Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

interfere with the liberty of those who dare to disagree with him. He may put them in prison, or he may strip them of their goods and lands, or he may send them to the gallows. All three of these methods have recently been followed in Russia by the professors of "freedom "-a word which has been debased lower in the estimation of sensible men than any other word in the language. As to the thing called "political liberty," we care not what becomes of it. It is but another opportunity for trickery and chicane. For personal liberty, which is another thing altogether-the liberty to come and go as we choose, to live in our own way and at our peace, to keep our minds untouched by compulsion, to be exempt from all the malign influences of Socialism, we would fight on to the end, and all those who value this inestimable boon had better keep a sharp eye upon the sayings and doings of our intellectual Socialists, whose end and aim are a "union of Soviets" and a free prison for all.

Such are some of the disadvantages of the fragile transitory system known as Democracy. What are its advantages is not evident. All the good work of the world has been done either by great men or by small minorities. History shows us no single achieve ment of the mass of the people. There is no such thing as collective wisdom or collective energy. What the "mass

[ocr errors]

pretends to think is no more than the sophistries or the catch-words which have been injected into it by its leaders. "And," as Sir Henry Maine acutely points out, "one of the chief drawbacks of a modern Democracy is that, while it gives birth to despotism with the greatest facility, it does not seem to be capable of producing aristocracy." That is perfectly true, and without an aristocracy a country perishes. Of course by aristocracy we do not mean an aristocracy of birth merely. We mean a band of people who have the wit to select and the vision to see and understand. Lacking taste, selection, and understanding, the Democracy can only mislead the people and drive to its ruin the country which trusts itself to its guidance. But the country, which is aware of its danger, will not easily permit itself to be destroyed, and we do not believe that England will commit suicide merely for the sake of a political heresy.

In an armed world a nation can survive only by the strength of its arms, and armies have not yet proved themselves consistent with universal suffrage. The leaders of great armies are victorious only when they insist upon obedience and discipline. There is no virtue more bitterly hated than discipline by the champions of Democracy, who claim the right to criticise and to dismiss their superiors. And when at the collapse of discipline a democratic tyrant

[ocr errors]

arises, he can hold his own most of what were called in only by a terror such as that those remote days the Congo which has turned once pros- atrocities. Throughout the war perous Russia into a wilder- he was what is known in his ness. These, then, are the native France as a defeatist," extremes into one or other of and in the sublime words of which Democracy most easily his friends' appeal," he worked falls, and if under the double determinedly and in the face curse of universal suffrage and of bitter opposition and persedemocratic domination the Brit- cution for the means of securing ish Empire is endangered, then a lasting and an early peace, the system of government that doing his utmost to make has failed will perforce make known the truth about the way for another system, at war as he saw it, and the once better balanced and more principles upon which peace efficient. could be founded." How could Mr Ramsay MacDonald, if he has a shred of humour, set his signature to such a statement as that of one thing we may be sure: that M. Morel did not see "the truth about the war," as the best of his compatriots, or the best of those whose nationality he had adopted, saw it. Happily his activities were checked by six months in jail, and if for so great a disservice as that for which he was punished-sending propaganda secretly out of the country-he is deemed a proper candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, then we should expect to find among his competitors Caillaux, Malvy, and Mr MacDonald himself, whose solicitude for "our German friends" is unforgotten. It is a foolish episode, which reflects little credit upon the Socialist leaders; nor is it likely to strengthen the "good relations which we are told are already being knit between England and France.

Our present governors are on trial, and it cannot be said that their first exploits are reassuring. What shall we say of those who without a smile recommended the notorious E. D. Morel for the Nobel prize of peace? The services of this personage are not obvious either to his native land or to the country of his sad adoption. He is not likely to revisit France, which gave him birth; that would be scarcely prudent; and England held so lightly the privilege of his presence that she locked him up during the war for six months in an uncomfortable prison. And why should he, of all other men, be selected as the friend of peace? He has carried strife with him wherever he has been. We cannot believe that M. Morel's (or M. Deville's) action in the Congo was calculated to preserve the good relations which existed between Belgium and the rest of Europe, or that Germany was wholly disinterested in making the

[ocr errors]

In the admirable speech

which Mr Baldwin made on Mr Austen Chamberlain to the

his unanimous re-election to the leadership of the Conservative Party, he spoke of the need of sincerity, and admitted that in the country districts at any rate the Conservatives had suffered in common with the other parties in this, "that the old parties had lost to a great extent the confidence of the people, owing very largely to the way in which they have been made the shuttlecock of parties for many years past." Insincerity in politics is subversive of all confidence. So long as it is believed that our leaders are prepared at a moment's notice to surrender their principles to menace or convenience, the public trust and faith will never be restored. In private affairs a high standard prevails. We take the word of a friend undoubtingly. The history of the last eighty years proves that in affairs of State it is rash to accept the pledge of any man. Until the same standard is respected in public as in private relations, politics will never be anything better than a gamble. It was Sir Robert Peel who, by twice in his career becoming the victim of sudden conversion, first threw politics into disrepute, and his unhappy example has been too faithfully followed. It is nothing to the purpose that his double infidelity spoilt his career. We have grown callous since then, and some contemplate the return of Lord Birkenhead and

Party without dismay. Yet how shall we trust them again! Though none of the Conservative members of Mr Lloyd George's Coalition are guiltless, these two are by far the most blameworthy, for they discharged the task of betraying Southern Ireland, not merely with acquiescence, but with a kind of unctuous enthusiasm.

