THE OPPOSITION AND THEIR PROSPECTS.
IT is all very well to say that the Opposition are weak and distracted, without a policy and without a leader, and accordingly not worth troubling about or writing about. Still, we possess, and on the whole we are heartily glad of it, a Parliamentary and also a party system of Government, and therefore the Opposition and their prospects must always be matters of national importance. If the Opposition are drifting and flabby the country may forget them during the Recess, but when Parliament meets it is impossible not to ask, and to ask with interest, What are they going to do? They as well as the Government have to meet Parliament, and to show of what metal they are made. Their role may be critical instead of con- structive, but it will be none the less closely watched by the electors. Their " public form," indeed, is only a shade less interesting to the political man in the street than that of the Government itself. The first question to be asked concerns, of course, the leadership of the party. Is it still in abeyance, or has Sir William Harcourt suc- ceeded in getting himself acknowledged to be not merely the leader in the Commons, but also the leader of the party ? That is a question easier to ask than to answer. We presume that the members of the last Home-rule Cabinet know who they mean to acknowledge when the time comes. Lord Spencer told us oracularly that the right man would, when it was necessary, be forthcoming to lead the party. Who that man was he did not, however, hint. To borrow Mr. Chamberlain's happy simile, Lord Spencer, in reality, did not go further than to suggest there was a very influential gentleman who, though it was not thought wise to mention his name at pre- sent, " would join the Board after allotment." The public, therefore, is forced to enter upon a sort of missing-name competition. It was at one time supposed that Lord. Rose- bery—the Cheshire cat of politics who has vanished to a literary smile—had finally withdrawn his claim, but now it appears that he has the Cheshire cat's habit of sudden reappearance, as well as its tenacity of grin. Only the other day Mr. George Russell, who ought to know, declared that though Lord Rosebery had retired, he would still in the end lead the party. Meantime, Sir William Harcourt summons the late Cabinet to his house, and in the list one does not perceive the name of the late Premier. Gossip, too, is again rife as to the advisability of finding a neutral man under whom neither Lord Rosebery nor Sir William Harcourt would object to serve, but who that man is no one can suggest. Neither Mr. Morley, Mr. Asquith, Sir Henry Fowler, nor Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman seems cast by nature for the part of Lepidus in a Home-rule Triumvirate, and yet it would be almost impossible to pass them over. No doubt there are as good Addingtons in Parliament as ever came out of it in times past, but it would not be for us to mention their names, even if we thought such an arrangement as we have suggested likely to be accepted by the Home-rule party. Our own feeling as to the question is that in one way or another the matter will practically be decided. during the present Session. 11 Sir William Harcourt contrives to do well thin Session, and to put heart and enthusiasm into his followers, then we may feel sure that he will be recognised as the real head of the party and the next Home-rule Premier. If, however, he does not gain ground, but goes back in Parliamentary estimation, the forces, already by no means weak, which are working against his leadership will overpower him and he will be finally put down as "impossible." But when once a politician fairly or unfairly gets generally ticketed as " impossible " nothing can give him the leadership. That narrow word damns a man politically far more surely than even the description of " incompetent," or " stupid," or " self- seeking," or "untrustworthy."
The absence of any definite policy is no doubt less felt by the Opposition when Parliament is sitting than during the Recess. When the leaders are obliged to address great popular audiences they are expected to say what measures they advocate and what reforms they want to see carried. In Parliament there is no such necessity. The House of Commons only expects criticism from the Opposition, and is not, as are the electors, made indignant by the theory that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose. If, then, the Home-rule party had got something definite to oppose, they need not feel any difficulties in regard to their want of policy. But unfortunately for them there are no points upon which they can very easily attack the Government. In dealing with the Indian Frontier question they are hampered by the fact that it was their own Viceroy who made the Frontier War. The Home Government, it now appears, takes up towards Lord Elgin and the Indian Government very much the attitude of the Opposition. No doubt the Opposition might argue : You ought to have kept your Viceroy in better order, and have controlled his policy.' It would be, however, very awkward to take this line about Lord Elgin, for Lord Elgin was a distinctly party Viceroy. The late Govern- ment might easily have chosen a Unionist Peer to be Viceroy. Instead, they insisted on taking one of their own men even at the risk of making a bad choice.. In regard to China and Africa, and foreign questions generally, the Opposition are in a difficulty again because the country will just now stand. nothing in the• way of Little Englandism. So well is this recognised that such feeble hostile criticism as is made takes the form of de- clarations that the Government was not firm enough—i.e., Jingo—with France in Tunis or Madagascar. The one real chance of the Opposition, or what seemed a real chance, was the proposal that the Government should adopt a, vigorous anti-bounty policy and go in for countervailing duties. The Opposition no doubt had great hopes in- this quarter, and their comparative silence on the question showed how keen they were that the Govern- ment should walk into that quagmire. Now, however, it is clear that nothing will be done which will enable the- Opposition to raise the cry of " Free-trade in danger." Had they been able to do that, they might have greatly strengthened their position. They may still be able- to make points as to the proper disposal of the grant to the West Indies, but this, like the criticism on the Army proposals, or on the Irish Local Government Bill, will not really help the Opposition or injure the Govern- ment. If any credit comes from such discussions, it will fall to individual Members on both sides, and not to the• official Opposition.
The last point which remains to be considered in regard to the situation in which the Home-rule party find them- selves, is that which concerns the alliance with the Nationalists. Are the wounds caused by the Education Bill healed, or do the Liberal Nonconformists still feel that they were betrayed by their Irish allies ? No doubt time and the stirring period of the Jubilee have made the English and Scotch Home-rulers forget to some extent the events of last Session. Still, the fact remains that (as was said by a very distinguished Liberal statesman last. year) the Home-rule cause received far more serious hurt from the Education Bill than from the General Election of 1895. In spite of the conventional inclusion of a Home- rule clause in all the many and various " correct cards " of the party programme, the Liberal Home-rulers—Mr. Morley excepted—no longer feel very much enthusiasm. about it. The ordinary Liberal politician now dismisses. what was once the sacred cause of justice with frigid equanimity, " not caring much whether it lives or it dies." In a word, to use South's happy phrase, they " send it in a compliment to be knocked on the head' at Ramoth Gilead," — or whatever should be the Hebrew equivalent of the House of Lords. But the Irish party are not so slow as to be unable to see the change of mental attitude which has affected their allies, and this change makes them restless and discontented, and what is more, disinclined to take much trouble in Parliament. No doubt the debates over the Irish Local Government Bill will to some extent bring the allies to- gether again, but that effect will be only temporary, for the Government always have it in their power to shatter the alliance once more. If, or rather when, for we refuse to believe that the measure can be long delayed, they bring in a Catholic University Bill, the Opposition; if they oppose, and the foes of denominational education can hardly do anything else, will find themselves in alliance, not with the Nationalists, but with the more extreme section of the Irish Protestants. The possibility of thus driving yet another wedge between the Nationalists and the Liberal Home- rulers is not, of course, ignored by the Government. Even then, if there were not far higher motives inviting them to satisfy the Irish Catholics in regard to University educa- tion, the Ministry might find them in the extremely difficult position in which a wise and liberal University Bill would place the Opposition. We have set forth what seems to us the situation and prospects of the Opposition, but no doubt even so general and reserved a forecast is quite capable of being entirely overthrown by circum- stances. It is conceivable, if not likely, that the Session will produce a young Marceline with a ready-made policy lying handy in his cradle. If it does there will be no more need to deplore the situation of the Home-rule party, for Home-rule, at any rate, will be extinct.
Previous page
