THE IDOLATRY OF POLITICAL ORGANISATION.
THE Bradford Liberals will find much in the correspondence between Mr. Forster and Mr. Illingworth which was published on Monday, to put them on their guard against making an idol of the political machinery which is, after all, only useful as a means to a desirable political end, and which, if it ceases to be a means to that end, and becomes a means to some different and inconsistent end, becomes also most likely simply injurious. Some of the Liberals of Bradford, resenting, according to Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Forster's independent course in relation to the Education question, and his return for Bradford in 1874 by a mixture of Liberal and Conservative 'votes, have adopted a rule for the future by which, as they hope, the leading men of the party in the borough may be enabled to keep a strict control over the politics of their Mem- bers. This rule is as follows:—" It shall be required of the proposer of any intending candidate for the representa- tion of the borough in Parliament, that he shall, -at the time of making such proposal (having pre- Tiously obtained the consent of such intending candi- date), give an assurance to the general Representative 'Committee that the candidate he proposes shall abide by the decision of the Association." If this rule applied only to new -candidates, it would not be unreasonable. If a new candidate for any constituency desires and needs the assistance of the general" Representative Committee," it is but fair that he should -agree to abide by its decision as to whether he is likely to be the best candidate or not. And of course every new candidate for a constituency, unless under the most exceptional circum- stances, must desire and need the assistance of the general Representative Committee of the party to which he belongs, if he desires to be elected at all. If the leading men of the party decide against him, he will have hardly any chance of election ; and it is quite right and proper that the leading men of -the party should decide against him, unless he pledges himself to them not to divide the constituency, in the event of their de- riding that he is not the best candidate they could have. But observe that this condition only applies to a case where the -candidate has no better means of making himself known to the constituency, and no better claims on its confidence, than the approval of the leading men of the party would give him. Once suppose that any candidate is not less well, or even far better, known to the constituency than the leading men of the local party are themselves, and that his merits or -demerits are better understood than those of the local leaders themselves, and the whole motive for this rule falls to the ground. The object of the rule is to aid in the selection of a good candidate unknown to the constituency at large, without incurring the risk of dividing the party ; but if there be a -candidate already well known to the constituency at large, there are already in existence better means of judging him than any which the recommendation of the Committee could afford. Moreover, it may well happen that such a candidate may be preferred by the majority of his party, though he be I unwelcome to the party Committee ; and if it does so happen, any rule which prevented his standing, only because of his differences with the party Committee, would result in the choice of one who represented the party worse, instead of better. It is as clear as anything well can be, that in such a case as Mr. Forster's, it is simply unreasonable to wish him to abide by the decision of the Committee as to whether or not he will stand again. It may be,—this is a point on which at present we are not passing judgment either way,—that in spite of such a candi- date's determination to stand, the Committee of the party would be right in putting up party rivals to him ; and it is clear, we think, that in such a case as Mr. Roebuck's, where all the votes of the slightest importance given by a sitting Member have been votes for the party to which he is nominally opposed, it would be the duty of the party Committee to put up rivals to the Member who had thus misrepresented their con- victions. But even in such a case as Mr. Roebuck's, the rule of the Bradford Liberals would have no value or meaning. Sheffield knows Mr. Roebuck much better from his votes and speeches, than it could ever know him from the disapproval or approval of the leading local Liberals. If Sheffield likes his views, Sheffield will elect him, as it did in 1874, because he has voted constantly against his so-called party. If it does not like his views, it will reject him for the same reason. But in neither case can it be a matter of any moment to Sheffield what the leading Liberals of the place say or think of Mr. Roebuck. Sheffield knows Mr. Roebuck far better than any Committee can help the borough to know him, and must decide upon his claims accordingly. Of course, the Liberals of Sheffield, if they are wise, will not give Mr. Roebuck a thought ; they will treat him as a Conservative candidate, and propose two good Liberals, without paying any attention to his claims. But even so, it will not be in any degree because he declines to abide by the judgment of the Liberal Committee, but because he is well known to oppose everything that savours of true Liberalism, that they will disregard his claims. And though Mr. Forster is on almost all subjects the very antithesis of Mr. Roebuck,—a sincere, democratic Liberal, though not on all points in sympathy with the Dissenting Radicals,—still in relation to the competence of the constituency to decide on his claims without the help of recommendations or protests from the Liberal Committee, he is in just the same position. If the Radicals of Bradford think it their duty to oppose him, well and good,—let them oppose him on the ground of his insufficiently Radical convictions. But unfortunately for Mr. Illingworth, that is just what they do not do. They are sufficiently content for the present with Mr. Forster's politics, and virtually offer to propose him, on condition only that he shall pledge himself not to stand if after maturer consideration, they decide not to propose him. Nothing could be more unreasonable. If the Committee are satisfied with his politics, they are satisfied with everything that concerns them. It is making machinery an end, and not a means, to require a man of whom the electors know all, and a good deal more than all, that the Committee could tell them, to abide by the decision of the Committee as to whether he should stand or retire. Why should he do anything of the kind ? If the Committee think him otherwise the best can- didate, he is not the worse, but the better, for declining to abide by the decision of the agents of the party, and appealing to the party itself. If the Committee do not think him the best candidate, they should not offer to select him, even if he does offer them the homage of abiding by their fiat.
