TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
ONE of the most remarkable changes in English politi- cal life during the last twenty years has been the removal of foreign politics from the contentions of party. During the previous two centuries the country's relations with foreign countries proved one of the most fruitful topics of opposition to the Government in power. In Queen Anne's reign Whigs and Tories fought most eagerly over the question of peace or war on the Continent ; the real cause of Sir Robert Walpole's downfall was the Spanish dispute ; all the great Pitt's efforts in opposition and in power turned on foreign policy, while his son and Fox were most at variance on the French War. Canning's Liberalism was best shown in his Continental dealings; Palmerston had some of his hardest fights on such matters as Don Pacifico, the Orsini bomb, and the Chinese War; and within the memory of most of us Gladstone, in his Homeric fight with Lord Beaconsfield, drew his heaviest artillery against his rival from the field of foreign politics. To-day, no doubt, some of us would go further in one direction, some in another ; but from a broad point of view it would be true to say that the nation marches as one man in foreign affairs, and that discussions on them in the House of Commons or in the country are more with the object of elucidation than of criticism. This is obviously a more satisfactory condition of things than marked division of opinion ; for whatever may be the merit of controversy in arriving at a just conclusion in domestic problems, nothing is gained by presenting a divided front to other nations with regard to their concerns, for the uncertainty thus engendered is not only a weakness in ourselves, but a cause of alarm and unrest in other nations. There is a story that Frederick. the Great, Pitt's faithful friend and ally during the Seven Years' War, refused to enter into Lord Chatham's plans of alliance for the preservation of peace only four years later, not because he disliked them, but because having once experienced a sudden change in English foreign policy as a result of a new Ministry, he was afraid of another. The confidence which we and others feel in ourselves from a truly national foreign policy is a benefit gained within the last quarter of a century. It can hardly be exaggerated, and its maintenance should be one of the dearest objects of our statesmen. Perhaps One reason for this greater unity of purpose is that we are not in such an incontestably superior position, whether navally or commercially, as we have been at some periods in bur history, and therefore cannot afford to dissipate our energies in discussion. But whatever may be the reason, it is well to remember that it is of somewhat recent growth, and that there are always present inclinations and tempta- tions to change this attitude for one of excessive criticism leading to disunion. Absolute and literal unanimity is, of course, impossible of attainment, and would be an unhealthy sign if it were attained ; but a broad spirit of agreement is compatible with sane discussion of details.
- • As we have said, this national union is of recent growth, but even already we are inclined to take it for granted, and to forget that any special care need be taken to preserve it. It may not perhaps be amiss to take stock of the qualities necessary for a nation, and especially for its statesmen, if this boon is to be secured. Perhaps the most important quality is a sense of reticence and responsibility. In our domestic discussions plain speaking or even hasty speaking is not particularly harmful. We understand one another, and we are not apt to assume even of a political adversary that he means a great deal more than he actually says. In dealing with foreigners plain speaking, if carefully chosen, is well on occasion, when some definite object is to be attained or our interests or honour are affected. But even when plain words are required, it must be remembered that foreigners do not understand our circumstances and our mode of speaking as we do, and they are sometimes inclined to think that a word of warning may imply a menace or a friendly expression denote fear. There is nothing there- fore so likely to disorganise our foreign policy and cause controversy about it, both at home and abroad, as ill- considered words addressed to foreign nations by our politicians. Mr. Gladstone when he came to power found that by words uttered in " a position of greater freedom and less responsibility " he had handicapped his own authority in controlling the nation's foreign policy. Mr. Chamberlain, no doubt, has since regretted his disco.urse about " long spoons," and the Eighty Club in no way enhanced the fame for perspicacity of the party in power by their recent unfortunate identification with a political side in a foreign country. And now what are we to say about the late attempts of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill to quiet alarms about our relations with Germany ? In the first place it may be admitted that both these Ministers absolutely represent the feelings of this country in their efforts to say that we have no cause for hostility with Germany, that we have no desire to isolate her, and that we should be only too pleased if the relations between the two countries could be placed on a footing of greater cordiality. It is their method of doing so which is unfortunate. Mr. Lloyd George allows himself to be interviewed by a foreign newspaper correspondent, with the result that he gives the impression that he has come abroad largely in the hope of inducing the Germans to agree to what they bad already refused at our sugges- tion, a reduction of armaments. If absurd rumours are immediately afterwards spread about his conversations with Admiral von Tirpitz at St. Blasien, and of his intended proceedings at Berlin, Mr. Lloyd George has only himself to thank. And the worst of this diplomacy comma populo is that it gives both to the home public and to the Germans a pretext for saying that Mr. Lloyd George is now trying to do what Sir Edward Grey has failed, or else not seriously attempted, to achieve. Mr. Lloyd George, we notice in Wednesday's Daily Chronicle, repudiates• this suggestion with some warmth. We ourselves never suspected him guilty of such outrageous disloyalty to a colleague, but at the same time it is evident that by his superfluous efforts to dot Sir Edward Grey's "i's " he has already succeeded in creating the false impression that even the Ministry, to say nothing of the nation, are not entirely at one on this grave question.
