WILL THE LIBERAL LEADERS LEAD ? T HERE is a story
told of a would-be revolutionary Frenchman who was discovered, with dejected aspect, timidly following at the tail-end of a procession to the barricades. " I must follow them," he said ; " I am their leader." It is this kind of " lead," as displayed in the Liberal party—we must not any longer call them the Home- rule party—which is attracting the sympathetic wonder of the political world. The season of autumn speeches will soon begin, and the observer would like very much to know what the Liberal leaders will say. What can they say ? The same dish has been served up in so many forms that all possible combinations seem to have been exhausted. The Session of Parliament certainly yielded nothing to the Liberal party. The Government com- mitted no blunder in domestic policy on which the adversary could seize, and though blunders may have been made in regard to foreign affairs, yet the Liberals did nothing to check or avert those blunders. No move- ment was initiated by the Liberal leaders, and though it seemed at one time as though a vigorous attack was to be made on the Turkish policy of the Government, yet when it came to action in the House of Commons only a few feeble protests were made. In order that we may see exactly the net political result of the Session, let us enumerate the chief events. In home politics, the Education Bill was attacked in a foolish and useless manner by the Radical francs-tireurs, the leaders con- tenting themselves with a few solemn speeches, and then leaving their followers to act as they thought best. The Compensation to Workmen Bill was, on the whole, blessed by the Opposition, the sole serious attacks being from small knots of malcontents on both sides. Mr. Balfour's announcement respecting his projected Irish Local Government policy was received well from all quarters. The Prison-Made Goods Bill was not a party issue at all, for there was cross-voting all through. Obviously, therefore, the Session on the side of home politics has yielded, and can yield, nothing to the Liberals. In regard to external politics, there were great oppor- tunities for scoring at the expense of the Ministry, but they were missed. Sir William Harcourt and Lord Kimberley_ went down to Norwich in March, praised Greek heroism, and denounced the doctrine of the integrity of the Turkish Empire. But when it came to a formal attack in the House of Commons, only a few half- hearted protests came from the Liberal Front Bench, and the fighting was left to Mr. John Dillon and another Irishman. The South African Committee yielded another chance, of which it was supposed Sir William Harcourt would avail himself, but again the Liberal leaders made no political capital. They cannot, therefore, find in the Parliamentary Session any pabulum whatsoever for the nourishment of their coming audiences.
But if we turn from the past to the future, from Liberal achievements to Liberal professions and promises, what has the party to offer, what may we expect ? We know, or can imagine, with what power and adroitness Mr. Gladstone would have seized on some line of policy about which he had satisfied his own mind, with what fervid zeal he would have urged it on the country, with what persuasive arts he would have captured even the most reluctant followers. The very barrenness of the time would have yielded him a motive, the very impossibility of the situation would have given him inspiration. Whether he was right of wrong, his enthusiasm would have been contagious, he would have filled the political world with his presence, he would have awakened the ear of the drowsy public. He has left no successor in that wonderful art, and we might add that he has left no basic principle on which his party can act. The Liberal party once had a consistent body of doctrine which commanded respect and compelled attention even where it did not secure support. But where is that body of doctrine now ? No doubt, just as reforms are put into action, the reforming party loses in power and attractiveness unless it can take up new problems in the natural lines of its own evolution. The Liberal party has lost that power without gaining in new develop- ment. Irish Home-rule was hurriedly taken up, though it was quite contrary to the true nature of Liberalism. But where is Irish Home-rule now ? We dare say Mr. Morley will refer to it, for he is the one man on the Liberal Front Bench who appears to believe in its justice and efficacy. But does the party as a whole, do the leaders as a body, believe in Home-rule ? If so, in what kind of Home-rule ? In the Bill of 1886, in that of 1893, or in the dim, unexplained, quasi- Federal Home-rule of the Radical Committee? We dc not know ; not one single clear statement on the subject is vouchsafed to us. Do the Liberal leaders suppose that the electors are ready to cast the British Constitution intr. a political melting-pot when those responsible for the operation have not the least idea into what form their monk is to be cast? We observe that Mr. Samuel Moss, the Radical candidate for East Denbighshire, has scarcely anything to say on the subject, from which it might almost be inferred that Home-rule has ceased to be a vital item in the party programme. We are inclined to think that this inference is not very wide of the mark, and that the bulk of the party are secretly convinced that Mr. Balfour's coming Irish measure will shelve the Home-rule question, for the time at any rate, and that they are by no means sorry at the prospect.
