, and offer every obstruction to the very idea of personal patriotism and combine to glorify patriotism by proxy. With Mr. Haldane and the army council de-militarising the cadet what can be expected of the people at large? That Britishers are prepared to do their duty when they get away from the Manchester miasma and have their duty plainly put before them, is evident from what has happened in Australia. While we have been maundering on about national service since the beginning of the century Australia-the most "advanced" community in the

world—to say nothing of New Zealand which is equally free from tory reactionaries" and "bloated dukes"-has by the light of her native common sense been converted to the necessity of universal service. As Captain Mahan observes, the adoption of this measure by the all-powerful Australian Labour party is the most hopeful sign in the British Empire. There is also reason to believe it will shortly be adopted in South Africa. What an example to the Mother Country. Are we willing to follow it? Not if we are led by cowards. The Australian Defence Bill, the first constructive measure of the new Australian Labour Cabinet amending last year's Act, was read a second time in the Senate on August 18, after Mr. Pearce, the Labour Minister of Defence had made a strong speech supporting Lord Kitchener's proposals. Cadet training will begin in 1911 and adult training in 1912. It is estimated that when the scheme is in full working order it will place 127,000 men in the fighting line at a cost of £2,000,000 per annum. In a striking passage, Mr. Pearce vindicated the interest of the Labour party in military matters on the ground that their policy of social reforms must be free from external disturbance, adding, "all means of defence must be of the very best, and there must be no makeshifts, while there should be a margin on the side of safety." We wonder Messrs. Keir Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald, and Barnes don't have apoplexy. Their energies are devoted to disarming our country and putting the clock of civilisation back a hundred years. They treat as "traitors "clear-sighted Socialists like Mr. Robert Blatchford and Mr. Hyndman, who, knowing something of history and much of Germany, realise the need of training our people to arms. Our Labour party propose to devote their autumn to a raging, tearing propaganda to secure the reversal of the Osborne judgment which protects a political minority in a Trade Union from being coerced by a political majority into contributing to the cost of disseminating views odious to the minority. We are at the very antipodes of Australia.

BRITISH Unionists watch the Insurgent movement in the Grand Old Republican Party of the United States with considerable interest and sympathy, because Unionism is Insurgency equally in need of a Roosevelt, i.e. of a man of explosive energy and forceful personality, who knows no

fear and refuses to be hocussed by mandarins, mugwumps, and "rotters" generally, who if tolerated, will do for us what they have so effectively done for Republicanism. Lord Willoughby de Broke's invigorating call to arms will be read with interest, as also Mr. Jesse Collings' paper on the vital question of our food-supplies, which is intimately bound up with the adoption of a constructive land policy to be pressed with all the resources of the Unionist Party. While making every allowance for the heavy labours of Front Benchers during the last eighteen months-labours which we must say are in some cases seriously aggravated by their overwhelming sense of their own importance and indispensability-candour compels us to recognise that an atmosphere of weariness and boredom pervades the powers that be in our Party. We agree with Lord Willoughby de Broke that the Unionist leaders were wise in entering the Conference, but there is no reason why the Conference should be made a pretext for repressing the Party generally and for diffusing the discouraging idea that nothing very much matters. Everything matters. A political party dependent for its power upon the democracy, demands competent management and inspiring leadership. Otherwise, it cannot get a mandate for its policy. The old game between the ins and outs may be very amusinglike lawn tennis-but after all, it is only a game. It is not

business. A new and more serious spirit is spreading among the Unionist rank and file, especially among those who have not yet had the heart taken out of them by the enervating atmosphere of the House of Commons. Many occupants of the Back Benches realise that the ancient shibboleths are played out, and that we need new methods and new men, but the Front Bencher's motto is J'y suis j'y reste. Enormous importance is attached by old Parliamentary hands to full dress debates and the banging of boxes, while the rapier play, so elegant to observe and so effective in pinking opponents, is deemed the be-all and end-all of national life.

