TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE CRY FOR RECONSTRUCTION.
THE cry for a reconstruction of the Cabinet, with Lord
Hartington as either Prime Minister or Leader of the House of Commons, comes now simultaneously from two very different quarters. It comes from the Conservative editors of the National Review, who urge a number of very forcible reasons why it would be a great mistake to challenge another General Election without a solid Unionist Cabinet representing all the deepest convictions in the country against disintegration. And it comes from the most sanguine of the Home-rule journals, who are eager to see Lord Hartington at the head of affairs, not because they have any confidence in Lord Hartington, but because they believe that they could in this way best use up the Unionist reserves, and discredit the last possible Unionist Government. When Mr. Gladstone was defeated a year ago, we were amongst the strongest advocates of a Government presided over by Lord Hartington. We believed that his steady Liberalism and his unequalled steadfastness would be the best possible guarantee for a really just administration in Ireland,—for a policy of reform as well as a policy of strength and dignity. The view, however, which prevailed was a different one. It was believed that Lord Hartington would lose his influence over the Liberal Unionists by joining men who had so long been considered mere Tories. It was held that the Liberal Unionists in the country would be dis- heartened if their leader could be pointed to as in coalition with Lord Salisbury ; and it was determined, therefore, that Lord Hartington should continue to hold aloof and give an independent support to the Government, as well as independent advice to it. On Lord Randolph Churchill's rather absurd resignation, Lord Hartington advised Mr. Goachen to accept the vacant office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but still declined to join a Government which he believed that be could support better from outside. And now the question is whether anything has happened since the reconstruction of the Government in December, to render it desirable that the Cabinet should be reconstructed again.
We must remember, in the first place, that any reconstruc- tion of a Cabinet which is not caused by a Parliamentary defeat of the Government, or by the resignation or death of one of its more important members, is in itself a confession of in- stability, and one that the country is not at all slow to interpret in that sense. Is it desirable that Lord Har- tington should come into office only to confirm the impression which the enemies of the Government are so assiduously spreading that this Cabinet has failed in what it has attempted, and that it cannot be trusted to conduct the government of the country without being bolstered up I We cannot say that we think it ie. To bring Lord Harlington in without any new ground for doing so, would be virtually an avowal, for which there is no sort of excuse, that the Government is so shaky that it cannot do without him, and this undoubtedly is the chief reason why it is so earnestly urged from the side of the Home-rulers. We object, therefore, to a step which would unquestionably spread a false impression. The Govern- ment has not failed. It has yielded to pressure applied quite as much from the Conservative as from the Liberal Unionist ranks, and no doubt it has betrayed considerable inconsistency with its former declarations in yielding to that pressure. But the pressure was certainly not pressure for which Lord Harling- ton was chiefly responsible. It was pressure freely applied by its own most loyal followers in the first place, and chiefly, we imagine, by Mr. Chamberlain in the second place. If that were a reason for reconstruction at all, which it ie not, it would be a reason why Mr. Chamberlain should join the Government rather than Lord Harlington. But, as a matter of fact, it is not half as much ground for a reconstruction of the Government as was Mr. Gladstone's yielding to pressure in 1882 to introduce an Irish Arrears Bill, as suggested by Mr. Parnell. That was a very much more considerable concession,—though we believe that it was a right one,—than any which the present Government has made in deference to pressure from outside. It would be a great mistake, we think, to proclaim to the country that the Government urgently needs any reconstruction. It has shown a certain want of foresight in relation to the Irish Land Bill, which Mr. Gladstone's Government also showed in 1881, when it passed a very ill- advised Coercion Act that only got it into further trouble, and which it had to amend the following year. Want of fore- sight is, indeed, one of the commonest characteristics of popular
Governments, which are apt to be very firm till popular pressure is applied, and then very yielding. Every Government we can remember has been repeatedly short-sighted, so that this short- sightedness cannot furnish any good reason for the recon- struction of a Cabinet. In no way could Lord Hartington prejudice his own chance of forming a strong Ministry more effectually, than by coming in at a time when the only reason which could be alleged for such a step would be the extreme weakness of the present Cabinet,—a weakness in which we do not at all believe. A Minister patched into an avowedly unsuccessful Administration has no very good chance of being successful himself.
Bat, in the next place, the cry for reconstruction, so far as it finds favour in the Conservative camp, is known to be most urgently raised by those who wish to bring back Lord Randolph Churchill with his Tory-Democratic strategy into the Govern- ment. Nor do we believe that any reconstruction of the. Government would please all the Conservatives, which did not find a place for Lord Randolph. Yet we do not hesitate to say that it would be just as wise for a Conservative Govern- ment to take Lord Hartington and Lord Randolph Churchill into the same Cabinet, as it would be for an invalid to take an antidote and poison in a single dose. Lord Hartington is trusted politically for his sobriety, for his lucidity, for his steadfastness, and for his high principle. Lord Randolph is not trusted at all ; he is admired for his smartness, his indif- ference to conviction, his alertness in debate, his contempt for consistency, and his ability and industry in getting up a case. All the confidence which Lord Hartington would bring to the Government, Lord Randolph would alienate from it. And yet we are well convinced that very little would be heard of this cry for reconstruction in the Conservative ranks if there were not some dozen or score of devoted adherents of Lord Randolph who hope by raising this cry to make an opportunity of restoring their favourite statesman to the ranks of the Government. But, for our own part, there is no statesman to whom we wish well whom we would wish to see co-operating in the same Administration with Lord Randolph Churchill. We noted, for instance, with great satisfaction in Monday's debate, the rather smart encounter between Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Chamberlain. We believe that if Mr. Chamberlain would do the beat in his power, as we are sure he would, both for the country and for his own political reputation, he could hardly do better than break all the links which bind him to that most unstable and untrustworthy of statesmen, Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Chamberlain has in him a great deal more genuine sympathy with the people than Lord Randolph, as well as a much manlier political creed ; but the one politician close co-operation with whom might possibly injure him, and injure him seriously, is the Member for North Paddington. We can hardly say how desirous we are to see Mr. Chamberlain weaning himself from his evident weakness for that most accomplished of aristocratic demagogues.
But though we can see no motive for a reconstruction of the Cabinet at the present time, and believe that it would only injure the Unionist cause, and though we should earnestly deprecate any reconstruction which was conceived with the view of restoring Lord Randolph Churchill to a leading place in the Government, we quite agree that if at any time Lord Salisbury should find the combined burden of the Foreign Office and the Prime Ministership too much for his health, his only safe successor would be Lord Hartington. Lord Hartington has maintained a consistency in his Unionism which points him out as the true head of a Unionist Government, and every one knows that his disinterestedness is as profound as his conviction. But it is one thing to believe that if Lord Salisbury found himself unequal to his present task, he ought to endeavour to obtain Lord Hartington as his successor, and quite another thing to say that at a moment when the Govern- ment have carried their policy fairly through their first and most difficult Session, they would be wise in proclaiming to all the world that they are tottering, and must crave the support of Lord Hartington.
Previous page
