TOPICS OF THE DAY

THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY

THERE is so much in the programme of the Govern- ment which we like and for which we are heartily thankful, and there is so much in Mr. Baldwin's per- sonality and character which we admire and implicitly trust, that it will be rather distasteful to express at any point the opinion—which we shall have to express—that the King's Speech falls short of doing a large thing in a really large way. We are so deeply in agreement with what we know to be Mr. Baldwin's intentions that it is tantalizing to have the cup raised nearly to the nation's lips and yet to be unable to feel sure that . the nation will be able to drink the life-giving draught.

Not that Mr. Baldwin's policy is without boldness. We arc only sharing the opinion of many when we say that he has changed notably and to very great advantage since he first became Prime Minister. Mr. Baldwin is not by nature a Party man ; he has an ardent longing to benefit the whole nation, and the last thing that would occur to him would be to try to confer benefits_ upon his political friends and withhold them from his political opponents. He wants everyone to share in the good things of life ; he wants-everyone to have a much higher standard of living, better houses, better education, more implanted capacity to enjoy amenities, to distinguish between what is beautiful and what is ugly, between what is ennobling and what is debasing. He kings for all classes to work together. He is sympathetic and genial. He is what the Americans call " a good 'mixer." It was obvious when he first became Prime Minister that he had a vision of a kind of National Government. It -was not to be another Coalition Government with all its unprin- cipled-concessions to expediency,' but it was to draw upon a wider field of support than had been regarded as strictly available. by previous _Unionist Governments. It was to be a Left-Centre Government conforming with the normal progressive but moderate temper of the British people.

He threw away that first chance, but Fate has given him such a second chance as comes to few men. Naturally, we, and everyone who thinks as we do, awaited with an impatient anxiety the statement of policy which was read to Parliament on Tuesday. It turned out to be much better than anything Mr. Baldwin has yet given us, yet it was far from perfect, as we shall try to show.

We must read Mr. Baldwin's explanatory speech on Tuesday, which necessarily had the formality and avoid- ance of detail always considered becoming in the opening debate of Parliament, in the light of the excellent speech Which he had made in the Albert Hall on Thursday, December 4th. From both speeches we gather that Mr. Baldwin is determined (as all Unionists except a small group of Die-hards would wish) to present the country with a really constructive programme which shall be non-Socialistic. -The Daily News, in ccnunenting on the Albert Hall speech, remarked that if a word or two here and there had been altered it might have been taken for a speech_ by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. No doubt the Daily News implied a censure ; but for our.. part we accept the comment and its omens with pleasure. What Mr. Baldwin and what Mr. Ramsay MacDonald desire to obtain for the people of this country are in all essentials the same. The only difference—but it is a very great one—is the question of method. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would like to overhaul the structure of our society from 4op to bottom, whereas Mr. Baldwin is confident that by making use of - the existing structure. he can obtain for the people all that they desire. It is a case of a gamble versus a reasonable certainty. The nation has shown, unequivocally that it believes in Mr. Baldwin's common sense and disbelieves in Mr.

MacDonald's visions. In these circumstances, the really important question about the King's Speech is whether the guarantees it gives of satisfying the desires of the vast majority of British citizens without calling in Socialism to the rescue are the best guarantees that could be given. By this test Mr. Baldwin must be judged. For let us not forget that since the great issue became Individualism against Socialism, the failure of the present Government may mean that the Socialists cannot be prevented- in future from having a try on their own lines.

What Mr. Baldwin is required by the circumstances to do, then, is to introduce and put in going order such a set of constructive improvements that the ground will be taken away from under the feet of the Socialists. He might put the British people in such a posititm, and in such a mood that they would say, " We have got, or we are so plainly getting, what we want that we are certainly not going to exchange the bird in the hand for all the radiant birds of paradise which the. Socialists tell us are fluttering about in the bush, only waiting to be captured." The extension of _ownership is the one, the comprehensive, economic solution. But it -is absolutely necessary that this barrier against Socialism should be accompanied by another barrier—the constitutional barrier of preventing a minority from imposing its will at any time upon a majority. .Otherwise there will be no .certainty, or even likelihood, -of an individualistic democracy being allowed to develop its plans without a great upset suddenly brought about by intrigue or log-rolling. Let us look first at ownership, and at a few other things which Mr. Baldwin did well to promise.

