MUSINGS WITHOUT METHOD. LIBERAL PARTY-DEAD OR DYING MATTHEW ARNOLD'S ISM-THE LIBERALS AND SOCIALISM-MR LLOYD GEORGE'S IATION MR CHURCHILL RATS A SECOND TIME -THE H ELECTIONS-THE VICTORY OF THE LEFT-THE FAILURE E ROYALISTS-A. H. BULLEN AND THE ELIZABETHANS· AND DISCOVERER. iberal Party is dead We do not pretend its demise. It was always of low ideals ambitions. Throughnineteenth century it ith unceasing bitteritself and its friends. neither the courage nergy to support the To get rid of the If only that could have eved, seemed to many ders the first duty of y. For the Liberals, government was not a science it was a eligion. They formur creeds, they formed hwords, and thought of their business to late their creeds or hwords with reality. to Matthew Arnold re was never a saner politics the great ss Liberalism had ardinal points of its Reform Bill of 1832, self-government, in in the social sphere, , unrestricted comand the making of astrial fortunes; in us sphere, the DissiDissent and the Proof the Protestant religion." And let it be remembered that for the great middle-class Liberalism, Free Trade meant not only free imports, but Free Trade in the lives of women and young children. If our competition with Germany made it necessary that young children should work in the mines and factories for fourteen hours a day, the young children must not be interfered with. It seemed a gross infringement upon personal liberty that the Government should protect the children against the greed or the zeal of their parents and of their parents' employers. Moreover, liberty was one of the fetishes most devoutly worshipped by the Liberals. So highly did they esteem "liberty" that they would, if they could, have conferred upon all their followers the "liberty" to be a nuisance to their neighbours. It was a great day for Liberalism when the railings in Hyde Park were torn down by a mob of reformers. The extreme supporter of Mr Bright, mustered upon the right to do as one likes, followed Mr Beales down the path of anarchy with complete satisfaction. "He sees the rich, the aristo cratic class, in occupation of out is murmured by a Liberal, the Executive Government,' Government," Mr Henderson is so utterly lost wrote Matthew Arnold, and to a sense of shame as to reso if he is stopped from making tort, "Get on with it." The Hyde Park a bear-garden or the surprise of the Liberals, who streets impassable, he says he have long believed themselves is being butchered by the aris- the only begetters of the tocracy." Socialist Government, whose principles they attacked violently at the polls, cannot be concealed. They seem as though they had been cuffed in the face by an inferior, to whom they had condescended. They can neither find a reply nor suggest a reason. Mr Lloyd George has been foolish enough to browbeat and cajole. Incidentally he explains how the Liberals came to put the Socialists in power. It is a strange story, which bears upon it not the smallest impress of the truth. truth. The last Government, he said, "had lowered the prestige of this country in the world in a way that it had been reduced to a depth it had never reached since the eighteenth century." This profound historian does not tell us to which part of the eighteenth century he refers, and it is impossible to check his comparison. Probably his view of the eighteenth century is as vague as his criticism of Mr Baldwin's policy. But when he went on to say that he would "vote against every Government and every Party that lets Great Britain down," the comedy which he plays degenerates to farce. This solemn pronouncement was greeted with "cheers," the cheers of Welsh Liberals, who never in their life have cared a jot What mattered it, asked the Liberals, if England were despised abroad and divided bitterly at home, so long as a man may say what he likes, and marry his deceased wife's sister? So they would have destroyed the harmony of the State, and cut themselves off altogether from the tradition of the past, merely to achieve a false freedom, a dangerous individualism. And to-day, as a Party, they no longer exist. Here and there will still be found a handful of them, until at last they are absorbed by one or other of the Parties which still survive. It cannot be said that they die easily. They cling feverishly to life, as dying men cling to it who are afraid to face the unknown future. Their pact with Labour was but a device to prolong their rather stuffy existence. They thought that if they put the Socialists in power, they would be in the position of patrons, who could turn their clients into the street whenever they chose. Messrs Asquith and Lloyd George fondly believed that Mr Ramsay MacDonald would come to heel whenever he heard the crack of the Liberal whip, and he behaves as though neither Mr Asquith nor Mr Lloyd George lingered in the upper air. When a threat to turn the Socialists Great Britain was let not, and the cheers ribute to the man who id, in Egypt, and in is trampled the name n in the dust. It is a thing for Mr Lloyd hat he is not gifted nse of humour. Othercould not have listened cheers without unble laughter. er, Mr Lloyd George augh, either at himself audience. He went ›claim that Liberalism e Great Orme that between the country violent tempest that would sweep over and that it had n once saved Britain Olution. But all this himself and his newends is wholly irrelehe Conservatives and alists know equally - praise is undend that it will never bestowed upon the f Liberalism except selves. Mr Lloyd y blow on his nail as as hard as he pleases, ever get his hands in. That is not the a defeated and disarty to win its way to a modest esteem. on Churchill has folwiser course. He se to leave the sinkHe has always had ense of impending eft the Conservative on the eve of its nd once more he self ready and will ing to go out and meet his opportunity. This kind of prudence does not inspire respect. He who has ratted twice may easily rat a third time, and we would listen to Mr Churchill's speeches against Socialism with more respect if we did not remember that not long since he was quite prepared to support a policy of nationalisation. It