TOPICS OF THE DAY.
A FREE-TRADE MINISTRY. THE fact that the Government have been defeated during the past week, though it was only on an insignificant snap division, has set every one talking as to the nature of the Free-trade Ministry which it is now admitted must succeed the present Administration. It is amusing to note among these rumours the very great number that are evidently intended to act as " bogeys " on the Free-trade Unionists. It is confidently predicted that the Ministry will contain this or that person whose presence would be an obvious source of weakness and embarrassment. Again, men who will no doubt be in the next Cabinet, though not in offices of the first importance, are nominated for the most impossible posts in order that the soul-shaking question may be asked : "How would you like to see Mr. Lloyd-George at the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office, or the War Office ? " Again, such remarks are made as- " I suppose you know that Sir Charles Dilke will be given a seat in the Cabinet and hold one of the great pests ? " or—" You realise that the followers of C.-B. have determined to exclude practically all other sections from the Ministry ? " or—" Again, no one must rely on Mr. Asquith having any position of real power or in- fluence, because it is well known that he will be completely kept under in the next Ministry." Finally, we are warned : "It is of course understood that a policy of un- compromising Little Englandism will be adopted through- out the Empire, and the opinion of the Empire will be systematically flouted and disregarded, while the Army and Navy are utterly neglected."
• We would ask Free-trade Unionists on whom these awful "bogeys" are sprung with the hope of detaching them from the duty they have undertaken of preserving the Empire from disruption, in circumstances demanding very great self-sacrifice, not to be moved a hair's-breadth from their course by this chatter of interested quidnuncs, but to look the facts in the face. If they do so, they will find that the rumours to which we have alluded afford no ground whatever for making them waver in their deter- mination to overthrow a• Ministry which has now declared itself under the control of the Protectionists, to replace it by a Ministry pledged to Free-trade, and to keep such Free-trade Ministry in office till all danger of Protection has passed away,—i.e., not to give their sup- port again to their own party till that party has been purged—as in time we confidently believe it will be—of Protection. If the Free-trade Unionists will only keep their eyes on the facts, there is no danger of their being frightened by the false fires deliberately kindled to perplex and embarrass them.
The first thing to remember about the next Ministry is that it will be formed out of a Parliament elected to defend Free-trade. There will, of course, be plenty of other causes represented, and strongly represented, but Free- trade will have been the issue before the country, and Free-trade will be the dominating note of the new Parlia- ment. That being so, it is obvious that the men who will have in a special degree the confidence of the new Parlia- ment will be the men who have fought hardest in the battle against Chamberlainism, and who have made them- selves in a special sense the champions of Free-trade. Among these men Mr. Asquith stands conspicuous. Mr. Morley and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman have no doubt done notable service for the cause of Free-trade each in his own way, but no impartial view of the matter can credit them with a share of the deeds of battle greater than that of Mr. Asquith. Mr. Morley's moderation of tone and temper is a fine and useful quality of statesmanship, but t has occasionally prevented him from "taking the gloves off" in dealing with Mr. Chamberlain in cases where the hardest possible blows were the blows demanded by the situation. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, again, though, like Mr. Morley, he has fought well for the cause in Parliament, has not come before the country as a whole so often or so conspicuously as Mr. Asquith, who has, in tiuth, been the protagonist of Free-trade. Mr. .Asquith, quite as much in the country as in Parliament, has stood forth as the sworn champion of Free-trade. It was he who last autumn followed Mr. Chamberlain step by step through the constituencies, and worked with indefatigable energy to show the nation the hollowness and the fatuity of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. It is true that, owing to the Protectionist leanings of the great majority of the London newspapers, Mr. Asquith's Free-trade campaign was not " boomed " as was that of Mr. Chamberlain ; but it was none the less important in, its results because the London public heard so much less about "extraordinary scenes of enthusiasm," "splendid receptions," "magnificent outbursts of patriotic oratory," and the rest. In spite of the coolness of the London Press, the compressed reports, and the absence of descriptive reporters, Mr. Asquith was performing a missionary work for which he has earned the undying gratitude of all those who have the cause of Free-trade at heart. Week by week he tore to pieces the sophistries of Chamberlainism, and showed how flat, stale, and unprofitable were all the arguments adduced to persuade the poor to pay more for their food, and, indeed, for all the articles consumed by them, while the manufacturer was to be given the advantages of a privileged market. The essential arguments against Protection were never stated with greater force and clearness, and applied with more remorseless energy. He unmasked again and again the inflated impostures of Protection, the creatures of ill-compiled and im- perfect statistics, rhetoric, and paradox. Mr. Asquith showed himself afraid to face no item in the Protectionist programme, whether it was " dumping," " ruined industries," "jam and pickles," or "the Empire in danger." In these circumstances, is it likely that Mr. Asquith, on whom the heat and burden of the day has fallen, could be slighted in the formation of a Free-trade Ministry,—even if there were any desire to slight him, which we absolutely and entirely disbelieve ? His weight in the councils of the party, remember, does not now rest upon the fact that he holds this or that view on other questions, or that he represents or once represented this or that group, but on the work he has done for Free-trade. The notion that he will be powerless because of any sectional action in the Liberal party in the past cannot possibly be entertained. He stands forth, to borrow Mr. Balfour's phrase, as a great nationa:1 asset in the fight against Protection.