When a man has his own little bit of property a satis- faction, which nothing else can-give him in quite the same way, has come into his -life. He is king of his own little castle ; he is no longer an outcast, longing or appealing for the largesse of a beneficent State, or of rich people. Independence is sown in him, and it grows, expelling all the demoralizing germs of dependence. On this point of ownership Mr. Baldwin in all his speeches has been very good indeed. In his Albert Hall speech, for instance, he said :-

" We want the people to own their homes. And we shall devise every fair means we can to extend the class of occupying owner. We want to see more and not less of private property. We want it more spread. It is impossible to exaggerate the value to the citizen, therefore to the State, of a good home. There 'is nothing so intimate, nothing which so completely reveals the personality ; the philosophers themselves, tam advised, justify private'property because it is something in the external world which is a material representation of human personality."

Then again he was excellent on what he called " the disgrace of the slums."- Slums contain the most glaring examples of the negation of all the qualities of personal pride which are evoked by ownership.

" There is no inherent reason why within our generation the worst 1'4G:tures of urban and rural overcrowding should not be permanently removed. We may have to force a way through the jungle of interests which ore involved in the slums of the large towns, but we have behind ns in that magnificent recruitment of young members sufficient driving fordo to pot anything through.' "

That Was said with splendid spirit. The Spectator will certainly do everything Within its power to help to make Mr: Baldwin's we rds come true.

Both in the House of Commons and at the Albert Han Mr. Baldwin seemed to adumbrate schemes of " All-in " Insurance which would gather up all the present clumsily overlapping methods of insurance, and put an end to the multiple dreads which afflict every working man of unemployment, of leaving his wife and family to charity, of sickness; and of a miserable old age spent in humiliating dependence and deprivation. We wish, however, that Mr. Baldwin's references to an " All-in " Insurance scheme had been much more precise. Hr 'could, for instance, have promised a complete and immediate inquiry into the whole of this important subject.

We pass now to the second of the two great barriers which could be, and inliA•be, erected against Socialism. Mr. Baldwin is building the barrier of ownership as hard as he can, but he has done nothing and has said nothing about that other barrier which would prevent the minority acting as though it were a majority. He said not a word about the Referendum. In. our judg- ment that was a very grave omission. He may place people in their own houses ; he may find work for all by making new roads and by overhauling the plant Of the whole country. He may, as the result of the Agricultural Conference, produce a scheme for putting small owners on the land from one end of the country to the other ; he may help them to distribute their goods by a vastly improved service by the Post Office. He may do all this and much more, and yet everything may go wrong in the end, if some day some Bill which represents the wishes of only .a fraction of the nation is turned into an Act under the pretence that the Govern- ment of the day has a mandate to do it.

We shall never be secure against Socialism unless we are also secure against minority rule disguised as the rule of the majority. In our opinion the Government ought to give a definite pledge that there shall be no further appeal to the country until this necessary consti- tutional change has been made.

We are a democracy, but what could be more un- democratic than that the final Court of Appeal should not be the people themselves ? There is dangerous talk about restoring powers to the House of Lords— powers which would be unnecessary if the Poll of the People became a part of our Constitution. For many years the Lords have claimed no other right than to delay doubtful legislation. They have acknowledged the people as their masters, as the ultimate judges.

To strengthen the House of Lords by any electoral process, direct or indirect, such as would make it a rival to the House of Commons and would excite the jealousy of the Commons, would be a disaster. It would give us a new constitutional controversy instead of leaving us free to repair our material fortunes.

The only simple and effective plan (though we do not, of course, deny that the House of Lords could be tightened up and much improved while retaining its present general character) is to refer doubtful legislation directly to the people themselves. " Do you, or do you not, want this Bill, which has passed through all its stages in Parliament, to become law ? " That is the question the Referendum puts. It is nonsense to say that a man or woman who is intelligent enough to choose a Member of Parliament is not intelligent enough to answer that simple question.

Socialists hate the Referendum like the plague because they know that it probably means an end to all revolu- tiOnary schemes. The vast majority of voters, . as . has been proved over and over again,. are not revolutionary. kilt' the very fact that revolutionaries loathe and fear the Referendum is the very reason why a Unionist Government should make a point of adding it to the Constitution. One of the cardinal rules of business safety is to insure yourself against a great risk when you have the power to do it. • Revolution is a kind of ineendiarism against which the country ought to take out a good, safe and comprehensive policy. That policy is to be found id the Poll of the People,-