As for Mr. Churchill, he has probably not done so much harm to anybody as to himself by some of his remarks about Germany at Swansea. With his emphatic and well- grounded assertions of the absence of any serious cause of enmity to Germany on our part we entirely agree, and indeed applaud his language. But when he goes further and gratuitously attacks Lord Cromer for " wild words," he is not only impertinent, but appears to be doing his best to stir up party feeling in the matter. Lord Cromer, in the speech referred to as " wild words," gravely and from the full store of his almost unrivalled knowledge of foreign affairs warned us in his place in Parliament that in making our financial arrangements we must take into consideration the possibility of a war with Germany in the future. To say this is really almost a truism, and there would certainly be no point in Mr. Churchill's colleague desiring a reduction in the arma- ments of the two countries if the possibility had not to be taken into account. If it had not, it would be sufficient for Mr. Lloyd George's purpose of economising for social objects to reduce our own Fleet. However, Mr. Churchill has happily not seemed very successful in stirring up party feeling in the matter, if that was his object, for, as a, writer in the Figaro observed, he, no more than Mr. Lloyd George, has " made a good press " even among his own supporters. Mr. Churchill has already done more good to Lord Milner than to himself by a certain unmannerly attack on him ; his attempt on Lord Cromer will no doubt have the same result. • In all his utterances on foreign policy Sir Edward Grey himself has done more than auy man living to maintain this dignified uniou of the nation in all the essentials of foreign policy. At first somewhat misunderstood for his caution and his reserve, it has gradually been discovered that while maintaining the traditions of foreign policy which he inherited he, has been able to carry the nation with him in broadening and emphasising its liberal basis. In all his references to contentious points and difficult foreign relations he has been admirably, and yet with' due reserve, plain-spoken, as a strong Foreign Minister only can be, and has expressed the conciliatory spirit and the fixed desire to maintain peace which dominates the nation. No better example of the Foreign Minister's comprehen- sion of •the nation's will, and of his dignity as its repre- sentative to other nations, can be found than in his short allusion to our German relations in his last speech of the Session. It 'certainly was understood and appreciated in Germany, and..certainly did not require to be supple- mented by intrusions from Mr. Lloyd George. On the contrary, he and Mr. Churchill seem to have started the newspaper discussions afresh. In making these criticisms, however, we would not for a moment suggest that no public men or Ministers should speak of foreign politics save the Foreign Secretary. Such a restriction would be harmful and absurd. But it behoves all who do so, and especially responsible members of the Cabinet, to be certain that their views are not misunderstood at home or abroad. We would repeat what we said last week, that no Minister should make public statements abroad on foreign policy unless deputed to do so by the Cabinet. Mr. Lloyd George, in hawking about our offer to reduce armaments, ,has_ certainly not followed this course.
Sir Edward Grey in all his utterances has been admirable; in one important matter, however, we think he may have laid himself open to some criticism. It is a well understood maxim of our Constitution that for all .administrative actions the Ministers are directly respon- .sible. But we would go farther, and say that for the :preservation of this maxim in all its strength, Ministers ehould not only be, but should obviously appear, respon- sible. For in a constitution like ours, based almost entirely on precedent and usage, popular opinion counts for much in.the form of our Government. There could perhaps be no better illustration of this principle in its relation to the. conduct of foreign affairs than a story the late Lord Kimberley in his impressively intimate panegyric of Queen victoria told to the House of Lords in January, 1901. Dwelling on the point that " as a Constitutional Sovereign of course, as a rule, she was bound to follow the advice of her Ministers," he continued : " I remember well a case . . . . in which, unfortunately, I entirely differed from the opinion which her Majesty held, and of course I felt it-to be my duty, holding the opinion strongly, to press it, and the Queen ultimately, though with great reluctance, -'gpre way to me. She warned me that I should lament the consequences. The event proved that the Queen was right and that I was wrong ; and I well remember that afterwards, when I met her, I said : Well, Ma'am, I am -bound to admit that your judgment was sounder than my own; The apprehensions you entertained have been fulfilled, unluckily, in this case.' " Now no better statement of the legitimate influence of .the-Monarch and of the absolute responsibility of Ministers could be made than this. At the present day the relations between King. and Ministers are no doubt unchanged from the days of Queen Victoria, but it is undoubtedly also truer that, especially in foreign affairs, the personal influence of the King is popularly regarded as greater. The -danger of such a belief is not apparent when all goes well, as it has during the present reign ; but if the King gets credit, he will also infallibly receive blame, and this would be bad not only for the Monarchy, but also for the sense of national responsibility and for the maintenance of `national union. This belief in the growth of the King's personal influence has recently gained strength by the 'fact that in several important visits paid by his Majesty to foreign Courts he was unaccompanied by any responsible Minister: Nothing, we doubt not, has occurred at these meetings of which Ministers are not fully aware, and for which they do not take full responsibility ; but that responsibility is not so obvious as it might have been. The -other day, for example, at Ischl, a permanent official of the Foreign Office in the King's suite, after consultation 'with the Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 'issued a joint declaration with him as to the policy of the two'countries. The document was colourless and in- offensive, it is true, but if it was issued at all it should have been by the joint authority, either of our Foreign • kinister, or the duly accredited Minister at the Court of 'Vienna; as well as of Baron Aehrenthal. Apart from these forinalities, it can hardly be denied that these meetings of Monarchs have some influence on the relations of their countries, and for that reason it would seem most appropriate that the responsible Ministers should be present at them. Few things would be more calculated to 'breed disunion and distrust in foreign policy than the idea that Our foreign policy was not in every respect that :dictat.ed by the Ministry chosen of the nation. Sir Edward Grey may, indeed, have had good reasons, of which we are ignorant, for not attending the Revel, Cronberg,-and Isohl meetings. He may have thought his presence would have given them an international importance which they did not possess. But even that would be better than the total abandonment of the practice of Ministerial attendance-on the Sovereign abroad, which in the past has secured as well as manifested full Ministerial responsibility for foreign affairs.
Previous page
