Page images
PDF
EPUB

MR. ASQUITH deliberately rehoisted the flag of Gladstonian Home Rule, to which he is known to be hostile, in order to catch the Irish vote in England, which was his in any event, and to secure the support of the Nationalist Party who responded to this barefaced bid by the following resolution:

Re-enter
Home Rule

That we have read with great satisfaction the statement made by the Prime Minister on Friday last that full self-government for Ireland in all Irish affairs is the policy of the Liberal Party, and that the Liberal Party claims a mandate from the electorate to deal with the Irish question on these lines as soon as the "veto" of the Lords is cleared out of the road; We observe with great pleasure that this declaration of the Prime Minister has been universally denounced by the Unionist Press of England as a revival of Home Rule in its worst form and a return to the position of Mr. Gladstone; And, in view of those facts, we most heartily advise the United Irish League of Great Britain to use the Irish vote to support the Liberal and Labour Parties so as most effectually to contribute to the defeat of the House of Lords and the anti-Irish Party in the coming General Election.

Mr. Asquith affected, like other English Home Rulers, to "save face" by describing Home Rule as "a policy which, while explicitly safeguarding the supreme and indefeasible authority of the Imperial Parliament, will set up in Ireland a system of full selfgovernment in regard to purely Irish affairs. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of Separation. There is not, and there cannot be, any question of rival or competing supremacies. But, subject to these conditions, that is the Liberal policy." In a pertinent letter to the Times, Mr. W. S. Lilly reminds us that Home Rule is an alias for Separation.* Mr. Asquith's unblushing appeal to the Celtic fringe to vote down the British Democracy was enforced by the usual promise to despoil (the Welsh Church,

• Mr. Redmond obligingly explained at Newry on June 16, 1897: "I remember when Parnell was asked whether he would, on behalf of the United Nationalist nation that he represented, accept as a final settlement the Home Rule compromise proposed by Gladstone. I remember his answer. He said: 'I believe in the policy of taking from England anything we can wring from her which will strengthen our arms to go on for more. I will accept the Home Rule compromise of Gladstone as an instalment of our rights, but I refuse to say that it is a final settlement of the national question, and I declare that no man shall set a boundary on the onward march of the nation.""

And yet Mr. Asquith assures us "there is not, and there cannot be, any question of Separation." The assurance is worthy of the Lord Advocate at his

best.

which has figured in the official Liberal programme for twenty years, and is understood to deceive fewer Welshmen than formerly. He completely gave away the Radical case against the House of Lords by admitting that the Budget was not a Finance Bill, as it sought to provide funds for some future extensive, costly social policy. He had practically nothing to say on the vital question of Unemployment, and confined himself to a few sneers at Tariff Reform.

Single-
Chamber
Autocracy

WHILE academically a two-Chamberleader of a two-Chamber Party, the Premier substantially plumped for a single Chamber. After denouncing the revolutionary pretensions of the House of Lords, he thus described the first duty of the present Government if successful at the polls, though there was an underlying note of anxiety in his speech distinctly discouraging to his supporters: "We shall, therefore, demand authority from the electorate to translate an ancient unwritten usage into an Act of Parliament, and to place on the Statute-book a recognition, explicit and complete, of the settled doctrine of our Constitution that it is beyond the province of the House of Lords to meddle in any way, to any degree, or for any purpose, with our national finance." As the authors of the present Budget have taught us that practically any measure is "Finance," this policy would effectively eliminate the Second Chamber. But to make assurance doubly sure, Mr. Asquith added that while they had no intention of abolishing the House of Lords (the sale of peerages to Radical plutocrats is necessary in order to keep the Party in funds), they intended to abolish its legislative powers. "The will of the people, as deliberately

expressed by their elected representatives, must, within the limits of the lifetime of a single Parliament, be made effective." This means Parliamentary absolutism. A Party elected on Chinese Slavery lies or Old Age Pension lies would be supreme and unchallengeable, and its first act would probably be to repeal the Septennial Act and to enthrone a Lloyd-George-Churchill-Ure régime en permanence. In this case we should be inclined to agree with the Nation that the democratic experiment had broken down in this country, and that some other mode of conducting our national affairs must be resorted to.

