TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE RUMOURS AS TO LORD SALISBURY'S RESIGNATION.
WE think it highly probable that there is solid ground for the allegation which has been made by the Pall Mall Gazette that Lord Salisbury will resign office within the next nine or ten months. In the first place, the journal in question, which is not now, at any rate, given to the publication of rash rumours and sensational news, evidently regards its informant as specially well in- formed, and next, it does not hesitate to adopt his story editorially. For ourselves, then, we make little doubt that, as in the case of Mr. Gladstone's resignation, the Pall Mall Gazette has obtained the first news of a coming event of great importance. Quite apart, however, from private information, the allegation is entirely credible. Lord Salisbury cannot, we are glad to think, be described. as in failing health, but he is not possessed of the physique which enables a Minister to continue in office for long periods without feeling the strain. Lord Salisbury has been head of the British Government, save for a break of three years, for more than fifteen years—i.e., from 1886 to the present day—and it is evident that the work as well as his years have told on him. If we remember what those years have seen—the Home-rule agitation, the Irish land troubles, the Egyptian difficulties, the war, and the Queen's death—we shall not wonder that the Prime Minister desires a rest and has fixed the King's Coronation cere- monies as the limit of his retention of office. It is to be hoped that no well-meaning but injudicious attempts will be made on the part of the rank-and-file of the Unionist party to induce Lord Salisbury not to resign. Such attempts would, no doubt be very natural, for the Unionists owe Lord Salisbury a deep debt of gratitude, but they would, in our opinion, be most unwise. Lord Salisbury is the best judge of whether he is any longer capable of bearing the immense burden of responsibility which attaches to the office of Prime Minister, and if he has decided that he is not, no efforts should be made to induce him to change his purpose or to turn him from the path he has marked out for himself.
The question of who is to succeed Lord Salisbury is naturally being canvassed with no little interest, but it is probably one which is a good deal simpler than is generally supposed. If people, instead of speculating at large on the question of the succession, will stop to think what will, and indeed must, happen at Lord Salisbury's resignation, they will soon be able to solve the problem for themselves. Lord Salisbury will place his re- signation in the hands of the King. His Majesty will then have to consider whom to send for as his successor. Under the custom of the Constitution he will send for the person whom he regards as head of the Unionist party,—i.e., the person who commands the confidence of the, majority of the Members of the House of Commons. That person in the first instance cannot well be any one else but Mr. Balfour, the present Leader of the House. Of course, it may be said that such nomination by the Sovereign does not necessarily settle the matter. For example, when in 1880 the Liberals obtained. a majority in the House of Commons the Queen sent for Lord Hartington, as the official head of the Liberal party. Yet he did not become Prime Minister, but, instead, advised her Majesty to send for Mr. Gladstone, because Mr. Gladstone, though not the nominal, was the real head of the party. In the present case, how- ever, Mr. Balfour could not feel obliged to point out any other person to the King as having a superior claim to be considered head of the Unionist party. All that loyalty to his colleagues would require him to do—needless to say, Mr. Balfour would do everything which loyalty demanded— would be to inform the King that before carrying out his Majesty's commands hp must consult his colleagues, and inquire whether they would be willing to serve under him. But the result of such inquiries cannot be doubtful. It may be taken for granted that neither the Duke of Devonshire nor Mr. Chamberlain would dream of refusing his consent. It is a foolish fashion with a section of Mr. Chamberlain's detractors to regard him as a man likely to be disloyal to, or to intrigue against, his political colleagues, but in reality• nothing could be further from the truth. The notion of Mr. Chamberlain lending himself to manceuvres to suppiet Mr. Balfour is too childishly absurd to be worth collider. ing, and could only be entertained. by those who have ee understanding of his true character. It may be recalled also that not much more than a year ago Mr. Chareheriek said publicly, and with all possible emphasis, that there was not one of his present colleagues who would not be proud to serve under Mr. Balfour, and. that is, of course, as true now as it was then. The idea that the Duke of Devonshire would refuse office under Mr. Bailout., or would allow himself to be placed