THE RADICAL PRETENSIONS.
SIR CHARLES DILBE, in his speech last Wednesday at Kensington, while disavowing entirely any intention of boycotting Mr. Goschen, put forth pretensions for the Radicals, in relation to the next Liberal Cabinet, which not only imply that intention, but imply moreover that unless he and Mr. Cham- berlain are to be regarded as the ruling spirits of the next Liberal Cabinet, they will stand aloof altogether and bide their time till the country recognises their policy as its own. Mr. Chamberlain's address to the Birmingham electors strikes the same note. Without making the faintest reference to Mr. Gladstone's leadership, which Mr. Chamberlain wholly ignores, he assures the electors of Birmingham that he " cannot agree with those who, having unsuccessfully resisted the extension of popular liberties, seek to stereotype the Liberal creed, and to make vain and fruitless the reforms which they endeavoured to prevent." That is, of course, an arrow directed full at Mr. Goschen, and certainly suggests pretty clearly that Mr. Chamberlain is very unwilling to co-operate with the only foe at whom he finds it worth while to take a shot at all,— for not a single sentence is directed against the Tories. Readers of Mr. Chamberlain's address will understand at once that the moderate Liberals are the only foes whom he con- descends to recognise. And Sir Charles Dilke says expressly that, while he attaches no importance to the inclusion of this man or the exclusion of that man, "it would be impossible for the representatives of the Radical Party to join a Cabinet to introduce, as its first measure, a Bill on Local Government in which the allotment powers should not be put into workable shape," though "they would not exhibit jealousy or party spite, but would quietly wait their place in line." Now, seeing that Mr. Goschen has given his hearty approval of the allotment system,—which is no doubt often one of the most efficient possible outworks of the Poor-law, tending, as it may do, if prudently administered, to reduce greatly the poor-rates of a rural district,—this looks very much like firing a pistol at a ghost. But the whole of Sir Charles Dilke s speech shows that he intended it for Mr. Goschen ; just as Mr. Chamberlain's address shows that Mr. Goschen is the only enemy on whom he thinks it worth while to spend powder and shot. In a word, it is the Radical leaders who are really introducing the principle of ostracism. Lord Hartington and Mr. Childers have expressed their strong desire to include Sir Charles Dile and Mr. Chamberlain in the next Government, though they desire to secure also Mr. Goschen's co-operation. Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Chamberlain, in return indicate in no doubtful manner that they should entirely disapprove of any Government in which what they regard as Mr. Goschen's views would be strongly represented, and parade their willing- ness,—perhaps we may call it their anxiety,—to stand aloof from such a Government and to give it the doubtful advantage of their candid criticism and benevolent support. In other words, the determination to weaken the next Liberal Govern- ment by standing ostentatiously aside, if in effect they cannot have their own way in it, comes from the Radicals, and not from the Moderates.
This course seems to us both irrational and presumptuous. As we understand the situation, it is Mr. Gladstone who is to head the Liberal Party, and not Mr. Chamberlain or Sir
Charles Dile. Mr. Gladstone has already put his views before the constituencies. He has enumerated four great reforms which he thinks urgent, and which he himself might hope to achieve. The first of these reforms, and the most important, for it carries the fate of all the others with it, is the reform of Procedure in the Commons. On that the whole Liberal Party are agreed, and no one expressed himself more heartily on the subject, or with greater force and clearness, than Mr. Goschen. Now, if Mr. Gladstone is to be the head of the Liberal Party, is it not reasonable that he should give to the first and most important subject laid down in his own programme the leading place in his mind, and that if he should be called upon to form a Government, he should think first, not of the errors which may have been made in past Parliaments, but of the most efficient way of so reforming the Procedure of the Commons as to secure in future Parlia- ments a real reflection of the popular will ? It does seem to us in singularly bad taste that these ambitious Radical leaders should try to force Mr. Gladstone's hand as to the colleagues he would summon to his aid, by declaring beforehand that
they could not, and would not, lend their help, unless to a Government which would take a course quite satisfactory to themselves in relation to a very minor point affecting one out of four important reforms. That is not loyalty to the Liberal Party, but sectional Liberalism which will be very little likely to increase their hold of the country.
Sir Charles Dile says that a Government ought to be a sort of microcosm of the party which forms it, and that the proportional strength of the various elements in a Government ought to be much the same as the proportional strength of those elements in the party from which it is taken. To that principle we cannot at all assent. It is, in our view of the case, the Prime Minister of the day who really represents the party which he leads ; and if the Prime Minister is wise, he will certainly take care that all the more important elements of that party are duly represented in his Cabinet, so that he may have the opinions of the various sections of his party adequately expressed there. But that is a very different thing, indeed, from saying that ho ought to try to have all these elements represented in approximate proportion to their numerical strength in the party. That might produce at onca great redundancy and great deficiency of strength,— redundancy in opinionative elements, deficiency in legislative and administrative elements. The task of a Government is in a very large degree both legislative and administrative ; and it does not follow that, either for the purpose of legislative prudence or for the purpose of administrative efficiency, the men who would best represent the proportional strength of opinion in the party would also best represent the legislative resources and administrative skill which the Prime Minister needs. It might well happen indeed, and often has happened, that the most useful members of the Government are men who would hardly be regarded as the best exponents of any single shade of party opinion. What would Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet and Lord Palmerston's early Cabinets have been without Mr. Gladstone ? Yet it would have been hard to define at that time what specific phase of political opinion, in the party sense, Mr. Gladstone represented. What would the late Lord Derby's Cabinets have been without Mr. Disraeli ? Yet we can hardly imagine a Conservative insisting that, without Mr. Disraeli, any well- marked phase of Conservative opinion would not have been represented in them. The Prime Minister should himself be the headpiece as well as spokesman of his party. But in choosing, his colleagues he has to choose effective auxiliaries and effective instruments, and he would make a great mess of his work, if he sought only, or even mainly, to secure in his Cabinet a perfect mirror of the opinions of his party in their due proportional strength.
The long and short of the matter is this,—Mr. Gladstone is our leader, and it is he who must carry the programme which he has set before us. Our first duty as a party is to strengthen his hands. And any Liberal who weakens it by declining office under him without really sufficient reason,—without con- scientious scruples or positive sense of unfitness,—is doing his best to secure Mr. Gladstone's failure. We sincerely hope that the indications of purpose which Sir Charles Dile and Mr. Chamberlain have put forth may prove to be delusive, and that when the time comes, we shall find them co- operating with their former leader with all the heartiness of loyal colleagues. But for the present, we must say that the tone of dictation which they assume, is neither modest nor calculated to secure that great Liberal victory for which they profess so ardent a desire.
Previous page
