TOPICS OF THE DAY.
A UNIONIST VICTORY.
IT is in no mood of paradox or rhetorical exaggeration that we describe the refusal of the Lords to insist on their amendments as a Unionist victory. It is a victory for Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour over Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. F. E. Smith—a victory for reason and sound policy over blindness and perversity. Had the group of which Lord Halsbury was—there is, we trust, no need now to say is—the figure- head managed to accomplish their design the Unionist Party would not only have been rent in twain, but it would have been impossible for that party to have fulfilled its chief mission—the preservation of the Union. A victory for Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. F. E. Smith meant, without question, the creation of at least 400 peers. This in turn meant, with equal certainty, that Home Rule would have been passed next year. The same thing would have happened in the case of Welsh Disesta- blishment. Therefore we say, without fear of contradic- tion, that every vote given for Lord. Halsbury was a vote given for Home Rule, and that the division of Thursday night was a Unionist victory. The cause of the Union was within measurable distance of destruction, but it was preserved primarily by the heroism and self- sacrifice of those Unionist peers who, following in the steps of the great Duke of Wellington, dared everything—risked all obloquy, defied all threats, and resisted all influences rather than yield to the frenzy of partisanship. The House of Lords, taken as a whole, never showed itself more worthy of the confidence of the country and of its right to exist than it did on Thursday. The majority of its mem- bers determined, in spite of all the specious pleas and all the veiled intimidation to which they were exposed, that they would not force a creation of peers and out of party spite ruin the Unionist cause and place the King in a position of intolerable difficulty and humiliation. We have no intention of going into any calculations as to how a result so satisfactory was obtained or of denying to those who merely abstained the right to claim that they showed thereby their sense of independence and their inherited capacity for political sagacity and moderation. Abstention is a half-measure, and, like all half-measures, it can only be justified by success. When it is thus justified no one has any right to blame those who practise it. If men have done enough, who can blame them for not doing more ? Here we cannot refrain from expressing our admira- tion of the perfect tact, moderation, and good feeling shown by Lord Lansdowne. Nothing could have been better than his speech. It was a model of Parlia- mentary oratory. There was not a trace in it of small- ness, of narrow personal susceptibilities, of vanity, or of self-consciousness. Most notable was the justice, sobriety, and good feeling with which Lord Lansdowne referred to the position of the King. He gave no encouragement to the attempts to suggest that his Majesty allowed himself to be " trapped." Many party leaders would have found it convenient to take advantage of these suggestions and to make use of them for party dialectics. Lord Lansdowne showed that he was entirely above all such considerations. Though he exhibited strong sympathy with the King, he was absolutely just to his opponents. We felt obliged last week to regret that Lord Lansdowne did not take a stronger line and was willing to run the risks he did run by adopting the policy of abstention. Since, however, his policy was successful we fully and openly acknowledge that such criticism cannot be justified, and we unreservedly withdraw it. Lord Lansdowne deserves the support of every section and every unit in the party. He has given us a lesson how to conduct political warfare. We have dealt elsewhere with the attack which Mr. Austen Chamberlain thought fit to level against the Editor of the Spectator because the Spectator Jared to support Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour, and endeavoured to ward off irreparable disaster from the cause of the Union. No doubt from certain points of view this particular attack was not worth answering, but at the same time it is only human nature to hit back when one is hit by a worthy antagonist—and that we gladly acknowledge Mr. Austen Chamberlain to be. Much as we disagree with his recent aelion, he is a man of character as well as ability, and he will, we are certain, always maintain a high standard of political honour. On the main issue we most sincerely trust that there will be no recriminations. Certainly there will be none from us, unless, of course, there are any further attempts to under- mine the position of Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour. Those must be withstood at all cost. We do not, however, expect such action. The leaders of the Halsbury group are English gentlemen, and they know how to take a beat- ing with good temper and good spirit. Had they suc- ceeded the party would have been ruined. As it is, we can, in a sense, admire their pluck and tenacity even in a bad cause. There is no reason why we should not now all work together for our common objects—the maintenance of the Union and the virtual repeal of the Parliament Bill by the introduction of the Referendum to settle deadlocks between the two Houses.
If the Unionist Party will now whole-heartedly devote itself to converting the people of this country to the most democratic and also most steadying of political institutions —the poll of the people—we have no doubt as to its success. Already the electors are more than half inclined to lodge in the hands of the people the right to veto legislation pro- duced by log-rolling combinations. The British people are, however, by nature a very conservative people, and it will therefore require time and trouble to induce them to adopt the Referendum.
The other essential duty of the Unionist Party is to begin in earnest to organize resistance to the attempt to destroy the legislative union. It is no good to make abstract appeals to the electors. The true policy is to show that the Union exists and must be maintained because there is no alternative—no other way of regulating the relations between the two islands. We have tried every form of Parliamentary dualism, from a subordinate to an absolutely independent Irish Parliament, and they all proved failures. The Union was established because it was the one resource left, and on the whole it has been a success. We must show this, and show also how mad is the notion that Ireland is to interfere through her representa- tives in all our domestic affairs, while we are to have no say in hers ; that we are to subsidize Ireland to the tune of four or five millions a year out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Great Britain ; and finally that the Imperial Parliament is to use force to support the South of Ireland in refusing to North-east Ulster the self-government which the Southern Irish claim. from the United Kingdom. That is the Government's Irish policy. If we cannot awaken the country to the iniquity of such a scheme in two years then, indeed, there is no place for the Unionist Party in our political life. Had the Liberals been given a majority in the Lords by a Halsburyite victory we should have been deprived of the power to awaken the nation to the realities of Home Rule. The Bill would have been passed by next August. But it may be said it does not matter whether we awaken the people. After two years the Bill will pass, even if the people have come to loathe its provisions. That is a delusion. If we make the British people loathe the Bill that result will at once be apparent at the by-elections. But if the by-elections go against the Government persistently for eighteen months does any sane person believe that they will persist with the Bill ? Of course they will do nothing of the kind. It is the by-elections which will give us our opportunity to make good the rejection of bad legislation by the Peers. We must repeat that the House of Lords, by re,. fusing to force a creation of peers, have secured a great Unionist victory. Further, they did a signal service to them- selves and immensely strengthened the hands of those who,. like us, are not ashamed to say that they believe that the hereditary principle is a most useful prin- ciple and that the peerage is a national asset of the highest value. The vote of yesterday will, we believe, re-establish the reputation of the Lords in the country for political sagacity—a reputation which suffered when the Lords in a fit of temporary insanity accepted Mr. Chamberlain's ill-starred suggestion that they should throw out the Budget. The Lords, if they will think a little more of themselves and a, little less of external influences, will soon recover their position. Let us never forget that henceforth they will be the branch of the Legislature which does not dip its hands into the public purse.
Previous page