in opposition to jet Balfour's claims, is equally absurd. Unless, then, the King—which is, in our opinion, incredible—were to step outside all constitutional precedent and were to send, not for Mr. Balfour, but for some other Minister, Mr. Balfour must succeed Lord Salisbury in a manner which might almost be called automatic. And even if, for the sake of argument, we admit that the King might choose to send for another Minister, the result would. be the same, for such other Minister would, of course, advise his Majesty to entrust the Premiership to Mr. Balfour. There will not be, and cannot be, any rush or scramble for the headship of the Administration, as soma people seem to suppose. The whole procedure will be governed by custom and precedent, and unless, which is extremely improbable, Mr. Balfour refuses to take the post of Premier, the operation of such custom and precedent must place Mr. Balfour in the position now occupied by Lord Salisbury. Whether thereupon the rest of the Ministry would be called on by the King to resign, and Mr. Balfour would reconstruct the Ministry, it is, oZ course, impossible to say. Probably there would be some reconstruction. For example, some of the Ministers who entered the Cabinet with Lord Salisbury in 1885 might feel inclined to ask to be re- lieved of the burden of office,—though we trust that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach would not be of the number, for the loss of his services to the nation would, in our opinion, be at the present time most serious. So able a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be spared in war time. But apart from any resignations on grounds similar to Lord Salisbury's own, the great administrative posts must be kept in the same hands as now. Mr. Chamberlain certainly cannot be spared from the Colonial Office; while Lord Selborne must clearly re- main at the Admiralty, and Mr. Brodrick at the War Office. In other words, Lord Salisbury might carry one or two of his older colleagues with him, but otherwise the Ministry would not be changed.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Ball our, if and. when he becomes Prime Minister, will remember that the duty of a Prime Minister is not to be merely primus inter pares, but rather foreman,—the director, supervisor, and helper of every Cabinet Minister. Of course, it will be very difficult for him to reintroduce what we may call the " Peeline " system—Peel saw each Cabinet Minister privatelyevery day, and was conversant with all important movements in every Department—but unless and until it is reintroduced we shall not have a really satisfactory system of government. Lord Salisbury has done his country many great services, bid in abandoning the true work of the Premier, and concentrating his energies, not on the task of general supervision, but only on foreign policy, he set a most dangerous precedent, and created a most difficult position for his successor. He lowered, that is, the position of Prime Minister, and has made what used to be the Prime Minister's legitimate function look like interfer- ence. Fortunately, however, Mr. Balfour is by nature well qualified to carry on the work of supervision, for his is a mind naturally wise and. helpful in counsel. He has not got Mr. Gla,dstone's appetite for detail, but he has an excellent judgment, a wide sympathy of comprehension, and a great grasp of relative values. He is often accused, for example, of not paying enough attention to Parliamentary minutiae, but this is not due to indifference so much as to a very keen perception of the relative importance of the points involved. Mr. Gladstone could. work himself into a passion of interest over a sub-section iii a Drainage Act. Mr. Balfour is more inclined to see the work of government steadily and see it whole. If, then, Mr. Balfour can only manage to replace the Premiership irt its true position, we believe that he may prove k very t s premier. But above all things he must remember rea give due attention to the financial side of government. If the machine is to work well the Premier must be a inancial arbiter. Every question that arises has its noneial side. But this fact is, unfortunately, too often ,_Teerecl. Men will agree to a policy or an administrative at in the abstract, but refuse to assent to its financial consequences. It should be the Premier's business to regulate these matters, and, for evainple, not to let uestions of expenditure be settled by a rough-and- tumble fight between the Departments and the Treasury, but to see that they are decided as the needs of the nation lure This question of financial control and Govern- however, one to which we hope to return, meat policy is, and we will only observe here that if the Premier is to say the ultimate word on every great question, as he ought, he must have financial knowledge and financial control. No Premier can succeed who does not remember that he is First Lord of the Treasury, and that the name implies a fact.
Previous page