The address of Mr. Moss suggests another question which has been quietly dropped by the Liberal leaders; unless we are to take vague platitudes as constituting a settled policy. Mr. Moss favours " reform of the House of Lords." What does this mean, and what do the Liberal leaders intend to say about the House of Lords? Do they seriously intend to touch the question at all, and if so, in what form ? If the words have any definite meaning, we scarcely understand a Radical wishing to " reform " the House of Lords. To reform an institution means to make it more effective, more powerful. If the House of Lords, therefore, is reformed, it will be a more powerful institution than it is at the present time, and therefore, since the total quantum of power remains constant, the House of Commons would be rendered less powerful. We are by no means sure that the House of Commons will not lose power, democracy showing itself everywhere more and more impatient of Parliamentary " palaver ; " but are we to understand that Radicalism consciously intends to bring that result about, and that the Liberal leaders will follow meekly in their wake ? To abolish the House of Lords is the old and quite intelligible Radical policy ; to get rid of its pretensions to exercise a veto is the equally intelligible policy set forth three years ago by Lord Rosebery. But to " reform" the House of Lords, except in Hamlet's sense, is a policy we might rather have expected from Lord Salisbury than from any one calling himself Radical. In any case, what do the Liberal leaders really think of the question ? Do they seriously believe there is a popular grievance in regard to the Lords ? If so, in what way do they propose to take up the question, which, it may be well to recollect, was left them as a parting legacy from Mr. Glad- stone in his farewell speech in the House of Commons ? For our own part, we are convinced that the question of the House of Lords would fall dead flat, because the people feel at present no grievance. But in any case we naturally wish to hear from the Liberal leaders on the subject. When the Home-rule and House of Lords questions are disposed of, what remains of that tedious document which had its origin at Newcastle ? Is it still inspired, or has it been discovered to be mere aberglaubel There is the question of political machinery with the cry of " One man one vote ; " but is each vote to have the same value ? As the leaders are committed to the doctrine that the Act of Union is not "sacrosanct," they must ipso facto hold that there is no sacredness attaching to the number " 103 " of Irish representatives. But will they say so Are they still of opinion that the prohibition of the liquor traffic in local areas is possible and desirable ? They talk vaguely about the " Land " question, but what does it mean to them ? Their Newcastle Programme was self-contradictory on this point, urging, on the one hand, the public appropriation of rent, and on the other, the increase in the number of small landlords. Which thimble is that particular pea really under ? Will the Liberal leaders take the country into their confidence on these matters ? They may depend upon it that if they do not the country will not, and dare not, take them into its confidence. They would have no right to expect it.
What, too, of the alienation of a section of the Labour vote and the general attitude of the party towards the doctrines preached in the industrial constituencies by the Labour party ? What do the Liberal leaders really think about Collectivism ? Mr. Morley has expressed sympathy with the social aspirations of the Labour party, but dis- agreement with its doctrines. Sir William Harcourt, on the other hand, declared that we were " all Socialists now." Lord Rosebery, in his impressionist way, hastily took up the Labour cry, especially in a speech to the Pro- gressive members of the London County Council soon after he became Prime Minister, and then as hastily dropped it. Every candid observer can see that, so far as actual policy goes, the Labour questions have not fur- nished any dividing issue between the two parties ; but it would be interesting and instructive to know what prin- ciple (if any) will guide the actions of the Liberal leaders. Mr. Haldane, who is believed to provide the economic ideas for that group of the party which leans to Lord Rosebery, goes very near in his speeches to Collectivism ; are we to infer from that that Sir William Harcourt is not now so confident about an all-pervading Socialism ? Mr.
Labouchere, again, while proclaiming himself neither Socialist nor anti-Socialist, urges the completion of demo- cratic development before social problems are seriously handled. What have the leaders to say to this attitude ? We might add, do the leaders regard with favour or hostility the programme which Mr. Labouchere and his fellow-Radicals recently drew up, and the attempt now being made to secure the adherence of the local caucuses to that programme ?
Strict party men will say that these questions are captious and unfriendly, but we cannot admit the im- peachment. " No one will kill me to make you King," said Charles II. to his brother. No one will care to exert himself to turn the present Ministry out of office to put in its place a Cabinet comprised of men who are suspected not to be too friendly among each other, and who give no clear sign of a definite, coherent policy capable of com- manding a majority in Parliament. If the cause of Liberal weakness is to be found in popular indifference, then Liberals had better say so, and abandon an attitude of attack which, on that hypothesis, would be merely factious. But if the indifference which exists is partly created by absence of guiding ideas, of a common purpose, of courage and faith, on the part of the Liberal leaders, then, indeed, some severe searching of heart is necessary before any of these leaders can speak with authority.
Previous page
