TOPICS OF THE DAY
THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM.
IT is very natural that the Liberals should be very anxious about the future of Liberalism ; for they feel, without clearly perceiving, that in establishing demo- cracy they have accepted a master who is not necessarily Liberal at all, and who, except by accident, will not often care much to advance the cause of Liberalism. In the United States neither the Democratic nor the Republican party show any particular leaning towards the creed which Englishmen have learned to consider that of the Liberal party. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are anxious to enlarge the scope of individual liberty. Indeed, as Mr. Haldane very truly said in his Edinburgh lecture of Tuesday, there is to the modern democracy something quite obsolete about defining the creed of the popular party of the future, as one that endeavours to enlarge the scope of individual freedom. Take any subject yo.i like. Home-rule for Ireland, Disestablishment for Wales, and the Local Veto Bill,—to follow Dr. Guinness Rogers, who has suggested in the Nineteenth Century for January the more important points in what he thinks the Liberal policy,—and it will be found that in none of these cases is it the enlargement of the freedom of the individual about which the popular party cares. So far as regards Home- rule for Ireland, as Dr. Guinness Rogers frankly enough admits, the predominant partner, namely, the English Liberal, is very much more concerned to guard against any sort of political separatism, on the part of the Irish, than he 13 to gratify the craving for Irish Nationalism. As regards Welsh Disestablishment, again, even in Wales itself there appeared to be a very much larger minority against it at the General Election than any of the followers of Mr. Gladstone had suspected, and in England the fear that the attack on the Welsh Church portended a later attack on the English Church did a great deal to suffocate English Liberalism (so-called). And as regards the Local Veto Bill, nobody doubts that that was universally re- garded as a grossly despotic attack on individual freedom instead of any enlargement of it. The sooner the party which loves to consider itself the popular party, realises that by establishing democracy it has given up not only the old Whig Liberalism, but every creed at all approach- ing that type, the sooner they will understand the kind of embarrassments with which they have to struggle. Democracy is not at all fastidious about individual free- dom. As Mr. Haldane very truly intimated, it wants a great deal more interference with individual liberty rather than a great deal less. In regard to the Land-laws, in regard to Education, in regard to Employers' Liability and the operative's right of choice, it desires to ride rampant over the liberty of the individual twice as often as it wishes to enlarge it. That is the difficulty which introduces so much confusion into the so-called Liberal party's view of the Liberalism of the future.
And, again, though we agree with Dr. Guinness Rogers that a great deal depends on the choice by the Liberals of a leader, and on the sagacity with which that leader shall sift out the most effective issues on which to lay stress, we cannot agree with him at all that Lord Rosebery is likely to supply the anti-Conservative party, —for they are certainly in no fair sense Liberals,— with the leader they need. No misconception was ever greater than Dr. Guinness Rogers's idea that this journal has ever regarded Lord Rosebery with "relentless hate." On the contrary, though it has always seemed to us that Lord Rosebery has too little of the enthusiasm and eagerness necessary to supply Mr. Gladstone's place, we will not say well, but even passably, we were greatly impressed by his courage in asserting that it was of no use to ignore the "predominant partner's" bias in ths matter of Irish Home-rule, and that England needed conversion to Home - rule before the party which had followed Mr. Gladstone, could with advan- tage concentrate itself on that subject. What we objected to was not that very statesmanlike view, but the facility with which it was hustled out of sight the moment it appeared that the Irish party resented it. Of course the Irish party were bound to resent it. Of course any statesman who had not made up his mind to face that resentment should never have said what Lord Rosebery said. But Lord Rosebery is far too politically viewy for the leader of a great democratic party. He does not count the cost of his aperms before he publishes them. And when he sees how badly they are received, he does not stick to them and enforce them and fight manfully for them as Mr. Gladstone would have done, but he explains them away, and tries to make out that they meant little or nothing. That is utterly fatal to a democratic leader. What is wanted in a democratic statesman is, first of allr insight not too much distributed over the surface of politics,. but powerfully concentrated on the few subjects on which he means to insist. Lord Rosebery is unfit for the popular party's leader, just because he is a statesman of exactly the opposite type,—a man of miscellaneous vivacity and no sort of intensity of purpose. Not only have we never felt the smallest touch of "hate," relentless or otherwise,— indeed, towards Lord Rosebery hate is impossible,—but we have often enjoyed greatly his literary talent, and appre- ciated highly the gleams of his lively and humorous political cleverness. But what we want in the leader of the anti- Conservative party, is clearness of purpose, tenacity of judgment, and force of will. These great qualities would clear political conflict not only for the guidance of the Opposition party, but for the guidance of the Liberal-Con- servative party also. Lord Rosebery has no trace of these qualities. If he strikes a hard blow and it does not succeed, instead of following it up with another hard blow, he wavers and tries a new line of attack. He had no sooner discovered that he had alienated the Irish party by his. sentence as to the "predominant partner" than he wavered, and tried to mend his tactics by a severe attack upon the House of Lords. That, too, was a failure, because he had already pledged himself to the principle of two Chambers so strongly that he ought at least to have insisted on some sort of strong Second Chamber, whereas what he asked for was the feeblest and foolishest kind of Second Chamber which could be imagined, a Second Chamber which could only delay a. measure and never reject it. Then, again, as is now admitted, he disapproved of Sir William Harcourt's Death-duties, without using his authority as Prime Minister to block the measure ; and it was the same with the Local Veto Bill, of which there seems to be no doubt that he utterly disapproved. All this shows him to be a weak and irresolute leader. And, after establishing a democracy, a weak and irresolute leader is not only a cipher, but a positive mischief. We have not only no "relentless hate" forLord Rosebery, as Dr. Guinness Rogers supposes, but no vestige of hate for him at all. Nevertheless we want to see a clear-headed and united Opposition, and of this we are thoroughly convinced, that the Opposition can get no vigorous guidance at all from Lord Rosebery, though they may get many a happy side-light thrown on their rather difficult and embarrassed position. The unfortunate Gladstonians with their great leader in retire- ment need a clear thinker, a strong fighter, and a courageous leader who will not speak without counting the cost, and will not shrink from paying the cost when he has counted it. Lord Rosebery is not such a leader. Sir William Harcourt is nob so far as Lord Rosebery from the mark, but he is not earnest enough about any great change to inspire the party with confidence. Mr. John Morley would be more of the true leader than either of them, but that unfortunately he cares for the wrong things, and not for the things in which the English democracy would heartily support him. He is a literary man in earnest, but not a political captain in earnest. Altogether we fear that the Gladstonians must wait, or else accept Mr. Asquith as a temporary chief, till the true leader shall show himself, and shall expound to that headless party the policy of the future.
Previous page
