POLITICAL PARTIES
It must not be supposed that the whole of the Conservative party shares
the Carlist and Ultramontane views of the majority. The old school of
Conservatives, led by Canovas, supported the Constitutional Monarchy as
strongly as do the Liberals, and even now a contingent of strong
constitutional Conservatives exists, although it is not easy to detect
their influence on the general policy of the party with which they act.
Their existence, however, was proved in October, 1909, when some of the
leading men of Señor Maura’s party withdrew their adhesion to his
leadership upon his declaration of “implacable hostility” towards the
whole of the Liberal party. They saw, as did every one else, that the
reactionary policy of the Ultramontane Premier was imperilling the
existence of the Constitutional Monarchy.
To appreciate the disinterestedness of men who thus cut themselves off
from the acknowledged leader of their party, whether in office or in
opposition, the unwritten law of an alternate share of the spoils must
be borne in mind. Thus a politician who deliberately deserts his party,
from whatever motive, loses all chances of a salaried appointment when
that party again has power to confer these political plums.
I make no apology for putting the facts thus plainly. They are spoken of
with cynical frankness by all Spaniards, and it is considered a matter
of course that any statesman who refuses to sell his favours to the
highest bidder will be removed from place at the earliest opportunity by
the intrigues of the many who live by political corruption.
It will be seen that once the rule of alternating office by mutual
arrangement be broken, the end of the whole system of gerrymandering the
elections would be brought within sight, for any Government which
enjoyed the confidence of the nation would remain in office year after
year, once the people were permitted to make their voice heard in the
elections.
Señor Maura, or those who inspired him, of course foresaw this after the
fall of his Cabinet in October, 1909, and his address to his party on
that occasion marks an epoch in the history of political reform in
Spain, although perhaps not precisely on the lines he intended.
His party, he said, must fight without truce against the Liberals,
“ex-Ministers and ex-Presidents of Council who reach office in
collaboration with anarchists.” Nor must his own party stand alone, he
said, for it would be necessary to seek the alliance of all, no matter
how different their political ideals, who desired to check the advance
of revolution. From that moment all relations between Liberals and
Conservatives must cease. Any other course would be treachery, for only
thus could the nation be saved from the reproach and the ruin with which
it was threatened.
In the opinion of Señor Maura, the party against which he thus
proclaimed war to the knife includes every shade of Liberalism in Spain,
from the most loyal Monarchists down to the rioters in Cataluña, while
his right-hand man, Señor La Cierva, Minister of the Interior in the
Ultramontane Cabinet, went so far as to accuse Señor Moret of being at
“one end of a chain which linked Liberals, Radicals, Democrats,
Republicans, and Socialists with the persons who fired the Religious
Houses in Barcelona and scattered anarchy broadcast by encouraging the
abominable sedition taught in the lay schools.”
When Señor Maura declared that all relations between the two parties
must cease, he no doubt expected that the party to obtain power and
keep it would be his own. But the dissatisfaction caused in his own
party by his violent speech showed that they did not all share his
views, and for a time it looked as though there might be a split in the
camp. The Clericalists foresaw days of leanness, for if Maura’s
calculations went wrong and Moret was able to carry out his project of
electoral reform, their occupation and their livelihood would be gone.
How the dissentients were brought into line we need not inquire. But the
occasion forced one of the most statesmanlike of the Conservatives to
make a public confession of his faith, and it then became manifest that
in Señor Sanchez Toca, ex-Minister and ex-Alcalde of Madrid, the spirit
of Canovas and Silvela still survives, although he with one or two more
seem to stand almost alone among their party against the tide of
reaction.
After three years of loyal support, said Sanchez Toca, in an interview
with the representative of the Conservative _Correspondencia de
España_--the organ of all that is left of the old Conservative
policy--Señor Maura should have consulted his Cabinet before taking a
resolution which completely alters the normal course of national
politics. “I stood aghast,” said he, “at the thought of the incalculable
results that must spring from those furious voices convoking the whole
Christian world to a holy war against Ministers holding office under the
Crown, to whom even the name of Liberals was denied, and shouting with
anathemas that he was no true Conservative who held other relations than
those of implacable hostility with men appointed to office by the King.”
And he concluded by pointing out that the true Conservative faith
irresistibly impels those who hold it towards conciliation instead of
provocation, and that if this reason for its existence failed, the
Conservative party must disappear.
Whether Sanchez Toca could have formed a party under his own leadership
on the old Conservative lines it is not possible to guess; for after
making the protest of which the above is a brief abstract, he left
Madrid, and it was announced that he intended to make a protracted
sojourn abroad, so that no one was able to accuse him of self-seeking in
his secession from the Ultramontane party. The dignity of his position,
as compared with that taken up by the supporters of the “implacable
hostility” which has become a byword among the scoffers, needs no
emphasis.
I have dwelt at perhaps undue length upon his part in the affair,
because it is assumed abroad that Señor Maura represents an united
Conservative party, which, as the above declaration proves, is by no
means the case.
