[54] Coningsby, ch. xiii.

In spite of Disraeli’s essentially kindly spirit, his calculated play upon the instincts of the nation which he governed seemed to many in his time to introduce a cold and ruthless element into politics, which seemed colder and more ruthless when it appeared in the less kindly character of his disciple Lord Randolph Churchill.  But the same ruthlessness is often found now, and may perhaps be more often found in the future, whenever any one is sufficiently concentrated on some political end to break through all intellectual or ethical conventions that stand in his way.  I remember a long talk, a good many years ago, with one of the leaders of the Russian terrorist movement.  He said, ’It is no use arguing with the peasants even if we were permitted to do so.  They are influenced by events not words.  If we kill a Tzar, or a Grand Duke, or a minister, our movement becomes something which exists and counts with them, otherwise, as far as they are concerned, it does not exist at all.’

In war, the vague political tradition that there is something unfair in influencing the will of one’s fellow-men otherwise than by argument does not exist.  This was what Napoleon meant when he said, ’A la guerre, tout est moral, et le moral et l’opinion font plus de la moitie de la realite.’[55] And it is curious to observe that when men are consciously or half-consciously determining to ignore that tradition they drop into the language of warfare.  Twenty years ago, the expression ‘Class-war’ was constantly used among English Socialists to justify the proposal that a Socialist party should adopt those methods of parliamentary terrorism (as opposed to parliamentary argument) which had been invented by Parnell.  When Lord Lansdowne in 1906 proposed to the House of Lords that they should abandon any calculation of the good or bad administrative effect of measures sent to them from the Liberal House of Commons, and consider only the psychological effect of their acceptance or rejection on the voters at the next general election, he dropped at once into military metaphor.  ‘Let us’ he said, ’be sure that if we join issue we do so upon ground which is as favourable as possible to ourselves.  In this case I believe the ground would be unfavourable to this House, and I believe the juncture is one when, even if we were to win for the moment, our victory would be fruitless in the end.’[56]

[55] Maximes de Guerre et Pensees de Napoleon Ier (Chapelot), p. 230.

[56] Hansard (Trades Disputes Bill, House of Lords, Dec. 4, 1906), p. 703.

At first sight, therefore, it might appear that the change in political science which is now going on will simply result in the abandonment by the younger politicians of all ethical traditions, and the adoption by them, as the result of their new book-learning, of those methods of exploiting the irrational elements of human nature which have hitherto been the trade secret of the elderly and the disillusioned.