TOPICS OF THE DAY
AN APPEAL TO THE PRIVATE MEMBER. THE essential character of English politics at any epoch may be learned from observing the nature of the Opposition. Some day, when the German intelligence turns to this after exhausting other enhPres of industry, we shall have a history of English Oppositions which will be an illuminating commentary upon our party govern- ment. They will be divided into those which were based upon a real opposition of theory, and those which were artificially created for party purposes. Of the first kind were the Whig opposition to Oxford and Bolingbroke, the Jacobite opposition to Walpole, the opposition to Pitt's policy led by Charles Fox, the opposition of the Reform Whigs, of the Young England Tories, of Disraeli to Gladstone, and of Unionism to Home-rule. In these cases political creeds were the causes of division, and the contest had that perennial interest which flows from intellectual strife. But for the greater part of the eighteenth century England lay under the dominion of Whig principles, and the statesmen of the two parties would have been hard put to it to agree upon their differences. When men not measures became the catchword, the private Member chose his party because of the personality of its leader, his chances of preferment, and the traditions of his family, and he was maintained in his allegiance by a judicious distribution of the spoils. Patronage was the cement which bound a party together, and family differences and the rivalry of celebrated Ministers were the barriers which kept it distinct from its opponents. From the decay of Ja.cobitism to the French Revolution this state of affairs continued, and now that the zeal for constitutional reform has ebbed, we seem in danger of witnessing a similar phenomenon. There is a great cry about a return to traditional Liberalism ; but a statement of creed by Ministerialists and official Liberals would reveal only a few trivial points of divergence. The followers of Mr. Morley have differences enough, but they are not a party, and Independent Labour has still a long road to travel before it can be the basis of a coherent Opposition. We are thus confronted with a strong Government, whose stand is on those principles which have long been tradi- tional with us, and may be claimed with reason by both Whig and Conservative ; and against it there appear a number of small detached bodies who quarrel violently among themselves, and in criticising each other forget the Opposition's great task of keeping a watchful eye on the Government. Of an effective Opposition in any serious sense there is small trace, and the country, we fear, will soon feel the lack of it. For it is a general law in politics that no Government is self-conscious, that it is only through continued criticism and discussion that weaknesses are brought to light and faults remedied. A Ministry, if we can imagine such an event, which pursued its course in the isolation of absolutism would, we believe, soon awaken to find that it had blundered fatally, and was responsible for issues which it had never anticipated. It is because the country rightly holds Ministries respon- sible that it owes them the duty of criticism and advice.
It is sometimes said that to-day the Press will take the place of an Opposition, and interpret to Ministers the feeling of the country. With all the respect in the world for the English Press, we believe that such a state of things would be deplorable. In the first place, it would mean the end of the House of Commons as a place of debate. The old party struggles, which are among its most wholesome traditions, would disappear, and in their place we should find a dead level of apathy. The private Member, frequently lethargic, would now become habitu- ally somnolent, The representative and responsible character of the House would be gone, and the day of party government would be near its close. Nor would such an Opposition carry much weight. The anonymous leader-writer, however able, will never to the Minister be more than an outsider, who lays down the law about something with which he is imperfectly acquainted. And, indeed, the conditions of modern journalism come near to justifying this belief. At one time a Delane of the Times was in many respects almost as well equipped as any Minister, but with our newer journalism there is small chance for the leisure, consideration, and sound judgment- which are required to make criticism effective.
At this juncture, then, we desire to repeat the opinion we have already expressed in these columns, that the criticism without which no Government can live a healthy life must come from the ranks of its own followers. If we cannot have an Opposition, we can at least provide that some of the duties of an Opposition shall be performed. We wish to call upon the private Members of the Unionist party to exercise their right of free speech in the interests of their own party. The old private Member of the Joseph Hume type was often a crank, and sometimes a nuisance, but a man who will annoy from his importunity is better than a man who will only slumber peacefully in his seat. The first need of a Government is life, and nothing will keep it alive except the vigour of its supporters. We desire to see the rank-and-file of our own party inspired with this sense of corporate responsibility, which is far more stimulating than a conventional party loyalty. The well- being of the Ministry which they have created is in their own hands, and it is their duty to see that all the criticism is not left to avowed enemies. In particular we appeal to the specialist who has travelled or studied to place his knowledge at the service of his party, though it take the form of criticism of Government action. Hitherto the soldiers in the House have shown a praiseworthy willingness to do their duty in this respect, but we hope to see the duty recognised beyond the Services.
There are three points which we can imagine the private Members raising against our recommendation.
Lord Ebury in a letter some weeks ago in our columns urged the " highly strung nerves and sensitive organisa- tions" of our public men as a reason why they should not be required to " answer questions which ought not to be asked and make speeches upon issues which it serves no good purpose to raise." We agree that such vexatious criticism would be an intolerable burden, but we believe so strongly in the efficacy of criticism that we are willing to take the chances; and in any case Lord Ebury's ob- jection would scarcely apply to serious and moderate criticism by supporters of the Government. A public man goes into politics with his eyes open, and though we would protect him as far as possible from unnecessary trouble, yet he cannot be allowed to cultivate the hypersensitive nerves of a second-rate author or musician. Again, we shall be met by the old plea of loyalty, which would impose silence upon the follower even in face of his leader's blunders. Such a plea seems to us to be based upon a mistaken view of what esprit de corps means in the House of Commons. A .follower is a man who approves of his leader's policy, but he is a sharer in the carrying out of that policy, and be has a perfect right to interfere to prevent mistakes. Political discipline is not the same as military ; it is no cast-iron habit of obedience, but the duty of reasonable co-operation. Finally, objectors will point to such in- stances of the critical private Member as Mr. Gibson Bowles and Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, and ask in what way they may be said to benefit their party. But a capacity for starting hares and discovering mares'-nests is no necessary consequent of the critical spirit, and if in the past honest criticism has been left on the Government side to cranks, there is all the more reason that now, when the need of it is urgent, the work should be undertaken by able and serious men.
Previous page
