THE RECRUDESCENCE OF LORD ROSEBERY.
WE cannot profess to wish the Home-rule party well. Therefore it is with considerable equanimity that we watch the movement that is taking place for the rehabilitation of Lord Rosebery as leader of the Liberal Horne-rulers. If we wanted that party to win, approved its schemes for breaking up the United Kingdom, and con- sidered that its triumph would be for the good of the nation, we should deeply regret that there was a prospect of Lord Rosebery once more presiding over its destinies. As it is, we rejoice in the reappearance of the late Premier, for we hold that his resurrection into a new political life is likely to damage the Home- rule cause far more than his political death. His reappearance must mean a serious internal conflict, for the leadership will not be yielded by Sir William Har- court without a struggle, and that struggle is sure to lead to confusion and distraction, and to leave much trouble and heartburning behind it whichever way it goes. If in the end Sir William Harcourt is beaten, as we presume he must be, there will be a very substantial, and also a very nasty, skeleton seated daily at the Home-rule board. Sir William Harcourt's temper is not angelic, even when he wins. When he loses he can make himself astonish- ingly disagreeable, as we saw during the last Home-rule Administration. But that would not be the worst result for the Liberal party of the return of Lord Rosebery to the leadership. Even if we suppose that in some way or other Sir William Harcourt can be " placated " or got rid of, the party will, in our opinion, not be strengthened, but weakened, by Lord Rosebery's leader- ship. He is not the man to reconstruct and rejuvenate a great party, but, instead, the man to make one in a rickety and unsound condition even more unsound and more rickety.
We do not say this from any perverse prejudice against Lord Rosebery, or from any instinctive dislike, but as the result of a very close study of Lord Rosebery's political character and of his public career. Every one must admit Lord Rosebery's personal charm, his perfectly delightful sense of humour, his literary instinct and discretion, his de- sire to please, and his wish to be all things to all men. Lord Rosebery has hardly a serious enemy in the world, for it is not fair to reckon Sir William Harcourt. Lord Rosebery would, no doubt, have been quite willing to "placate" Sir William Harcourt, if Sir William would have allowed himself to be "placated." But charm and the power to please, though useful qualities, are not the essential characteristics of a great party leader. Something more is wanted in the man who is to reorganise and reform a great party and lead it to victory. Sir Robert Peel had no charm—except among a minute circle of intimates—and more power to repel than to please widely and generally. Yet Sir Robert Peel was a great party leader. Mr. Disraeli, again, had no charm, in Lord Rosebery's sense, and made many and most bitter enemies just as easily as Lord Rosebery makes friends. Yet Mr. Disraeli was a prince among political leaders. But, of course, it is not fair to deny Lord Rosebery's claims merely because he is not a Peel or a Disraeli. Let us consider a little more closely what are the qualities required by the leader of the Liberal party in its present condition, and then see how far Lord Rosebery's past justifies us in assuming that he possesses them. To begin with, the party leader -who is to reanimate his party must have very strong and very definite views on one or two questions,—views either held from deep personal conviction, or else expressed so clearly and forcibly as to appear to be results of deep conviction. In other words, the party leader must know exactly what he wants, what he means to do, and where he means to lead his followers. It is no good for him to say : 'I mean to lead you to the best of my ability, and somewhere where you would all like to be.' That inspires no confidence and no certainty. The leader must be able to point as Napoleon pointed to the Lombard plain, and tell his followers : It is there I mean to lead you.' The politician must be able to say : If you follow me I will overthrow this great institution, humble that proud opponent, set up this new system of rule, and root out this abuse. As long as I lead you I shall "keep pegging away" at these objects, and when once I have under- taken the work I will never let it drop.' A man who can and does speak thus is a leader, and in Cromwell's phrase, "signifies somewhat" to his party. But who can say that Lord Rosebery ever has or ever will be capable of taking such a line as this ? On no single political question has he ever offered to give the country a definite lead. Take the fortress of the Union. He has never offered to storm it in the Home-rule interest. Instead he has looked critically at the walls, and remarked 'that it looked uncommonly strong and difficult of assault, and that he was by no means sure that it was worth taking,—still, of course, if his fol- lowers liked to have a try he would not refuse to