But it Will be said that the success of a party at the polling.. booths depends on undivided counsels, and that you cannot have undivided counsels without lodging something like dictatorial power in the hands of the Representative Com- mittees of the constituencies ; and that if this be so, the sentiment of party loyalty should make sitting Members, however distinguished, willing, and even anxious, to abide by the decision of the local leaders in relation to their future candidature. To this we reply that there is something to be thought of in the matter besides party successes. Caucuses, so far from being infallible, are exceedingly fallible institutions, and though useful in their way, especially in deciding on the claims of otherwise unknown men, are exceedingly apt to be carried away by the love of power and the jealousy of in- dividual influence, when they come to be thwarted by one who may nevertheless really understand and represent the views of the party better than the local leaders them selves. There is no magic in caucuses. There will always be a considerable number of persons in every party who temper its opinions by their moderation and good-sense, but who are nevertheless not active enough in local electioneering to get their due influence in the choice of the party leaders. To some extent, the extremists of a party will always get more than their due influence over the manipulation of the party caucus. It lies in the nature of things that it should be so. And for that very reason we hold that so far from its being a sign of party loyalty to submit in everything absolutely to the decision of the caucus, it is an immense advantage to check the decisions of a caucus, wherever that is possible, by appeal from the caucus to the party at large. But this can only be done with profit in the case of known men. And therefore it is that in the case of known men we hope it always may be done. In this particular instance the object of Mr. Illingworth and his friends appears to be to obtain what they quaintly call "reparation," for Mr. Forster's conduct in appealing to Bradford in 1874 as a Liberal candidate, in spite of the hostility of the Radicals who disapproved his education policy. But what is there to prove that the Liberals of Bradford think that any " repara- tion " is needed ? No doubt some Conservatives voted for Mr. Forster at the last election, but a good many more Liberals voted for him, and so far as we know, a far larger number of Liberals would sustain Mr. Forster in declining " reparation " for holding honestly to his own convictions, than would sustain Mr. Illingworth in requiring this very odd " reparation " for sincerity and fidelity. Either Mr. Forster was wrong in 1874, or he was right. If he was wrong then, he is wrong now, and ought to be rejected, if at all, for not having changed his opinion, not for declining to express a regret which he cannot feel. If he was right then, he is right now, and has nothing for which he owes reparation. It is childish and petty to try to bribe him, by the offer to secure his election, into an un- meaning appearance of making amends for conduct which he still defends, and still regards as right. To us, it seems that Mr. Illingworth lowers the position of the Bradford Liberal Committee by even talking of reparation,' for conduct which they well know that Mr. Forster has never repented, and that he would repeat, if the occasion required.
On the whole, whatever may be the special result in Brad- ford, we see the publication of this correspondence with satisfaction, because it tends to put the Liberals on their guard against the dictatorial disposition of the new Caucuses. Political organisation is necessary, but it is quite as necessary to guard against the vices of a too rigid organisation, as it is to initiate an effective organisation. For our own parts, we hope that all the leading Liberals will follow Mr. Forster's ex- ample, and decline to allow their candidature for seats for which they are now sitting, to depend on the approval or dis- approval of the Liberal Committees. It may be that in some cases it will be quite right for those Committees to choose candidates to displace, if they can, the former Members. In Bradford, as it seems to us, such a course would be silly and fatal. But in other places it might be justifiable, or even praiseworthy. But in no place can it be justifiable for such a reason as Mr. Illingworth suggests,—that is, only because the former Member refuses to be bound by the decision of the Committee. That is no reason at all in the case of a man whom the Con- stituency knows better than it knows the Committee. Let the Liberal Committee oppose the former Liberal Member on account of the deficiency of his Liberalism, if they will. But to oppose him not for any political shortcoming, but because he is unwilling to abide finally by their judgment on his claims, is to oppose him because he resists a most injudicious and unwarrantable bit of political tyranny which is as mis- chievous to the party itself as it is inconsistent with the con- stitutional habits of the country at large.
Previous page