And they did more than betray Ireland: they invested politics with a sad unreality. When they essay to criticise others, their criticism recoils upon their own heads. How dare they accuse their opponents of the very selfsame crime which they have committed themselves? Lord Birkenhead made merry in the House of Lords over the comedy of Lord Parmoor and Lord Haldane, who have found wellrewarded shelter in the tabernacle of the Socialists. He pointed out that "Lord Parmoor's political career had been as versatile as it was distinguished." He would like to know, he said, “when the light of conversion struck through his sophisticated and experienced mind." A very pertinent question. But when it comes from Lord Birkenhead, we cannot but ask ourselves also when that astute politician first discovered in his reawakened soul a respect for murder as a policy, and a necessity to accept as a close ally the unspeakable Mike Collins. In like manner he twitted Lord Chelmsford with being justly admired years ago

for "inculcating Conservative pass into history. The polidoctrines into the simpleminded people of Dorsetshire," and he asks "when did his conversion come to him? These things he says in complete forgetfulness that he himself was once a "galloper," and that his own miraculous conversion to Sinn Fein has not yet been satisfactorily explained. It is for those without sin to reproach others. When Lord Birkenhead declares ponderously that "they desired particulars, as a matter of pathological study, of the process which led to the state of Lord Parmoor's mental degeneracy," he should preface his taunts with a brief extract from his own autobiography.

In the wise words which Lord Balfour spoke in Mr Baldwin's support, he said in praise of Mr Baldwin's speech that "from the first word to the last it was a speech that looked forward, and not backward." That is as it should be. But we think that Lord Balfour made too large a statement when he declared that "the past is the ground of the memoir - maker and the historian." Before we can agree with this opinion we must know when the past begins. A man is made by his own actions; he cannot in a moment put off the responsibility of his own words. He has said what he has said; he has done what he has done; and his own actions will cling about him unto the end of his career. It is not so easy as that to

tician does not in the twinkling of an eye become the proper material of the memoir-maker. He bears on his face the indelible marks of his deeds and his misdeeds. Nor shall we choose our governors aright if we forget, carelessly and magnanimously, the foolish or wicked schemes which they devised the day before yesterday. If it be the function of history to teach by examples, so it is the function of our own experience to warn us against the mistakes of last year, and to explain to us the plain, if shifting, characters of those who aspire to govern us. As a first step towards selfknowledge and sincerity, let us get rid of the false label "the Unionist Party." The word "Unionist "has no meaning on the lips of those who destroyed the United Kingdom. For the destroyers it is a piece of hypocrisy; for the faithful few, who did not acquiesce in the destruction, it is a bitter memory. The best that can be done now is to return to the ancient label, Conservative, until all honest men join in one party to resist spoliation.

With Mr Baldwin's proposed policy we are in cordial agreement. The country has rejected his proposal for a general tariff. The people was invited to solve the problem of unemployment by the only sane and direct method, and the people declined the invitation. It prefers, while protecting

and

[ocr errors]

labour, to leave the product securing by every means in of labour unprotected; our power the only expanding markets in the world in which we have an opportunity of holding our own. And, in the second place, it is our duty, if a general tariff be not allowed us, to safeguard the country against unfair competition by using the powers given in the Safeguarding of Industries Act. If that Act be not renewed, then we shall be powerless indeed to exclude the dumped goods of foreign competitors, and we shall fall victims to our craving for cheapness and the joy that we have in living upon the work of others.

if it is forced to contemplate a market packed with foreign goods, which it is unable to purchase through lack of money, there is no more to be said. Therefore, says Mr Baldwin, "I do not feel justified in advising the Party again to submit the proposal for a general tariff to the country, except upon clear evidence that on this matter public opinion is disposed to reconsider its judgment of two months ago." What more can any man do when he is face to face with universal suffrage, which makes a gamble of politics? Mr Baldwin has set forth plainly his own view; he has sacrificed his position in order that he might enforce it. Neither prudence nor sincerity demands that he should continue to kick against the pricks of folly and misrepresentation.

[ocr errors]

When, after a conference, the Conservative Party has formulated a scheme for the betterment of agriculture, we have but to remember the sound principles of Toryism which have come down to us from our forefathers. The supreme duty of Toryism is defence-defence of the Empire against against foreign foes, defence of the constitution wanton

against

66

the

There still remains much that may be done in defence of Conservative principles. Upon two planks the Conservative Party may stand with reform." all the firmness possible to it. On all sides we see It must defend and uphold foolish ones who believe that everything that was decided progress lies only in change, at the Imperial Conference. and that principles are formu'We must adhere to the great lated only to be abolished. principle of Imperial preference And it is the business of Conand Imperial development," to servatives to protect the inquote Mr Baldwin's own words, stitutions of the country "in the country as well as in against the aggressor. Once Parliament, for the sake of our more to quote Sir Henry own people, for the sake of Maine: "The perpetual change the Empire, realising, as I which which Democracy demands think we all do, the absolute is not in harmony with the necessity to this country of normal forces ruling human

VOL. CCXV.-NO. MCCCI.

I

R

« AnkstesnisTęsti »