Mr. Balfour's
Address

By a happy coincidence Mr. Balfour's Election Address, technically intended for the City of London, but actually a manifestd to the nation, appeared on the same day as Mr. Asquith's speech. The public were thus able to compare the policies of the two leaders and the two Parties, one destructive the other constructive, and to draw their own conclusions as to their duty as electors. Mr. Balfour's manifesto was, moreover, a striking triumph of mind over matter, and it was only his indomitable spirit which enabled him to write it while laid up. As it has been published verbatim in every newspaper, we need only say here that it breathes throughout the larger patriotism, and discusses public affairs with due regard to their relative importance. Whereas Englishmen would be ashamed of the Premier's speech finding its way into the hands of the people of Greater Britain, every Unionist is only too anxious that Mr. Balfour's Address should have the widest possible publicity throughout the Empire. As he pointed out, Ministers claimed that the House of Commons, no matter how or when elected, or however unpopular it might have become, should be "the uncontrolled master of the fortunes of every class in the community; and that to the community itself no appeal, even on the extremest cases, is to be allowed to lie.” The present attack on the Lords was merely the culmination of a long-drawn conspiracy to transform the British Constitution into a single-Chamber Constitution like that of Greece. Mr. Balfour was chiefly interested in the Budget as it affected the security and prosperity of the country and the employment of the people. After an interesting reference to the necessary reform of the Poor Law, the Unionist Leader dealt with Tariff Reform as the antithesis of the Budget.

There are those who regard it as a paradox to say that Tariff Reform will stimulate home industry. It seems to me a truism. Only by Tariff Reform can you hope to retain Colonial Preference; only by Tariff Reform can you hope to modify commercial treaties in your favour. Only by Tariff Reform can you secure from unfair competition the home producer in the home market. It will do no injury in neutral markets, it may give valuable aid in protected markets. Is it credible, then, that it will not keep capital here that would otherwise go abroad? Is it credible that if it does the demand for labour will not increase ?

Marching to
Disaster

[ocr errors]

It was unnecessary for Mr. Balfour to discuss other aspects of Tariff Reform. "The very fact that it is the first plank in the Unionist programme has prevented it ever receiving less than its due meed of attention, whether from friends or foes." On the Land question he declared strongly in favour of the development of small ownership. "As regards the Navy the situation remains grave, and the future is anxious. I do not think the public will readily forget or forgive the lamentable negligence which so dangerously encouraged the very rivalry in shipbuilding which they [the Government] had so often and, I doubt not, so sincerely deplored." It was the policy of the Unionist Party to maintain the Empire, the Union, and the Constitution, obligations "which gain rather than lose in force as time goes on. But we have more to do than merely to preserve what we have received. The world moves, new conditions arise, problems of Empire, problems of trade, problems of national finance, problems of national defence, problems of social amelioration, meet us in forms undreamed of a few years since.' Each must be solved in its own appropriate way, but no substantial advance could be made towards the solution of any of them without a change of Government, and until “a Party is returned to office prepared to press through to the utmost of its force the policy of Tariff Reform." Judging by the downpour of Ministerial speeches by which this country has been deluged during the last few weeks, none of Mr. Asquith's colleagues, from Sir Edward Grey to Lord Carrington, are even dimly conscious of the existence of any of these problems, and it would be impossible to imagine any combination of men more utterly unfit for the leadership of a world-wide Empire or for the management of our national affairs at a fateful moment in our history. That the Urites will obtain a renewal of the mandate they have so grossly abused is simply unthinkable. The majority of Ministers are said to share the opinion expressed by Sir Robert Perks, one of the most sagacious members of the Liberal Party, that under the leadership of Mr. Lloyd George they are marching to a "political disaster" which they have been too cowardly to avert.

66

THE Unionist cause, which is the cause of country and Empire, is being stated day by day and night by night in the Press and on the platform with conspicuous and convincing A Last Word ability. Lord Curzon's brilliant defence of the House of Lords, Lord Milner's illuminating advocacy of Tariff Reform, Lord Cawdor's dogged common sense, Lord Cromer's appeal to all moderate men to rally against the forces of disruption and disorder, and the highly effective platform campaign of rank and file Unionist Peers, among whom Lord Willoughby de Broke has distinguished himself by his energy and capacity-have all combined with splendid spade-work by other people to roll up the enormous snowball by which we believe the Demagogues will be overwhelmed in the middle of this month. Commoners have been equally to the fore, and one wonders how Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. George Wyndham, and Mr. F. E. Smith-who receives less than his due from certain Unionist papersto mention a few among many, manage after a long and exhausting Session to maintain their force and freshness. We would specially call our readers' attention to the three following articles setting forth various aspects of the present crisis, and would likewise urge them to read Mr. J. L. Garvin's brilliant brochure, Budget or Tariff? which should inspire every Englishman and every English woman to work till they drop in order that the New Year may see a new Government. Recent events have taught us that a vote for the Unionist Party is a vote for England. A vote for the Radical Party is a vote for Germany. The German Press cannot conceal its passionate desire for the triumph of the Urites and the downfall of England.

« PreviousContinue »