LORD ROSEBERY AND LIBERAL IMPERIALISM.
IT is Lord Rosebery's belief that in ten years' time we shall see the destinies of the nation controlled by the party of Liberal Imperialism. Lord Rosebery is himself a Liberal Imperialist, and that, we are given to understand, is why Lord Rosebery lays a wreath on the monument of Chatham. Lord. Rosebery does not, of course, say in so many words that he is prepared, if called on, to play the part of Chatham, but it is clear that this is his though t. We do not wish, however, to consider for the moment whether Lord Rosebery is well fitted to fill the tremen- dous role of the elder .Pitt. We desire rather to ask whether it is likely that we shall see a party, and a triumphant party, of Liberal Imperialism. In our opinion, we shall not see such a party, and for the very good reason that the place is already filled. There is no room for a party of Liberal Imperialism because, though not in name, in fact the Unionists are Liberal Imperialists. If one looks below the name to the thing, who can deny that the present Government is a Government which is both Liberal and Imperialist in character ? The Unionist party in both its sections is now inspired by Liberal ideas. Let us look for a moment at the political attitude of its leaders,—the best way of diagnosing the opinions of a party, for Englishmen do not follow in politics unless they agree with their chiefs. It would be superfluous to take the case either of Mr. Chamberlain or of the Duke of Devonshire, for we should be told that they are only imper- fectly assimilated Liberal Unionists, and that the Unionist party as a whole must not be judged by them. Let us take, then, Mr. Balfour, as the leader in the Commons. Can any fair-minded person assert that he is less Liberal in his ideas or less democratic than Lord Rosebery ? It is the part of a Liberal to hold that it is safest and wisest to base political power on the will of the people. Has Mr. Balfour shown any distrust or dislike of the people ? He has never grovelled before them, and has always endeavoured to lead public opinion in wise and safe courses ; but who can deny that such action is aught but Liberal? Again, it is the part of a true Liberal to avoid harsh and arbitrary methods, and to allow the breath of freedom to pervade the work of government. Who can deny that this is the spirit in which Mr. Balfour has acted, and on which he has based his political career ? We venture, then, to assert that nothing can be drawn from his public utter- ances to convict him of any want of Liberalism in the true sense. Of course if the word " Liberalism " is reserved for the supporters of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and for those who receive the official " whips " of the Opposition, we admit that Mr. Balfour and his followers cannot claim to be Liberal Imperialists. If, however, Liberalism means something more than the inscription on a party ticket, then most assuredly there is no room for a new party of Liberal Imperialists. Lord Rosebery's name even is fore- stalled, for did not Lord Beaconsfield years ago give his followers the watchword of "Iniperium et Libertas " ? We cannot profess to be great admirers of Lord Beaconsfield, but at least he possessed political prescience in a high degree, and realised that his party, while retaining its Imperial views—happily, they are retained in a moderate and temperate form, for Mr. Balfour's Imperialism has nothing of Jingoism in it—would also be Liberalised.
But even if the place of Liberal Imperialism in the com- monwealth were not already occupied, we should not believe in the creation of a separate party of Liberal Imperialists. And for this reason.—the trend of the party which bears the name of Liberal is all in the opposite direction. It is true that the Liberal party is thrice shattered, but no one who looks closely at the phenomena of its disruption, and has not his eyes blinded by personal prepossessions, can doubt that the most vital section of the party is anti- Imperialistic: we avoid the use of the words " Little Dig- , landers " advisedly, for that is a term of invective, and \, not one which is admitted by those to whom it is applied. he reason why the anti-Imperialistic section of the arty is the most vital is because it represents a reality. There is, and we trust always will be in the future, as there always has been in the past, a strong body of opinion opposed to the Imperial idea, anxious to avoid all forms of expansion, and desirous of minimising external responsibilities. We do not agree with this party, but we understand and fully respect its aims, and we believe that it supplies a most valuable element in our politics. A coach without a drag is never safe. In other words, we believe that there are two essentially opposing and antagonistic tendencies at work in the country, which can best be designated as the Imperialist and anti- Imperialist. The Imperialist tendency is already repre- sented by the Unionist party and Government. The question which is now exercising the minds of the more politic members of the Opposition is whether they shall represent the anti-Imperialistic tendency, or profess them. selves to be even better Imperialists than their opponents. We believe that this latter attempt is bound to be fruitless. Those Liberals who not only declare them- selves to be Imperialists, but who actually oppose anti- Imperialism, will in the end become merely a detached group, forced by circumstances to support the Unionists and to oppose the Opposition. They will leave behind them the great anti-Imperialist body of opinion,—a party founded on a profound conviction. Even if all the Liberal leaders were to adopt the Imperialistic view, and the whole party machinery were to follow them, the anti-Imperialists would be an important party. But, of course, all the Liberal leaders will not desert the anti-Imperialists. Instead, the majority of them are far more likely to remain. It comes to this, then, that if Lord Rosebery and his friends try to force the present Opposition to assume a definitely Imperialistic character, he will find himself at the head of a minute if distinguished group, whose only real supporters will be found in the ranks of their nominal antagonists, the Unionist party. Lord Rose- bery will then learn, in the great Lord Halifax's words, how dangerous it is to build on a foundation of paradox ; for it is a paradox to pretend that Liberal Imperialism can be sufficiently differentiated from Unionism to make it the political alternative of the party which is led by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour, Mr. Chamberlain and the Duke of Devonshire.
The foregoing considerations naturally lead up to the interesting question—What is to be the future of Lord Rosebery ?—a question discussed with a great deal of pungency by Mr. Massingham in his article in the current number of the Nineteenth Century. Mr. Massingliam's article is, indeed, a proof of what we have said as to the existence of a strong anti-Imperialistic tendency in the nation. It is true that he does not use the word " anti- Imperialist," but that is of course what he means by " mid-century Liberalism." He holds, in fact, that the Liberals have no further use for Lord Rosebery, and he makes a present of him to the Unionists as their future Foreign Secretary. In spite of Lord Rosebery's many brilliant qualities and his undoubted popularity with the Press, we venture to think that this is not a proposition which would ever be received with favour by the Unionist party in general. Should Lord Salisbury find the work of Foreign Secretary too great when combined with that of the Prime Minister, the Unionists have an ideal Foreign Minister in Mr. Balfour. He has exactly the qualities of force and good temper, keenness, and suavity com- bined which are required in the conduct of foreign rela- tions. Besides, he knows his own mind, foreign questions interest him deeply, and he is absolutely straightforward in all his dealings. But the present, as we have said, is not the moment to discuss Lord Rosebery's future. He has done good service in calling on the nation to unite in a moment of crisis, and there we may leave the matter.
Previous page