As to the " bogey " that the presence of this or that man—as, for example, Sir Charles Dilke—would be likely to endanger the stability of a Free-trade Ministry in the country should he be placed in the Cabinet, we will ask our readers to remember that these dangers are always paraded before the formation of a Ministry, but usually disappear with the publication of the list. We remember very well how, before the formation of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet in 1892, it was confidently predicted that Mr. Labouchere would be given high office therein. The country was assured that the Ministry could not dare to overlook his claims, for if they did they knew that they would be turned out by the group who acted with Mr. Labouchere. Yet the Cabinet did not contain Mr. Labouchere, and the Cabinet survived. The circumstance is one worth remembering when it is sug- gested, in order to frighten Free-trade Unionists, that certain people must be in the Cabinet, or that some states- man totally unfitted for a particular post is designed to fill that post. For example, Mr. Lloyd-George will not, we hazard the prediction, be made Colonial or Wax Secretary in the coming Free-trade Government. That he is a very able man, and entitled to appropriate Cabinet office, we do not desire to deny, but the makers of the next Cabinet will not, we venture to think, be so foolish as to commit political suicide by placing him in a position for which he is unfitted. We need not, however, pursue this question of impossible Cabinet appointments any further. We feel certain that, whoever among the Liberal leaders is sent for by the King—presumably it will be Lord Spencer— the Cabinet will in fact be constructed by a small Com- mittee, whose first business it will be to make a strong and lasting Cabinet, and one capable of commanding the confidence of the country. It will be only after this condition is fulfilled that the special claims of groups or individuals will be considered. As to the " bogey " that a Free-trade Ministry, because they are Free-traders, will be certain to flout, or at any rate disregard, the opinion of the Empire, we will only say that the idea is ridiculous. No doubt all Governments want watching in this respect. For example, the present Government, though they have the phrase " Imperial " so often on their lips, have de- liberately " flouted " the opinion of the Empire in the matter of Chinese labour. They may, indeed, be said to have touched bottom in this matter of disregarding Imperial sentiment. The next Government, then, are not likely to beat their record in this respect. Another " bogey " is, of course, the danger that the Liberals elected on a Free-trade issue will, immediately they are in power, seize the opportunity to introduce a Home-rule Bill. We have so often pointed out the peculiar and obvious unreality of this bogey that we are almost ashamed to deal with it again, lest we should weary our readers. We may ask them, however, whether they think it likely that the Liberals, even if they wanted to carry Home-rule, which is a very large " if " indeed, would be so foolish as to commit political suicide immediately they bad escaped from ten years of Opposition ? The danger from Home- rule is nil. The House of Lords will always refuse to pass a Liberal Home-rule Bill, and the country will always support them in that decision. Curiously enough, the chief danger of Home-rule passing now comes from a Conservative Government presenting a Home-rule Bill. It is conceivable, though we admit not likely, that they might be able to persuade the House of Lords to pass Home-rule. A Liberal Government never will. The " bogey " that a Free-trade Government would neglect the Army and Navy need not detain us long. We will only say that though all Govern- ments are liable to avoid their duty in this respect, we feel that they could hardly do worse than a Ministry which, as the War Commission showed, entered upon a war with ninety cavalry sabres in reserve, and with ammunition stores so low that after two months of war there were not more than three thousand rounds or so of usable ammunition in hand. There are plenty of people in the Free-trade party who are determined that a Liberal Government shall not be allowed to let the Army or the Navy suffer from want of proper attention.
We have written so far only of the " bogeys " used to frighten Free-trade Unionists in regard to the next Cabinet. " Bogeys " of a similar kind are, we are well aware, used. to alarm the Liberals. They are freely told that those awful people the Free-trade Unionists mean to claim a share, and probably a preponderating share, of the spoils of office. The Duke of Devonshire will insist on being Premier, and of filling half the best places with his followers, and so on and so on. We advise Liberals to pay no attention whatever to such nonsensical rumours. They may depend upon it that if the Liberal party comes back strong enough to form a firm and lasting Administration without aid from the Free-trade Unionists —as we believe it will—the -Duke of Devonshire will make no suggestion of office either for himself or his followers. If, however, it can be shown to him conclusively that the cause of Free-trade will not be safe unless he takes office, then it goes without saying that he will do what is necessary to secure the cause he has at heart. If not, he will unquestionably stand aside, as he did from 1886 to 1895. The Free-trade Unionists, that is, will not take any part in a Liberal Ministry unless it should be held that, their presence is absolutely required. We most strongly hope that their presence will not be re- quired. Our reason is easily stated. We desire them to remain Unionists though Free-traders, and to be able to rejoin their own party as soon as Protection has been abandoned by the Unionists and the party has been purged of its error. But this consummation so devoutly to be wished for would be endangered by the Free-trade Unionists taking part in a Liberal Ministry. It is, there- fore, our most earnest hope, as it is our belief, that the Free-trade majority at the General Election will be so large that the help of the Free-trade Unionists will not be required to form a Ministry, and that they will be left free to reconvert their own party to Free-trade.
Previous page
