An interesting announcement has recently been made to the effect that complete fusion is contemplated between the two wings of the Unionist army. The importance of this proposal lies in matters of ritual rather than those of doctrine. For ten years there has been no vital difference of opinion between Liberal Unionists and Conservatives, but none the less two separate organizations have existed side by side; certain constituencies have been preserved for Liberal Unionist activity and two completely separate staffs have devoted themselves to organization in the constituencies. This process was costly, inconvenient, and productive of overlapping. It is even reported that one enterprising candidate at the last election, under circumstances not fully made clear, obtained the whole of his electioneering expenses from each war chest. On every ground it is likely that greater efficiency will be secured by the proposed change. Many persons, however, will regret a little the disappearance, if it be destined to disappear, of the term "Conservative" in the party label. It is, I understand, proposed that the Party, hereafter united in form as well as in substance, shall be described by the single word "Unionist." I do not share the common objection to this description. is sometimes said that the Home Rule controversy will one day be settled, and that it will then be a little absurd that one of the great parties in the State should be distinguished by a title derived from an exhausted controversy. But this fear is surely based upon a view too narrow. The term "Unionist" had its origin no doubt in the

official

It

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that this gentleman was not elected.

2 It has, happily been retained.

Irish controversy, but it has derived a more permanent and world-wide significance from the great campaign which Mr. Chamberlain, the true founder of the Liberal Unionist Party, inaugurated in the cause of Imperial Unity. As long as the Tariff victory has still to be won, as long as, having been won, it must be maintained, the term "Unionist" will possess a vital and living appropriateness to the only party which has devoted itself to the prosecution of these ideas. But none the less it would, I think, be a misfortune that "Conservative" should be laid aside because it embodies what has been in the past, and must remain in the future, a powerful, and perhaps even a dominant, element in the counsels of the constitutional party. It never was true to say that the Conservative Party consisted only of men who were in the main satisfied in the political field with things as they were; it never was true and it never will be, as long as we live under democratic government. But it is indisputably true that the views of men who contemplate every considerable change with instinctive aversion, have greatly influenced Conservative policy in every generation, have not infrequently exercised a decisive control over it, and must always be most attentively and respectfully considered when decisions of Party policy are recorded. This circumstance is reflected clearly and appropriately in the word "Conservative." No sensible Unionist will regard it with any feeling but that of satisfaction. We live in a country which has a long and illustrious history; the accumulated experience of centuries teaches us many lessons, conspicuous among them the lesson that it is easier to destroy than to construct, and that it is infinitely more dangerous.

Whether our present system be ideally satisfactory or not we understand it, and in the main we are cognizant of its disadvantages, but none of us can confidently predict what will be the effect of change. We may conjecture, we may even prophesy; all politicians do, but none of us can be sure. A strong section of public opinion will, therefore, always support the school of thought which insists ever more strenuously on exacting the uttermost onus of proof from those who rashly assail institutions which, however faulty, have in the main responded to our national necessities; and this view is sane, reasonable, and deserving of encouragement. An embryonic, unsettled or inconsiderable State may make experiments without incurring the charge of extreme rashness, just as a deeply embarrassed business man may attempt to retrieve his fortunes by a hazardous speculation. An old and highly civilized country will do well to remember the eloquence, and imbibe the spirit of Burke. The description "Conservative" was a happy and constant reminder of these familiar truths. I should greatly regret the disappearance, and I do not in my heart believe that it will disappear. You may establish a censorship of plays but it is infinitely more difficult to establish a censorship over our daily vocabulary. Millions of Englishmen have always called themselves Conservatives, and it may be doubted whether an Act of Parliament, much less a Party resolution, will end an incorrigible habit.

But the formal consummation of a fusion, which has long been substantially complete, affords a convenient moment for speculation upon the future of this powerful political party. What is to be its policy in the strange and uncharted political seas over which we are drifting? Will it play a part comparable to its illustrious past? Will

