TOPICS OF THE DAY.
TWO OF LORD ROSEBERY'S DIFFICULTIES.
DILETT.ANTE though he is and will remain, for no man, whatever his powers, can change his inherent nature, any more than he can change the colour of his eyes, we incline to believe that Lord Rosebery intends to press forward and strive earnestly to rebuild the Liberal party on the lines he has laid down. We wish him every success, not because we believe in Liberalism as inter- preted by party chiefs, but because we foresee in the con- tinued absence of an alternative Government grave, if not immediate, dangers to the State. No other man as yet visible can supply Lord Rosebery's place, for Sir Edward Grey is not yet fully recognised by the people; Mr. Asquith, who is, remains immersed in other work; and Sir H.Camp- bell-Bannerman, besides being out of touch with the real nation, has in the discussions of the past two years lost repute alike for mental force and. clearness of discern- ment. There are, however, two serious obstacles to success in Lord Rosebery's way, of one of which he is probably still unconscious. This is the distrust felt by his followers, as well as by the whole body of politicians, in the strength of his convictions. No man thinks more clearly while he is thinking, or grows so limp in the interval be- tween thought and action. It is not that he is irresolute so much as that his mind is not adhesive, and a new thought is so often in him as strong as the old one which it pushes out. That defect, dangerous to any man's career, is almost fatal to a political leader in a democracy, not only because the multitude is always seeking a leader who knows his own mind, but because he has to infuse consistency into the Cabinet, which, lacking a chief, is sure, like every other Committee, to become a mere body of "opinions" without concrete form or living energy. The business of a Cabinet is not merely to consult, but to execute. Lord Rosebery, for example, when he said that before Home-rule could be granted the "predominant partner "in the kingdom must be persuaded, not only uttered a great truth, but revealed a policy. He did not, however, adhere to it, but shrunk from the mean- ing of his own words, whittling away their import till they seemed to signify nothing inconsistent with Home-rule for Ireland. Men ask themselves, therefore, whether when Lord Rosebery says that the alliance between Liberals and Irish Members is at an end, he means that Home-rule is dead, or only means that at this moment he does not see any probability of carrying it. Would he, in short, resign rather than concede it ? Light is wanted on that point, for the English people, that immense mass which is always Whig, though not in the party sense, does not intend to grant Home-rule even if the alternative is the suspension of the Irish franchise. Lord Rosebery, in fact, must convince moderate folk that he has convictions, which he will act on even to his party's hurt, before he enjoys that implicit confidence which enables a leader either to recement or to rule a great historic party.
The second obstacle, of which Lord Rosebery is doubt- less fully conscious, but about which he nevertheless remains silent, is the absurd etiquette which prevents his personally addressing the "predominant partner" in the governing machine. It is only an etiquette, for either House could by Resolution accord, say, to five Secretaries of State a right of seat and. speech, though not of vote, within its walls ; but the obstacles to its removal are held to be insuperable, and the result is this. Lord Rosebery as leader of Opposition will have to fight for years an uphill battle against, not the Peers, but the immense majority in the Commons, and either to persuade them till they come over to his side, or so overthrow them in argument that the country will return a different House. That is the work which by the consent of all politicians of all shades of opinion he has to do. Therefore—he is prohibited from doing it. He cannot say a word in the House of Commons, cannot answer an argument, cannot learn, except at second hand, what it is that the House thinks, or wishes, or commands. He cannot intervene in a great debate, cannot modify his course to meet an objection which he sees may prevail, cannot even repudiate on the spot an intention ascribed to him which he never entertained. He must debate, argue, persuade through lieutenants, who can hardly be his equals—else why is he theirleader ?—and who if they are his equals may not know' or may not thoroughly sympathise with his inner mind. His own special powers, whatever they are, are thrown away, or exerted. through media in which half of them disappear. A prima donna might as well sing to a phonograph and expect that to bring down the Opera house. For pur- poses of debate, and it is through debate that we in this country form opinion and give it its executive force, the leader if a Peer is as regards the supreme political tribunal of the country altogether lost. His .personality has there no effect. The evil is great even when the leader is actual Premier and. governs the country, for it is one main cause of the difficulty of maintaining coherence in the Cabinet, but when he is only chief of the Opposition it baffles or impedes him at every turn. The Premier may be content with stating his mind to colleagues, who after all, except in Con- stitutional theory, are' his subordinates, but the leader of Opposition wants to make it clear to the domi- nant House that it is he, and not his opponent, who ought to be deciding the policy of the State. Suppose Mr. Disraeli had been Lord Beaconsfield before he took office in 1866, would the House of Commons ever have permitted him to rule ? And yet it is our Constitutional theory that it was for the good of the State that he should receive a permission without which the alternative party might never have arrived at power.
So keenly do we feel the ineptitude of the existing pro- hibition that we have some difficulty in perceiving the best arguments for its retention. The popular one—that the change would lower the House of Lords—is futile, for the Peer-Premier would sit in his own House to explain or defend. his measures just as he did before, and with the additional influence derived. from success in the House of Commons. The French Senate is not degraded because M. Waldeck-Rousseau can defend his measures in. both Chambers. Even, however, if the consequence of the Lords were a little diminished, that would be a minor evil compared with the evils springing from the fact that the House of Commons, which really rules, is never per- mitted when the Premier is a Peer to receive advice or guidance from the actual head of the Executive, who is supposed to carry out its will. Another objection, that the door would be opened to the introduction of Ministers who were neither Peers nor Members, is more serious, for even if you believe, as we do, that our reservoir of. political ability is now dangerously small for so vast an Empire, such a change would. be a far-reaching and un- certain one; but the answer to it is complete. The Houses would admit by their Resolution only five Secretaries of State who were either Peers or Commoners. No outsider would be one inch nearer the Cabinet than he is now. And lastly, the objection that the innovation would greatly increase the advantages of being a Peer as compared with those of being a Member of the Commons is one for Members alone, which the nation may justifiably disregard. Nobody in a time of stress ought even to discuss such things. What the nation wants is to draw to its service all the ability it can without reference to position, and to Ix governed by a Cabinet which can never be perfectly efficient unless it contains . one man who has the power, when needful, to convince Parliament even against its will. That power, as regards the stronger half of Parliament, is refused through an etiquette.
But we shall certainly be asked : "Does not your argu- . meat logically point to the necessity of always choosing the Premier from the House of Commons ? ' Certainly. not. The number among whom Constitutional etiquette permits the ,Sing or his advisers to choose a Cabinet is already far too small, and tends, as the constituencies prefer middle-aged millionaires to men who blow or can learn political- business, to become much smaller. Our proposal only secures that any of the eleven hundred who. are now conceivable candidates for the higher Cabinet offices shall be fully available because able to speak in either of the two Houses, which they must, in Constitu- tional theory, persuade before their advice can become fully executive.
Previous page
