TOPICS OF THE DAY.'
MR. RHODES AND 'DIE LIBERAL PARTY.
rrHE letter from Mr. C. J. Rhodes in regard to the con- troversy between "0. B." and. Sir Henry Campbell- Ikannerman which we publish in another column shows the value of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's statement that "the whole story is from beginning to end a lie," and will, we trust, make the leader of the Opposition more careful in future in regard to the language used by him in political controversy. It used to be a rule in our public life not to employ the word " lie " unless the person employing it could be, and was, certain from first-hand personal knowledge in regard to the matter in dispute. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman could not from the nature of things be certain that Mr. Schna,dhorst had not engaged in the correspondence with Mr. Rhodes described by "0. B.," yet he did not hesitate to describe "C. B.'s " statement as from beginning to end a lie. However, that is a matter on which we desire to say no more at present. We are sure that though Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was lading in that courtesy and discretion which ought to belong to a statesman of his standing, he was absolutely sincere in intention in all he said, and that Mr. Rhodes's letter will come as a complete surprise to him. Till the correspondence arrives from South Africa and is published in our columns it will, of course, be best to refrain from comment in regard to details. We have no doubt, however, that it will prove to be of the nature whieh Mr. Charles Boyd ("C. B.") describes from memory in his letters to us, but it would be absurd to comment upon recollections of papers when the papers themselves will so soon be before us. It .may be worth while, however, to warn any of our readers who may be inclined to think that the correspondence when it arrives will disprove, not prove, Mr. Boyd's original allegations, that there is very little likelihood of that. The correspondence has been seen by several persons, and they agree as to its general tenor. There can be no doubt as to what Mr. Rhodes means when be says the correspondence will speak for itself. Meanwhile we desire to say a word or two upon the general features of the controversy. We naturally do not think it worth while to notice the accusations of bad manners, bad faith, degeneracy, and so forth that have been showered upon us by almost the whole of the Liberal Press, led by the Westminster Gazette, the Dundee Advertiser, and the Liverpool Post. Mr. Rhodes's letter is quite a sufficient answer. We do, however, desire to say something as . one or two misapprehensions of fact that have apparently taken place. For, example, the Westminster Gazette of last Saturday was greatly shocked at our sug- gestion that Lord Rosebery, the statesman whose cause it has so often, and we may add so ably and so judiciously, supported, should deny the story. "Deny that he was induced to remain in Egypt by Mr. Rhodes's £5,000 ! " is its comment, decked-- out with all the indignation of notes of exelamation. Of course Lord Rosebery could not be expected to deny that he was induced to remain in Egypt by Mr. Rhodes's .e5,000. No one but the Westminster Gazette has ever suggested that he should make such& denial. Lord Rosebery was, of course, always an anti-evacuationist, and never wavered in this respect, and we never suggested for a moment that he was ever anything else. Indeed, it was no doubt the knowledge that Lord Rosebery was so strongly against evacuation and would be in the Ministry that finally reassured Mr. Rhodes. We can very easily imagine, indeed, that Lord Rosebery might be extremely glad of the negotiations in regard to the subscription as helping to commit the party on a, matter which he regarded as so vital,—our continued occupation of Egypt. What we asked Lord Rosebery to declare, if he were able to do so, was something very different,—namely, that Mr. Rhodes had not subscribed £5,000 to the party - funds, and that he must have known had he done so. Again, it has been insinuated in certain quarters that Mr. Boyd, and the Spectator following him, had accused the Liberal leaders of being bribed by Mr. Rhodes's £5,000. Needless to say, we never made any such accusation. The party was at sixes and sevens in regard to the policy of evacuation in Egypt, and nothing definite was decided. Mr. Rhodes, we presume, • and as, we believe, the come- srendence when it arrives will bear us out, told "the machine," i.e., the head of the -central organisation, that ha would subscribe if he knew they were sound about Egypt. His money was taken on the general assurance that the party was sound about Egypt. When, however,- he thought he saw signs of wavering, he demanded and obtained a specific assurance. No doubt half, possibly a majority, of the party were quite as eager as Mr. Rhodes to see the party committed as much as possible to an anti-evatuation policy, but that does not alter the facts of the story. The party was more than half ready to give up the evacuation policy, and Mr. Rhodes's action just turned the balance and got it committed. When people say that ' it is incredible that the Liberal party organisers would give up a cherished policy for a subscription of a paltry £5,000, they are, of course, perfectly right. But it was not a question of giving up a cherished policy, as Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Schnadhorst saw with great acuteness, but of cutting away a tiresome encumbrance. To agree to something that would please not merely a large section of the party, but probably the great majority, and also to get a useful addition to the party funds, was a very different matter. However, we only make this comment hypothetically till the correspondence arrives, and to show how ridiculous is the assertion t hat we supposed that the party oroani. sers allowed Mr. Rhodes to acquire a, most cherished policy for a paltry £5,000. They parted with a policy which many of .them were no doubt' very glad to " clear " at any price. - We never accused the Liberal leaders of selling their consciences for £5,000.