it often again dominate the political world in the sense that it will form strong Governments to maintain and spread its own traditions, or is it destined after one or more periods of office to become stereotyped in the shape of a permanent, even though a powerful, opposition, moulding the policy of its opponents by its parliamentary cohesion and strength, but never, or only at rare intervals of reaction, sufficiently numerous to command the support of parliamentary majorities? Ten years ago these questions would have seemed superfluous and even ludicrous. Few politicians to-day will dismiss them as merely pessimistic. They certainly merit inquiry. Ten years ago there were only two parties in the State.' The vicissitudes of politics made it certain that, within a period not unduly prolonged, the activities of the Government in power would produce hostility, to be followed by reaction, and lead in the sequel to decline and defeat. An agreeable alternation of office and opposition was the destiny of the great political parties. The situation to-day is wholly different. The personal incompetence of the Labor Members, and their entire lack of touch with the great industrial movement in the country, will blind only superficial people to the sinister possibilities which underlie the surface of modern politics. New and deep-seated movements, imperfectly understood, hardly diagnosed at all, are rapidly introducing incalculable elements into English politics. Armed with what equipment, inspired by what coherent and considered policy does the Conservative Party face the convulsions with which it will assuredly be confronted? We may attempt to answer this question by laying down a series of indisputable propositions, and then proceeding to examine others more doubtful, but hardly

The Irish exception was apparent rather than real and does not affect the argumeat.

less insistent in their claim for consideration. It is abundantly clear that there exist in the Conservative Party quite distinct schools of political thought. The tasks of opposition promote consolidation; for most of us are united in distrusting and detesting the schemes of the present Government. It is in power and not in opposition that domestic political differences assume a serious and public aspect. I am satisfied that the points upon which all Unionists agree greatly outnumber and wholly exceed in importance the points on which they disagree. The obvious and fundamental points can be quite shortly dismissed.

The Conservative Party always has been, and always will be, distinguished by a resolute insistence upon the most complete preparations for national defence. No one could belong to the Conservative Party who, even in this age of appalling competitive expenditude, is unprepared to err upon the right side, who fails to recognize that, great as our expenditure is and must continue to be, it is an inconsiderable insurance premium in relation to the immensity of the interests thereby secured. We may justly feel pride that no temptation to embarrass the Government even in these years of bitter political controversy has ever deflected the Unionist Party from the only road of honor and patriotism. We have opposed the Government when we believed their preparations to be inadequate; we have protected them against their own unpatriotic supporters whenever they have duly recognized the national necessities. We shall continue to take this course and in doing so we shall have the support of a large and stable section of public opinion. shall have behind us those who very rightly treat national defence as the first of all questions, and who will naturally support a party, unanimous, patriotic, and unembarrassed by de

We

pendence upon the votes of those who sincerely believe to-day that the German Navy is the product of English Chauvinism. The problems of military defence, though a little more difficult, find the Conservative Party almost equally united in essentials. For my own part I have always advocated compulsory national training. I am satisfied that it will be ultimately accepted by the nation as necessary, and I have never hesitated in a large democratic constituency to make my views clear. But it would be folly to ignore the practical difficulties which many of our own friends put forward in opposition to its immediate adoption by the Party as an object of proximate policy. The people of these Islands are not fundamentally unpatriotic, but they have been chloroformed into security by politicians of both Parties; they have been taught to believe that the strength of our Navy discharges us from those civic responsibilities which are ungrudgingly recognized by all the great military forces of the world. would. I think, have been possible to have established a judicious system of compulsory service amongst selected persons at the time of the South African War. It would be infinitely more difficult to-day, and the object of those who vehemently believe in its necessity will be defeated and not forwarded by a premature attempt to force such proposals down the throat of an unconvinced electorate. The pressing need of the moment is for conversion, and a deep responsibility lies with the Conservative Party, the overwhelming majority of whose members in my judgment are convinced that national military training would develop our manhood, and immeasurably augment our national security, to re-enforce the efforts which Lord Roberts, with splendid persistency and courage, is constantly making to convince his countrymen of our military necessities. The

It

next great subject upon which there is no real difference of opinion in the Conservative Party to-day is the relationship between Great Britain and the self-governing Colonies. We are committed as a Party to the policy of Tariff Reform, and to the principal object of Tariff Reform, the development in the best interests of all of the component parts of the Empire. Opinion has consolidated within the Party more rapidly and more completely upon this than upon any subject which has given rise to deep-seated domestic controversy within recent history. So far as I know the only two members of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons who entertain any serious doubt as to the policy of the Party, are Lord Hugh Cecil and Lord Robert Cecil. They are two of its most brilliant members, and I hardly know two Conservative members who have greater claims upon the friendly consideration and sympathy of their fellow Conservatives. It is, therefore, important to notice, and it is almost insulting even to point out, that they yield to no member of the Party in their devotion to the Empire and in their appreciation of our Imperial responsibilities, and they have both made it clear that while they are distrustful as to the consequences of some part of our Tariff proposals, these differences count for nothing with them when weighed in the balance with the supreme importance of a restoration of Unionist Government, and a reversion to saner and more reputable policy.

