THELIBERAL DEMONSTRATION IN LIVERPOOL.
THE Liverpool meeting of yesterday week was neither a mere display of oratory, nor a mere demonstration of Liberal feeling. It was unique in this way, that it elicited something of the statesmanship of the younger members of the Party, something of those formative convictions which are slowly growing in them to a new importance. Hengler's Circus, filled with between five thousand and six thousand eager Liberals, is hardly a place where you would expect to hear any political criticism of the higher kind ; but both Mr. S. Smith's speech and Mr. John Morley's did contain a certain amount of such criticism, and nothing apparently was received with more enthusiasm than any indication that the speaker was grappling seriously with political problems as yet unsolved. Thus, when Mr. Smith said that the great increase in the density of our population had forced upon us a variety of complex legislative measures, chiefly for the remedy of social rather than political ills, measures which press very heavily on the resources of our Legislature, and which are an indication that our country is becoming "increasingly democratic," the great assembly cheered as enthusiastically as if they clearly recognised that the reconstitution of society on a more democratic basis is an object sufficiently great as well as sufficiently difficult to excuse a great deal of preliminary confusion without justifying any loss of heart. And again, when Mr. Smith observed that the representatives of great constituencies appear to be much more sensible of what they owe to the House of Commons than the representatives of minute constituencies,—three of whom, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, and Mr. O'Donnell, consume probably more than fifty times as much of the time of the House as any three representatives of the largest constituencies in the country,—the great audience again showed their keen appreciation of the fact that a sense of public responsibility is impressed on Members by the magnitude and importance of their constituencies, a fact which at once suggests in what direction the next Reform Bill ought to proceed. It is not merely for political purposes, it is much more for the purpose of weighting Members of Parliament adequately with the sense of the very great and growing difficulty of social organisation, that it is so necessary to sweep away those petty constituencies whose spokesmen are the freebooters of debate,—men apparently quite destitute of any sense of duty to the House of Commons, or of reverence for those who have gained the confidence of the House of Commons, or even of such an appreciation of the various constituents of public opinion as can alone make irresponsible oratory impressive. Mr. S. Smith was singularly fortunate in impressing on his audience that the greatest difficulties of the day are all the consequence of these new social pressures. The immense multiplication of private Bills,—which ought, of course, to be delegated to new local bodies,—is the first result of this rapid social growth. The demand for difficult and complex measures like the Irish Land Law, and also, though a measure not needing the same amount of revolutionary change, the English Tenants' Compensation Bill for unexhausted improvements, is the product of the same need for a reconstitution of social relations. And in referring to the various measures rendered necessary by the' same causes, such as the Factory and Workshops Act, the various Acts controlling the labour in mines and on canals, Mr. S. Smith indicated clearly enough that the rapid growth of population itself, necessarily compels a democratic society to protect the weak against the strong, for the sake not only of the weak, but of the strong. It will be impossible, however, to get these issues properly discussed in a House of Commons in which irresponsible levity, representing no eager pressure of social want at all, can swoop down upon the public time which ought to be sacred to the discussion of the most urgent issues, and waste it in insolent vituperation or more insolent badinage. Mr. Smith showed that he understood the real exigency of the case when he said that something approaching to the rules adopted at public conferences, where the speeches are limited as to time, and a given time only can be allotted to a given discussion, would be absolutely necessary, before the House of Commons could be so reorganised as to get through even the most necessary part of its legislative duties. A democratic reconstitution of society is a big sort of thing, and it is that, and no less than that, as Mr. Smith explained, which is bringing upon us all this legislative pressure, and providing the opportunity for these anarchical conspiracies against the efficiency of our representative Assembly.
Mr. John Morley struck the same note when he said, in his vigorous and masculine speech, that Tory democracy was simply a chimaera, because the very root of democratic legislation must be a revision of the relation of the landowners to the other seetions of the population, while no Tory party can be imagined which would be willing to guide that legislation in the democratic direction. And, again, he struck a note to which his great audience heartily responded, when he said that it did not become genuine Liberals,—or, indeed, genuine politicians of any kind,—to fret too much over questions of party tactics,—over the effect which this or that measure might have on the cohesion and loyalty of parties. There were matters, said Mr. Morley, which would be best left to determine themselves, and which should be more or less excluded from the view of true politicians. The true politician should feed himself on principles, and let tactical considerations well alone. We quite agree with Mr. Morley, and find in this remark the real justification of the course of the present Government on the Affirmation Bill. Unquestionably that Bill was a tactical blunder. Quite as unquestionably it was a political duty, which a Liberal
Government could not have ignored without betraying its true Liberal principles. Well, then, the Government was right and wise to fling the tactical considerations to the winds, and to fortify the Liberal Party by presenting to the country in the plainest form the true solution of the disagreeable question forced upon it by Mr. Bradlaugh's return for Northamp ton. If the principle of religious equality requires that even the irreligious,—so far as they are irreligious in the sphere of opinion and belief alone,—should be placed
on a perfect equality with the religious, let us carry out
that principle conscientiously, even though Mr. Gladstone be right,—and we disagree from Mr. Morley in believing him to have been right,—in facing the fact that such conscientiousness will temporarily lose us many votes, and add many to the votes gained by our opponents. What is the use of preaching against the doctrine that you may do evil if you expect good to
come of it, if the moment we are tried we are ready to acquiesce in doing evil for so paltry an end as to keep in Liberal hands the victory which we won three years ago ? It may be that we shall lose by being true to our principles. But it is better for our principles, and better for their diffusion, to lose by being true to them, than it is to win by being false to them. And a victory won by adhering to principles in difficult circumstances is worth many victories won by base evasions of principle. Mr. Morley's exhortation to eschew the consideration of party tactics, and to feed our minds with the true principles of the party, was worth more than a whole assemblage of those astute party-cries by which the Tapers and the Tadpoles of political life endeavour to reanimate the failing courage of their party. Political parties, like individual organisations, do not live by that alone which seems most to assuage the appetite. They live by that which stimulates them to higher courage and bolder justice. If Liverpool has only learned from Mr. John Morley to despise tactics and to seek the inspiration of genuine principles, Liverpool will have learned that the secret of political progress lies in political faith.
Previous page