follow them, only they must not blame him if they knocked their heads against a brick wall.' In regard to the House of Lords, Lord Rosebery has shown even less leadership. There he has distinctly said that he did not think that it was worth while fighting. A real leader who had decided not to veto the Lords agitation would surely have said in effect : A band of proud and insolent men stand in our path, and defy us, but if you will only follow me I will sweep them away. The battle may be long and dangerous, but stand by me loyally and firmly and I pro- mise you the victory.' This is the tone that gives strength to a party. The man who stands pulling his lip and saying : It looks very nasty, doesn't it ? but of course if you men behind insist on going on I will try. If only you tell me to do so it is my duty to try even the im- possible and the absurd.' Can any one who has followed Lord Rosebery's speeches in regard to the House of Lords deny that this is his way of approaehing the question ? As the Americans say, it is his attitude " every time." Even on the simple question of Free-trade Lord Rosebery has never spoken out as fiercely and freely as a leader should. He has made as nice Free-trade speeches as any man, and is doubtless by policy and conviction a Free-trader, but he has never done what a real leader in his position should have done,—blown a trumpet blast in favour of Free-trade, and told the country, as it were, that our Free-trade policy should only be touched across his body. That would have made him the champion of Free-trade ; and what a party leader should do is to make himself the champion of one or two great causes. No doubt Lord Rosebery would say that this is all nonsense, the chatter of a mere journalist who knows nothing of the arcana of politics. 'Why,' Lord Rosebery would doubtless argue, should he wave the Free-trade flag so furiously ? It would irritate a minority of his supporters, and yet not specially please the majority, who know perfectly well already that he is a convinced Free-trader.' That is, of course, the sensible, worldly-wise party manager's view, but for all that it is not a sound view in the mouth of a man who wishes to lead. It shows that he does not understand that he who leads men must shout his orders in a clear, loud voice, and must stop worrying about the minority of his followers. They will follow with the rest if only they get a clear and decided lead.
But there is no necessity to labour the point. L3rd Rosebery is not a leader of men. He was cast for the part of a great wirepuller and maker of " platforms,"—a political " boss," not a political king. But if Lord Rosebery is not fitted to lead the Liberal party, who is,—who cart they have ? It is, of course, not our business, nor, strictly speaking, to our interests as Unionists, to give advice, but if we were pressed to do so, we should at the present moment say without hesitation,—Stick to Sir William Harcourt as long as possible and give him full control, and if and when he goes, choose Sir Henry Fowler. With all his faults of mind and temper, and they are many, Sir William Harcourt is a real leader. He does know what he wants, and he is not afraid of making enemies. He would not be afraid to say definitely "I will," or "I will not," attack and destroy the House of Lords. Again, he knows his own mind clearly on the question of Imperialism. His view is not our view by a long way, but it is one which is clear and consistent, and does champion a particular body of opinion. Again, as regards Free-trade, Sir William Harcourt is a true champion. He is prepared to tell the people of this country that he will die in the last ditch to keep off Protection. The party at any rate know where they are with Sir William Harcourt. With Lord Rosebery—the Home-ruler with a strong Unionist bias, the Imperialist with Little England leanings, the Jingo with peace-at-any-price supporters whom he cannot offend, the convinced Free-trader who does not want to take too heroic a line about any fiscal matter—the party is utterly at a loss to know how it stands. Of course the party will submit now as it did last time if the wirepullers put Lord Rosebery once more into the saddle, but now, as last time, Lord Rosebery will soon rob the party of all its vigour and self-confidence. A man who once had. so splendid a chance, and who threw it away with so poor a display of spirit, is not the man to restore the fortunes of the Liberal party. If when Lord Rosebery was Prime Minister he had turned Sir William Harcourt out of his Cabinet neck and crop for disloyalty, gone straight and steadily for the House of Lords, and dissolved the moment his Compensation Bill was rejected, he would have been beaten no doubt, but the country would have said : At any rate, the party has got a man at last.' As it is, the country, which as a whole seldom blunders, has, unless we are much mistaken, registered in Lord Rosebery's Dossier the fatal words,—"Delightful man :—means well:—always flinches at the critical moment." That is not the man to lead the Liberal party.
Previous page