There are other subjects upon which so complete a degree of unanimity exists among Unionists that it is almost superfluous even to enumerate them. The Party is lineally descended from the older Party which, through many vicissitudes of politics and dynasties, redeemed an outlook upon affairs, otherwise often narrow and bigoted, by constant loyalty to the mon

of

It

archy. It is not necessary, and certainly it is not desirable, to charge any great Party in the State with lukewarmness towards the institution monarchy, but it is very necessary to point out that no Party can degrade the prerogative, as the Government did in the veto crisis, without grave jeopardy to the whole monarchical institution. It is probable that on a further but cognate subject substantial unanimity exists in the Conservative Party. A complete reform of the Second Chamber is now inevitable. must and will be a condition of this reform that the decisions of the reformed Chamber are not liable to be submerged by a nominal exercise of the prerogative under the advice of an unprincipled Government. There was much to be said for the existence of such a prerogative in the days when, if exercised at all, it would have been exercised by the Sovereign upon an independent initiative. No argument whatever can be adduced in its support when it merely records the decrees of a Coalition Government living from hand to mouth. This is not the place to attempt a detailed forecast of the Unionist policy for the reform of the Second Chamber. It is possible that the constitution, if reformed under a Unionist Government, will present little more resemblance to the proposals of Lord Lansdowne than even to the provisions of the Parliament Act; but it may be confidently predicted that for the future any such revolutionary exercise of the prerogative as was effected in the crisis of August 1911 will be rendered impossible. No great difference of opinion should arise, or is likely to arise, in the Conservative Party when called upon to present a scheme for the reform of the Second Chamber. We are all agreed upon what is essential, even though there is room for almost infinite variety of opinion as to the steps which may be

necessary to secure the common object. What is essential is that we should be afforded the security of a strong, independent and impartial Second Chamber, possessing that confidence in its own inherent strength, which is the condition precedent to stability and to security. It is a great mistake to suppose that the absurdly partisan constitution of the House of Lords has been a source of strength to the Unionist Party: it has been a source of weak

ness.

It has, no doubt, enabled the Unionist Party when in opposition to delay, and sometimes even to defeat, purely partisan measures, which lacked the support of a stable majority in the constituencies. This faculty ought to exist in an efficient Second Chamber. It existed in the House of Lords until August 10, 1911, but it only existed when a Liberal Government was in office. A control so lopsided in its exercise was impossible to maintain, and was doomed to succumb when seriously challenged in a popular quarrel. It is essential that Conservatives should clearly realize that it is far less important to maintain a partisan Second Chamber than an efficient Second Chamber. It is, for instance, probably more important, to take a concrete illustration (though both were important), that we should possess a Second Chamber able to resist the Trades Disputes Act than a Second Chamber able to resist Mr. Birrell's Education Bill. To put the same proposition in a different way, only a very superficial observer, however strong his Conservative prejudices, can be satisfied with a Second Chamber which is only able to oppose Liberal measures so long as Liberal measures are obviously unpopular. Many measures highly expedient may be unpopular for the moment, just as measures highly inexpedient may be popular for the moment. The desirable Second Chamber must not merely have the

power to interpose delay in the Conservative interest, when an opportunity presents itself of striking a blow at the Liberal Government: it must possess the power, whatever the complexion of the Government of the day, of interposing a period of delay and even the obligation of an appeal to the people when new and unconsidered proposals are threatened by either party. If this decision seems harsh to those who in the past have inclined to the view that the Second Chamber must necessarily be Conservative, the answer is, I think, clear and decisive. Rash and ill-considered changes in nine cases out of ten are proposed by our opponents and not by ourselves. Stability and security are and ought to be the principal objects of the Unionist Party. A second Chamber which ensures those primary objects would be cheaply bought at the price of a Second Chamber which occasionally embarrassed a Conservative Government by delaying and, in a rare instance, by defeating Conservative proposals. The three objects which require to be constantly borne in mind in the reconstitution of the Second Chamber are Security, Stability and Impartiality between the parties. If the conditions involved in these words are provided, nothing else matters. I myself should contemplate the establishment of an elective Second Chamber with grave feelings of apprehension, and I am satisfied that the institution of such a body would shift the whole centre of gravity in our constitution; certainly it would gravely and perhaps permanently impair the authority of the House of Commons, but I would far rather vote to-morrow for an elective Second Chamber, facing boldly the risk of constitutional deadlock, and the consequent conflicts of jurisdiction, than I would vote for a Second Chamber which had not behind it the moral force strong enough, however much it