TOPICS OF THE DAY.
CABINET IDEALS.
MR. ASQUITH'S statement in regard to the possi- bilities of diminishing the size of the Cabinet is apparently not to be made till next Tuesday. We cannot, however, profess to be very greatly concerned at having to postpone our criticism. If the Prime Minister announces some new device for meeting the difficulties of the hour and in order to secure better executive work, we are glad to be saved from the temptation of hasty comment. If. on the other hand, which is much more likely, he assents, as did Lord Lansdowne, to the general proposition that the smaller the working Committee the better, and goes on to promise careful consideration of the best way of carrying out an ideal which is the ideal of all sensible men, there will be little call for comment. We could, pending such consideration, do little more than re-urge the proposals which we urged last week. In view of the fact that not only the Cabinet, but also the "inner Cabinet," or War Council, is in itself too big for the special work which is needed in war, we advocated an Operations Committee, the nucleus of which should be the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary for War, and the Prime Minister. This body would, however, be able to take expert naval, military, and even civilian advice, and, again, would call to counsel the head of any great Department of State specially con- cerned with matters immediately before the Committee. Further, such Committee would refer great problems or new departures in the matter of policy to the Cabinet as a whole. We see no practical objection to such a course as this, and it would certainly be one which would save time and labour for all concerned. At the same time, it would not strip the ordinary Cabinet Minister of power. The final word would still be, as it ought to be, spoken by the Cabinet as a whole. The Cabinet would say what had to be done, though it would leave the how and the when to the Operations Committee.
Though we attach so much importance to placing the conduct of the war in the hands of a very small Executive Committee, our readers must not suppose that we make a panacea of this or of any other piece of Constitutional machinery. If men are inspired by the right ideas, if they have the right spirit and the right knowledge, they will work a bad system—we had almost said as well as a good one. The essential is the co-operation of cool heads, sound judgments, the will to win, and the determination not to let carelessness, indolence, or recklessness lead to blunders. In addition, we attach as much importance to the recon- stitution of the old Cabinet ideals as to a reduction in size. The old Cabinet ideals to which we refer are loyalty and that secrecy without which loyalty cannot bo maintained. Under the old Cabinet ideals Cabinet Ministers, while they remained in the Cabinet, never dreamt of allowing people to regard them as disapproving of this or that act of their colleagues. They were either in the Government or out of it. If they were in it, they supported a colleague from whom they differed just as strongly as one with whom they were in the heartiest accord. It was not merely in name but in fact that they considered the acts of the Cabinet as the acts of each member of it. Further, they realized that this fiction—or, as some foolish people would say, farce—could not be maintained without the very strictest secrecy. Therefore the secrets of the Cabinet were truly and honourably kept. They realized that a man deserved to lose the respect of the country if he remained in a Cabinet while openly flouting its policy. If, therefore, on any balance of evils, he continued in the Cabinet, in spite of a difference with the majority of his colleagues, he was most careful to let no one know his private views. Another result of strict Cabinet loyalty was the re- striction of public speaking by Cabinet Ministers. There were one or two recognized mouthpieces of the Cabinet, but Cabinet Ministers as a whole kept their own counsel loot they should say something which could be shown to involve a divergence of opinion. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were accustomed to speak on behalf of the Cabinet. The rest kept silence on general topics. No doubt in peace time it would be impossible to adhere strictly to that ideal, so keen is the demand for speech-making, but during war Cabinet Ministers can, and ought to, keep silence.
Previous page