BUT the outside public, which after all counts for something because the ultimate decision rests with them, don't hear or read the Parliamentary debates, and as it is common Tapers and ground that speeches, however able, don't affect Tadpoles a single vote among their hardened hearers, people ask themselves what is the use of all this marvellous sword-play,

and these unrivalled dialectics. It is quite beyond the intelligence of the man in the street, who wants to have plain issues forcibly and clearly placed before him in language understanded of the people. There is a healthy spirit of unrest in the Unionist Party outside the small coterie who imagine that the Party exists for their benefit. Men feel that things cannot go on as they are, and that drastic changes are needed in our methods and our personnel. There is too much tactics and too little strategy. If there be men of authority in the Party who, for any reasons whatsoever, don't want to destroy a Government, which has long been the curse of the country, and will eventually be its ruin, they should make way for those who do. We offer no apology for expressing sentiments inexpressibly shocking to all good Tapers and Tadpoles for we ask ourselves, how long is Unionism, and all that it stands for, to be sacrificed to Tapers and Tadpoles who don't know their own business, which consists in organising and gaining political victories. As we go to press, the Morning Post (August 24) publishes a suggestive article by Councillor Howell (who made such a magnificent fight against the Radical snobocracy of Manchester, personified by Sir Charles Schwann) treating Lancashire as the pivot of the plot, and discussing the question "Can we win ?" which Mr. Howell answers in the affirmative; though upon the further and more important question "Shall we win ?" he is somewhat dubious. We are not going the right way to work, either in Lancashire or elsewhere, and Councillor Howell's observations apply to many other counties, and perhaps to the country as a whole. "Before it [Lancashire] decides to put its trust in the Unionist Party it would like to see the Unionist Party putting its trust in itself. Faint heart never won fair lady, and Unionist policy of late, as seen by Lancashire eyes, has been more conspicuous for faint-heartedness than for the manlier qualities of courage and self-confidence.”

AFTER discussing former Unionist triumphs which were gained under very different auspices, the writer adds:

Unionist
Leadership

History repeats itself in Radical Governments. The evils which made the Gladstonian régime stink in the nostrils of the nation are already in evidence. There is the same pandering to disloyalty at home and sedition abroad, the same criminal neglect of the national defences, the same embittering of creeds and classes against

each other, the same legislative plundering of political opponents, the same attacks upon religious and civil liberty, the same preference for the foreigner over the Britisher. Five years of Radical administration would seem to be as much as the British Empire can ever stand at one spell. Lord Salisbury's "twenty years of resolute government" are always necessary to wipe out the hateful experience and strengthen the nation for its next time of tribulation.

There has undoubtedly been an encouraging revival among the younger Unionists of Lancashire, but not a few of the local leaders remain asleep, and there is a want of co-ordination in the various constituencies; Unionists generally would do well to ponder Mr. Howell's advice.

I have said that Lancashire can be won. I would say that it will be won if I were sure the Unionist leaders realised the importance of organisation and inspiration. Let them find their Kitchener and tell him Lancashire must be won. If they have the right man he will take the responsibility of the actual organisation upon his shoulders. But the inspiration is a responsibility that they cannot devolve upon anybody. They must let Lancashire know what they want to win for. Not merely to change seats in the House of Commons. Not merely to turn out Mr. Asquith and put in Mr. Balfour. These may be the ambitions of old Parliamentary hands. But they will fail to fire the fighting spirit in the rank and file. There must be a policy that the people can understand, a strong, straight policy that will begin at once with Tariff Reform, but will assure us also Land Reform and Social Reform, and definite progress towards Imperial Federation.

Mr. Asquith's)
Optimism

THE Session, which came in like a lion, went out like a lamb. The single idea animating the large majority of Members of Parliament, especially those who had endured the slavery of the last year of the last Parliament, was to shake the dust of Westminster off their feet, and to get away on their long overdue holiday, which, largely owing to Ministerial mismanagement, is to be spoilt by an Autumn Session, which would have been unnecessary had the Budget been introduced at the proper time and passed in the ordinary way. An evil precedent has been established by postponing it until the end of the year which other Governments will not fail to follow. The House of Commons, apart from the "wild men on the Ministerial benches-an incalculable because a varying quantity -who had things all their own way in the early days of the Session, when the Prime Minister was nightly put on a rack of his own

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »