The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, MAY 13, 1911. TORY DEMOCRACY AGAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 113, 13 May 1911, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, MAY 13, 1911. TORY DEMOCRACY AGAIN.

J"er the cause that lacfce <u«tatano«, Avir tft« wrong that needs reitiatmae*, for the future in the, diutance, AMi the good that ice can da. SATURDAY, MAY 13, 1011.

——-—— "Whatever we may think of the Referendum as a means of settling disputes 'between the Lords and the Commons, we must admit that a= a controversial weapon it is being used to good purpose by the Unionists. The idea of advocating the Referendum as a way out of the "impasse" into which the Lords had led the Unionists is generally credited to the fertile brain of Mr. J. L. Garvin, who, as editor of the "Observer," practically engineered the whole campaign on the Unionist sid?. But though Mr. Balfour may not have been the lirst to suggest this expedient, he has utilized it. with all his ■well-tried Parliamentary skill. We have always contended that the Referendum canot be applied with success to any but the simplest and most straightforward political issues; in fact, to questions which can be answered merely by "Yes" or "No." But it must be allowed that the direct appeal to the people carries with it. a distinctly democratic air, and the demand for it can be resisted by Liberals only with the help of those theoretical arguments and references to abstract first principles which never rouse the enthusiasm or evoke the sympathy of the average elector. Mr Baifour knows all this well; and he is making the best of his opportunity. But he is not content merely to scare a tactical point In this way. He sees in the Referendum a ohanco of turning ije flank of the Liberal* by representing the Unionists as actuated solely by a regard for the welfare, of the people, lie has just told the Primrose League that "nothing could r*> more fntertaining or more pathetic than to see their opponents, who had been talking about democracy all their lives, strug gling to show that an appeal to tlic people on a specific issue was the worst service rendorable to democracy." And so, in this unexpected way wo come face to face with Tory Democracy once more. A quarter of a century ago Tory Democracy was one of the best known poli tical watchwords of the ago. The term itself is a paradox, for nothing can be further removed from the democratic creed than Toryism of the traditional type. But the doctrines of Tory De mocracy so far as they had an independent existence were' simply the outcome of the efforts made by a certain section of the Conservati-ve party to adapt their views to modern political requirements and to the progressive spirit of the When Beaconsfield died the exponents of Toryism, with iLs belief in "'maintenance of historical continuity and calculated practical wellmeditated reform without unnecessary risk to precious institutions," made up their minds that something must be done to render their creed more acceptable to the gre.at mass of the electors; and the way was pointed T>y Lord Ran dolph Churchill. That brilliant, but eccentric man, "half aristocrat and half Bohemian," early in .his career had horrified the older Tories with hints of "a popular policy, which would strike at the root of the matter and eviscerate the obsolete formulas of authoritative Liberalism." What Randolph Churchill really meant by the new faith is sufficiently indicated in the programme that he sketched for Lord Salisbury in ISBS, which included local government for England and Ireland alike on a popular 'basis, with, large devolution of powers, improvement in land tenures, and concessions to dissenters on the Education question. When he was Leader of the House of Commons he promised legislation on land, local government, temperance, education and rating, all on democratic lines; and the momentous Budget which led to his resignation provided for local option as regards the liquor traffic, and graduated death duties, as well as several of the democratic fiscal measures he had already outlined. From Mr. Winston Churchill's biography of his father we learn that Randolph Churchill, in his . later days, favoured Collectivism, and shocked even earnest Radicals by his advocacy of sweeping and violent reforms. But during his Parliamentary be showed jtlie people clearhf,

enough what he meant by Tory Democracy, and gave them a fair chance of estimating the value of a political creed, which,-as Lord Rosebery has said, was intended "to •enable Ldberals by conviction, to remain Tories toy profession." As soon as the nation recognised that Tory Democracy was "the wolf of Radicalism in the sheepskin of Toryism/ , the failure of the new departure was assured. The temporary vogue it enjoyed was due chiefly to the extraordinary ability of Randolph Churchill, and to the natural desire of intellectual and cultured men to shake themselves free from the shackles of party tradition. "There are, and always, have been, men who believe that so long as they call themselves Tories they may hlamelessly and harmlessly preach what doctrines they please." This is Lord Rosebery's dictum, and it may help to explain how Randolph Churchill, "an aristocrat to his finger tips," could defend the House of Lords simply as "a bulwark of -popular liberty," and could demand that tl it should be preserved solely on the ground of its utility to the people." But the people nowadays are too clear-sighted and too keenly alive to their own interests 'to be deluded by the fine spun phrases in which Randolph Churchill disguised his desperate attempts to reconcile Toryism and Democracy. The task is an impossible one. It is easy to indulge in -vague generalities about "the idea of a Government who in all branches of their policy and in all features of their administration are animated by lofty and liberal ideas." This, said Randolph Churchill, is Tory Democracy. Yet when we come to analyze the fundamental convictions of the Tory, and attempt to adjust them to the practical aims of the Liberals, we are driven to agree with L-ord Rosebery that Tory Democracy was "an honest and unconscious imposture."' For it needs but little knowledge of political principles to assure us '"that Toryism means something which Democracy cannot recognise, and Democracy means something which Toryism cannot supply." We may add that if ever Tory Democracy is to be resurrected Mr Baifour is not the man to breathe new life into it. "So Arthur Balfour is really leader, and Tory Democracy, the genuine article, is at ah end." These were the words with which Randolph Churchill, the founder of the new policy, greeted the news of Mr Balfour's accession to power; and looking backward over twenty years the Unionist leader of today must surely recognise that his old colleague judged truly and that he, of all men, is not the one to reconcile the hopeless conflict between the old Conservatism and the new Democracy.