seems, indeed, as though there were no longer any place for principle or a settled opinion in politics. A demagogue changes views which are inconvenient as easily as he changes a coat which he is tired of. He does not ask himself how best he may serve his country. his country. He seeks only a short-cut to a seat in the House and high office. Mr Churchill was eager to leave the Conservative Party when its majority had melted away. He is equally eager to come back to it, because he knows that there is no place for him in either one of the other two parties. He can hardly be received with open arms by those who see clearly that in pretending to help them he is merely resolute to help himself. Nor was his first approach to the Party made with conspicuous tact. Having loudly proclaimed his desire to fight Socialism, he opposed the antiSocialist candidate at Westminster as though he leading a forlorn hope against heresy and rebellion, and did his utmost to get the Socialist elected. It is not by such means that a man, who has deserted the Party when it suited him, can hope to regain the confidence of the Party. Since his adventure at Westminster he has adopted a more modest demeanour. He thinks that he and the Conservative Party can help one another without much fuss or changein other words, "not by altering in any respect their positions and principles in regard to public affairs, but only by mutually respecting each other's position and trusting to the deep and slow tide of events to make effective and wholehearted co-operation not only natural but inevitable." This sounds well enough, and means nothing. How, indeed, shall the Conservative Party respect Mr Churchill's position, when all that it knows about it is that it is the position of an opportunist out of a seat? 66 he However, as he stood upon a Conservative platform, he showed himself magnanimous in making concessions. He was kind enough to express his disapproval of the repeal of the M'Kenna Duties. What was the need of that? asked. 'What harm are they doing? Whoever claimed that he was being injured by them?" Who indeed? And the argument in favour of the M'Kenna Duties may be extended to all the other duties which Mr Churchill opposed with singular acrimony at the General Election. Speaking to a new brief, Mr Churchill put the case with lucidity. "A trade was flourishing," said he, "competition both at home and with foreign imports was active, the public consumer was continually secur ing better motor-cars at a cheapening price, the Revenue was securing £2,500,000 a year from articles of admitted luxury, and the dollar exchange was improved by the restriction of unnecessary purchases in the United States." Omit the word "luxury" from the argument, and in Mr Churchill's words we find a defence for a general tariff. There is no difference between motor-cars and films and pianos on the one hand, and toys and steel rails on the other. And don't let it be forgotten: Mr Churchill is an impenitent Free Trader! With the same fervour of the newly converted Mr Churchill, who once told the Dominions with ferocity that a door of good British oak was banged, bolted, and barred against them, is now in favour (for how long?) of Imperial Preference. The attitude of the Government towards Imperial Preference is characterised by the same unnecessary partisanship and by a chilling disdain -the disdain expressed in the banged, bolted, and barred door of British oak was something more than chilling-"for the interests and sentiments of the Dominions, who came to our aid so valiantly and generously in the Great War." It is, indeed, idle to contrast the Mr Churchill of then with the Mr Churchill of now. The one, no doubt, is just about as sincere as the other. And when Mr Churchill proceeds to denounce the present Gov as one vast monusham and humbug," deed it is, when he t in the policy of the examples of political ncy beyond compare n public life, which, xclude Mr Churchill s true enough, in lack r he rivals Mr Lloyd the demagogue who d to rid the Empire encumbrances as Ireypt, and India, and lares that he "will inst every Governevery Party that lets tain down.' Do poliver laugh at themwonder, or have they much bedevilled by tion of the pictures to believe themre than mortal? hurchill had possessed sincerity, the absence he deplores in the he would have reo Conservative prinbended knees and in of spirit. He might, e persuaded some to at he truly repented; rt from his own adt, he really wished he country. He has ing yet to persuade e things. He comes hough he had a right m welcome, that it gh for him to raise nd to speak a word to be acclaimed a trustworthy ConserHe has no such right. never ring true until en thrice tried in the not even his capacity of winning the support of jockeys and ladies of the chorus will persuade us that he is a heaven-sent statesman. He is merely one of a vast crowd which cannot bear that anything should be done in the world without its intervention, and which believes that if it lifts up its voice on this side or that some beneficent result must follow at once. The Conservative Party has endured for nearly twenty years without the aid of Mr Churchill, and it would be a matter of indifference to that Party whether he came back or not, except for one danger. Mr Churchill is not likely to take a keen interest in any Party or in any enterprise if he do not conduct it himself. And when he is once more a Conservative member, he will look about him for a few friends with whom to conspire. He will find them waiting for him. There is Lord Birkenhead, the ex-galloper, who was once ready to die for the cause of Ulster; and there is Mr Austen Chamberlain, that singular leader of the Unionist Party, who, without consulting his friends, did what he could-and, unhappily, it was a great deal to destroy the union of Great Britain and Ireland, which he was pledged irrevocably to defend. These gentlemen, with a complacent levity which we do not like to remember, sacrificed without a murmur the thousands of loyal Irishmen who trusted them, and who are rewarded for this reckless trust by the loss of life or livelihood. With |