A LIBERAL MINISTRY.
THE weakness of the present Ministry and their in- creasing disconsideration in the country are naturally turning men's attention, and more especially the atten- tion of the Free-trade Unionists, to the position of the Liberal party. People are asking on all sides such questions as,—" Could they form a Government ? " " What sort of a Government would it be ? " and " Would it be a Government such as Free-food Unionists could con- scientiously support as long as Mr. Chamberlain and his followers, in the present Government and outside, maintain their attempt to force a Protectionist policy and the taxation of food on the nation ? " We do not profess to be in the secrets of the Liberal party, but as outsiders who can perhaps see more of the game than those who are inside that party, we can, we think, lay down certain general propositions that will govern the com- position of the next Liberal Ministry, and will control its actions in any epoch during which the threat of Protection is hanging over the head of the nation. The question, " Could the Liberals form a Government? " is in effect identical with the question, " Can the Liberal party unite for joint action ? " We believe they can. Indeed, for all essential purposes they are already united. People who remember how very lately the various sections of the Liberal party were at daggers drawn may wonder how this can be, and may at first sight find it difficult to give credit to our assertion. A little reflection, however, will show them that our view is correct. The great change that has suddenly taken place in the political world has profoundly affected the Liberal party. The forces that have split the Unionist party as the lightning splits the oak have operated to bring the Liberal party together. Mr. Chamberlain, while intro- ducing the spirit of disruption into the Unionist ranks, has given the Liberals something upon which they can all unite, something which they all agree is a matter of such vital importance that in its presence all minor differences must be sunk. The Liberal party is practically unanimous that it is the first duty of Liberals to safeguard Free-trade, and that whatever else they may be called on to do, they must combine to combat Protection in all its forms. They are as united on this point as the Unionists were on the question of the Union. The issue, they feel, is one for which personal sacrifices must be made, and personal differences must be sunk. We do not, of course, assert that none of the old personal soreness exists, or that all the olds feuds are healed. That would be im- possible in so short a time. But what we do assert is that the personal differences will not now stand in the way of union. Exactly how they will be composed we do not know, but in the face of the danger to Free-trade they will be composed. The call to defend Free-trade and defeat Protection is acting as a cement which is daily binding the Liberal party closer together.
The next question that must be asked is,—" What will be the nature of the Liberal Ministry formed under these conditions ? What influences will predominate, and what men will hold the chief places " It would be absurd for us to attempt to give names ; but we may feel certain of two things as regards the composition of the Ministry. In the first place, it is clear that both sections of the Liberal party—i.e., the Campbell-Bannermanites and the Imperialist Liberals—will have to be represented. Next, it is certain that under existing conditions what we may call the central influences of Liberalism will have to play a chief part. The country is, we believe, determined on two things,—(l) to maintain the policy of Free-trade intact ; and (2) to make it absolutely clear that it will also maintain the integrity of the Empire. In other words, while rejecting Protection, it will insist on it being made clear to the Colonies that the defeat of Protection is in no possible sense a rebuff to them, but marks instead the determina- tion of the nation not to imperil the Imperial connection by the adoption of any plan which will involve restrictions on the liberty of the free nations within the Empire. The country, that is, will demand that the composition of the Ministry shall show that the victory was for the true Imperialism,—for Free Colonies as well as for Free-trade. Hence there need be no fear that the non-Imperialist Liberals will dominate the Ministry to the exclusion of those who are Imperialist and Free-traders. The Liberal Ministry, we believe, will not afford any excuse for the accusation that it is neglectful of the interests of the Empire. It will also not be a Home-rule Ministry. The first guarantee for this is the fact that Home- rule will not be before the electorate. At the General Election the issue which will dominate all others will be Free-trade or Protection, and the mandate of the nation will be on that issue, whether for or against. But apart from this, it has been evident for the past two years and more that the majority of Liberals have become heartily sick of Home-rule. The word is often not even mentioned at ordinary Liberal meetings, and this omission never calls forth a protest. We venture to say that nothing would so keenly astonish and bewilder an ordinary English constituency which has a Liberal Member as for that Member to deiote a meeting to the advocacy of Home-rule. Besides this entire forgetfulness of Home-rule among the rank-and-file there has also grown up a positive dislike of Irish Nationalism among the Nonconformist section of the Liberal party. The line taken by the Irish party on the education question has entirely alienated the svmpathies of many Nonconformists from Home-rule. This alienation has been increased by the knowledge that the Irish party are Protectionists to a man, and that Mr. 'Chamberlain is counting upon their aid for forcing his policy on the nation. In a word, the severance between the Irish and the Liberals is complete, and there is not the slightest fear 'Of the Liberals thinking themselves bound in honour to pass Home-rule. They acknowledge no such obligation. But, it may be said, how if the Irish hold the balance of power? Will not the Liberals then: be tempted? Possibly; but in the case suggested we fear that Mr. Chamberlain and the Protectionists would be far more likely to yield to the temptation. Protection will surely tend to bring together all its votaries, Irish and English ; while Free- trade, on the other hand, is bound to divide the Nationalists and the Liberals. In a word, there is no fear whatever of a Liberal Ministry brought into power by the decision on the Free-trade controversy making any move in the direction of Home-rule. The next Liberal Ministry is not, then, in the least likely to be one which Free-trade Unionists will be unable to support on the score of danger to the Union. It is also very unlikely to be one which will take up an impos- sible attitude on the education question. That it will seek a new compromise is most probable, but that compromise must necessarily be of a moderate kind, and not essentially injurious to the Church. There is a great deal of irritation no doubt at present, but a General Election on Free-trade will act to some extent as an anodyne, and by the time a new Parliament is able to reach the question of education men's minds will have quieted down and will be attuned to reasonable action.
But though we hold that there are guarantees in abundance that the next Liberal Government will be one which Free-trade Unionists will be able conscien- tiously to support, and support heartily, we are by no means in favour of the Free-trade Unionists joining such an Administration. Our duty—we speak as Free-trade Unionists—is to maintain our independence and to form ourselves into the bodyguard of Free-trade. We shall, we are convinced, be able to do better work for the cause if we exist as an entirely independent and Unionist party than if we form any sort of coalition with the Liberals. We must, that is, assume very much the position which the Liberal Unionists occupied towards Lord Salisbury's second Administration,—i.e., that between 1886 and 1892. The Free-trade Unionists must keep a Free- trade Ministry in office and keep out a Protectionist Ministry, but need not, and should not, themselves take any part in the Government. From the vantage ground of independence we shall be able to safeguard the two causes which we have at heart,—the cause of the Union and the cause of Free-trade.
Previous page