How completely this was misunderstood by many of the English journalists
who wrote about Spain in 1909 was shown by their comments upon the
strength displayed by Maura in holding the whole “Conservative” forces
together, and their complete misapprehension of the real causes of the
dissensions which have always prevailed in the Liberal camp.
The modern Conservatives and the modern Liberals are so nearly alike in
their policy as regards the Crown and the Constitution, that they might
almost be classed as one party, under the general name of Monarchists.
In the matter of electoral reform there seems hardly anything to choose
between them, although on the question of the Religious Orders Moret’s
views are perhaps rather more advanced than those of Sanchez Toca, Dato,
or Gonzalez Besada, the three most prominent Conservative-Monarchists of
to-day. Unfortunately, the popular distrust of the very name of
Conservative is so great that it would be difficult for any one thus
labelled to convince the people that he meant fairly by them. Even
Moret’s policy of conciliation is taken by the masses to indicate fear
of the Jesuits, rather than as a calculated avoidance of action which
might lead to disturbances.
The constant commendation given by the Conservative and even by the
Liberal Press of England to the strength and unity of the “Conservative”
party under Señor Maura, and their adverse comments on the dissensions
in the Liberal camp, have materially added to the difficulties, already
serious enough, which block the path of Moret and those of his creed,
and have strengthened the party of clerical reaction and absolutism.
The _Heraldo_, in an article on the benefits to the nation to be
expected from Moret’s support of Canalejas’ Government, spoke as follows
of the influence of England upon Spanish affairs:
“It now appears probable that the democratic Government will be
consolidated by the disappearance of the danger to which we have
referred [the split with Moret’s party]. If this proves the case, all
Europe will recognise with satisfaction how the personal convictions of
the monarch, strengthened perhaps by the healthy influence of his
illustrious connections by marriage, are leading Spain along the paths
of prosperity and gradually relieving us of the nightmare of reaction
which has weighed so heavily upon our nation during the minority of Don
Alfonso and the early years of his manhood.”
Centuries of government by the rich for the rich, and by the Church for
the Church, have contributed to make reform exceedingly difficult, but
at length the issues between political morality and the maintenance of
the old abuses have been clearly set before the nation, in the struggle
which ended with the dismissal of Señor Moret. He determined to have the
country freed from the tyranny of the _Cacique_. His opponents desired
to maintain the system. That was the whole point at issue.
At the moment it seemed as if those interested in the maintenance of a
corrupt system had won a signal victory, and the men who are working for
the moralising of political life would have been more than human had
they spoken no word of the bitterness they felt at seeing, as it seemed,
their work undone and their hopes frustrated. But there are apparent
defeats which mark a stage on the road to final victory, and such a
stage was marked, for the people of Spain, by the fall of Moret in
February, 1910.
Turning to the other main body of political opinion, the Liberal party,
with its offshoot, the Republicans, it is worth noting that many of
these, including several of their most prominent and influential
leaders, although professing republican opinions, are in reality
staunch upholders of the constitutional Monarchy, their republicanism
being more in the nature of a political counsel of perfection than a
policy that they are actively forwarding. Thus Montero Rios, the leader
of the Radical wing of the Liberals, who, if not avowedly a Republican,
is closely allied to that party, recently said, _à propos_ of the split
in the Liberal camp which seemed imminent after the resignation of
Moret, “I have always urged that our group should submit to the
leadership of Moret, because he alone can hold the party together.”
Melquiades Alvarez, one of the acknowledged leaders of the Republicans,
made in October, 1909, an important speech in which he offered “a final
truce” with the Monarchy, and Republican support to a programme of
liberty of worship, restriction of the power of the Religious Orders,
neutral schools, and social reform. “With the adoption of this programme
permanent stability would be afforded to the Throne on the model of the
English dynasty--a crowned Republic.” And Soriano, another prominent man
in that party, said about the same time “The Republican revolution
should be spiritual, not material. _We do not desire to overthrow the
Monarchy_, but to implant education and progress” (italics mine). The
term “Republican,” as used by the men of this school of thought, seems
to connote a social and political Utopia rather than a particular form
of government, and “republican” principles are quite compatible with an
undeviating support of the Constitutional Monarchy.
These “idealist” Republicans would not thus group their party with the
supporters of the Monarchy if they believed that the existence of the
Throne were prejudicial to the nation. Nor would the Liberal-Monarchists
accept without protest such an association with themselves, did they
believe that these men were working to overthrow the Monarchy.
The truth is that all Spanish politicians who have the good of their
country at heart recognise, even though they may disapprove, the
traditional respect for the kingly office which is implanted in the mind
of most peoples who have lived from childhood under the Monarchical
system. In Spain, where the King who united Castile with Leon and
expelled the Moslems from nearly the whole of the South is venerated as
a saint, the tradition exists more strongly and has greater weight in
determining the action of the masses at any given moment than in any
other country except perhaps Russia.
EDUCATION
[Illustration: A STREET HAWKER DESCRIBING BATTLE SCENES TO AN ILLITERATE
AUDIENCE.
[To face page 263.]]