MR. ASQUITH.
MR. ASQUITH'S speech at Ladybank on Saturday last has many good things in it, but on the whole it is disappointing, for it fails in the one thing needful at the present moment,—a, definite act of direct and personal leadership. It was critical where it should have been actual. Not only do we make no complaint in regard to Mr. .Asquith's criticisms of the conduct of the war, but we are exceedingly glad that he made them, and only wish he had been more pointed and more specific. We, who believe that the war is a, just war, who hold that it could not have been avoided, and who are resolved. not to rest until it is brought to a successful issue even if it costs us another £100,000,000 and another ten thousand men, find nothing but what was patriotic and useful in Mr. Asquith's comments. If the Government are to be kept up to their duty it is absolutely necessary that they and their works shall be subjected. to the closest criticism, for such criticism is a most necessary stimulant, especially when the Premiership is in fact, if not in name, in commission, and when the overseeing functions of the Prime Minister are, therefore, in abeyance. What we complain of in Mr. Asquith's last speech is his refusal, when he comes to deal with his own party, to take the responsibilities of leadership,—i.e., the ,responsibilitv of facing facts Consider the way in which Mr. Asquith dealt with the relations between the Liberal party and the Irish party. At this moment nothing is more injurious to the Libaler party than its connection with the Irish party. As always in moments of great stress and difficulty, the country in really awake in regard to politics, and inclined to call things by their true names. It knows, as gr. Asquith h also clearly knows, that the Irish are at heart a rebel party, are the enemies of the United Kingdom, and desire its injury and downfall as much. as, say, the Southern planters desired the downfall of the American Union. Hence the country finds it difficult to tolerate any party which acts as if in alliance with Mr. Redmond and. his followers. Mr. Asquith knows this, and he brows also that his own academic scheme of "Home-rule all round "—i.e., glorified local government masked with Parliamentary designations—is a piece of paper Constitu. tion-mongering which nobody really wants in England or Scotland—not even he and. his Arcadian brother in polities, Mr. Haldane, really believe in it—and. is, moreover, a corn. promise which is scorned and detested by every true Irish Nationalist. Mr. Asquith, in the meaning of the term when employed. by the Nationalists, is not merely not a Home-ruler, but an actual enemy of Home-rule. There- fore he asks for a Liberal- majority independent of the Irish party. And. he is quite right to do so. But having asked for this, and having thus laid. down the true principle of Liberal success, how does her proceed to carry it out? Instead of boldly declaring that the Liberal party must henceforth be absolutely cut off from the Irish party, and. insisting that they will never trade or traffic with the Nationalists, he merely tells the Irish that if they insist upon being free from the alliance, so will the Liberal party. It is a quarrel, but clearly only a lovers' quarrel, which can be made up when convenient. When and if it would be useful to either side, they can easily kiss and be friends again.
It is this attitude which we assert justifies our declaration that Mr. Asquith will not face the facts of the situation. He cannot resist the temptation to leave a way of-concilia- tion with the Irish still open. He must keep just one little thread unsevered so that they and the Liberals can possibly patch up another treaty. Yet in. truth the possibility of reconciliation should be his greatest dread. It is this connection with the Nationalists which is ruining the Liberal party. To realise how he still hankers after the Irish alliance in spite of his knowledge that the Liberals and the Irish do not really want the same things, and that the Liberals will never give the Irish what they want, look at Mr. Asquith's treatment of the question of the reduction of the over- representation of Ireland. It is true that he does a certain lip service to the principle, and that he protests against the violation-of-the-Act-of-Union bogey—he could hardly avoid doing that when he has twice voted for a virtual repeal of that Act—but it is evident that he is disturbed and perplexed at the notion of reducing the voting power of the Irish in Parliament. No doubt the thought crosses his mind. that if the Irish representation had been reduced. to its just proportions, the Government of 1892-95 would not have had a working majority. For this reason Mr. Asquith palters with the question. He produces the stale old objection that even if the Irish representa- tion were reduced obstruction would still go on. Of course it would, but that is not the ground. on which we and those who have supported us in this matter during the last five years demand the reduction. We demand it as a, piece of necessary justice to England, and in no sense as a punitive measure. But Mr. Asquith is doubtless quite aware of this, and. merely shelters himself behind. some unguarded phrases of Mr. Cha,mberlain's because he is so anxious to find side reasons for an objec- tion which, he dare not, as a professing supporter of the democratic principle, urge directly and openly.. The reduc- tion of Irish over-representation, as we have always pointed out, is not urged as a punitive measure, nor will it be applied. without redistribution in England. But though Mr. Asquith must know that justice to England is the real cause of the demand. for the reduction of Irish over-repre- sentation, he could not apparently bear to say out boldly that he was for electoral equity whatever the consequences. He knew that the Irish, whose alliance, apparently, in his case (as Mr. Pater said of the "Mona Lisa's" smile) ',fascinates and is intolerable," would, be furious at any opport being given to a. reduction in their voting strength, and so, while he seemed to agree to the reduction in principle, he found excellent reasons for deprecating it in practice. Yet us make it clear that we are not merely finding fault with Mr. Asquith for the sake of finding fault, or at heart rejoicing in his failure to give a real lead to his party. We should be most glad to see the Liberal party restored to vigour, and all things considered, we should like to see it restored to vigour under Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister, for he has, we believe, the capacity for government and the gift of ad- ministering firmly and reasonably. But to do that he must first persuade the country as a whole that he is a leader who knows his own mind,—a man of light and leading in the true sense. If on Saturday last he had boldly shaken off the Irish alliance altogether, and had not cast so many longing: lingering looks behind ; if he had openly declared. that he was for electoral justice for England, and that he would use his whole force to obtain it, and would work with all who proposed it, no matter who they might be, the country would have recognised the voice of a fearless man. This and the sound and patriotic attitude which Mr. Asquith has shown throughout the war would have made the nation fix its eyes on him as a statesman of large mind, —a man who took his own course, who was not swayed by self-interest nor awed by rumour, and who did not try to effect a. feeble compromise between disruption and Imperialism. Had Mr. Asquith thus struck the imagination of the country as a whole it would very soon have seemed to the majority of his own party, who are thirsting for a leader, that he was the man to lead them. If only he had. used the words and spoken with the voice of a leader, followers would have sprung from the ground to acclaim him. True, he would have -lost a few irreconcilables, but this loss would have been amply compensated for by the entrance into the party ranks of thousands who are now outside. But Mr. Asquith preferred to speak as a critic instead of an originator and a leader, and. so merely swelled the babbling chorus of Liberal oratory, from which nothing ever has come and nothing ever can come. Truly, Mr. Asquith missed a great chance.
But the opportunity, though not seized, still remains open. It is still possible for Mr. Asquith to give a lead to his party. If he will only step forward and. speak out, there will soon be no difficulty about the leader- ship. The first act of leadership will proclaim the leader, and all minor questions and difficulties, such as the position of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and the claims of Lord Rosebery, will ultimately fade away and disappear. But though we sincerely desire to see Mr. Asquith take the lead in the Liberal party, we have but faint hopes that he will do so. He will, we fear, wait "to be pressed," and. while he is waiting will try to offend as few people as possible, and commit himself to as few definite schemes as possible. That, however, is not the way of leadership, and if Mr. Asquith adopts it, it will not be he who will be the Moses who shall lead the Liberal party out of the wilderness.
Previous page