We have been asked in certain quarters why we have made so much of the incident disclosed in Mr. Charles' Boyd's original letter. Why should not the Liberal v funds benefit by a subscription from Mr. Rhodes of .5,000? Do not all parties raise political funds ?—and so forth. Of course all political parties raise funds, and per se there is. no harm whatever in their doino.b so. Doubtless many of our readers have contributed to party funds, and will do so again, as has, of course, the present writer. But then they have been the funds of -- their own party. Where the organisers of the Liberal party funds made a capital error, was in taking a subscription from' an outsider, a man who was not a true and bond-fide member of their party, acting regularly with them, and possess- ing a sense of true solidarity with their party. Such a man has a right to subscribe and the party has a right to accept his subscription. But Mr. Rhodes was not a regular member of the Liberal party. There was no solidarity between him and them. Mr. Rhodes was in no true sense a Liberal. He was a Colonial politician who had taken up the position of being entirely out- side what he doubtless considered the paltry party dis- tinctions at Westminster. His excuse for subscribing to the Parnellite funds when even Home-rule Liberals would not subscribe to them was that he stood outside party and had no concern with it. This was, no doubt, his attitude to Mr. Schna,dhorst. He was willing to subscribe as an outsider if he could induce the Liberals to give up their nonsense about evacuating Egypt. Now if and when Mr. Schnadhorst and the Liberal party central organisation were approached in that Lind of way, they ought to have absolutely refused to have anything to do with 'Mr. Rhodes or his money. They should have said.:—‘ If you will regularly join our party and let us announce that you have become a member of the Liberal party, we shall, of course, be very glad to have you and your subscription, but we cannot possibly take money from outsiders,—and copy the way in which the Parnellites took money and then modified their pro- gramme. Our party funds are constituted solely from subscriptions from members of the party.' That obviously would have been the right and sensible line to adopt. The want of its adoption at the beginning, and the subsequent negotiations over the conditions under which the cheque was accepted, have placed the Liberal party as an organisation in a most unenviable situation. That unpleasant position was due to their not realising the importance and. significance of the _party . tie, and. to thinking that you- can take money from outsider without that outsider • demanding a end pro quo and obtaining a certain amount _ of power over the party. To use a metaphor, a party is like a pretty woman She can take valuable presents of money from her own immediate family---i.e., from father and brothers—but not from outsiders If she does and however innocent is the occasion, she is always to some extent in the power of the -person from whom she took the present. The analogy, is exact. The party organisa- tions, central and local, can take money from their own members,—not from outsiders. When it comes to negotia- tions with an outsider as to whether a particular policy is or is not to be pursued, even though that policy has, in fact, been abandoned by the greater number of people in the party, the action is still more hopelessly unwise. Again, we have been asked why we have thought it worth while to give so much prominence to the story, and have helped to publish abroad the foolishness of the Liberal party organisers in their deali gs with Mr. Rhodes. Our answer is twofold. We believe in the party system, and we are most anxious not to see it degenerate or become discredited. But if it is not to degenerate, party ties must be held to be serious things, and those who try to remain outside party, and to play upon both parties in turn but belong to none, must, as far as possible, be made to feel that they have no part in our political system. The country has, in our opinion, no use for a man like Mr. Rhodes, who, belonging to no party, goes about giving cheques to all -the party funds, and in this way gets a footing and an influence in all. There is only room for one public person in the country who possesses influence with all parties and yet belongs to 'none, and that man is the Sovereign.
We have yet another reason for being glad.. of the controversy in a to the Schnadhorst letters. The Liberals have of late assumed an air of Pecksniffian virtue in regard to Mr. Rhodes, and speak as if they had no concern with him, and as if it were only those wicked Unionists who were responsible for having helped and encouraged him. Now, injurious and foolish as we thinit the record of the Unionist party in regard to Mr. Rhodes, it is monstrous to .pretend that the Liberals have a clear record. in regard to him. They have nothing of the kind. They accepted, if Mr. Charles Boyd's con- tention stands, as we believe it will, a cheque of £5,000 from him. They made him a. Privy Councillor. They allowed him to have his own way in regard to the Matabeleland settlement. The chief organiser of the Liberal party and the party Whip appeared. as share- holders in the Chartered Company.—It is, of course, no crime to hold such shares, and we are sure that the late Mr. Schnadhorst and the late Mr. Tom Ellis held those shares quite honourably, but considering the exaggerated language used. by Liberals in regard to the action of Unionists in South Africa, we hold that it is a fact which should be noted.—The Liberal party cannot, in fact, pretend that they have no responsibility for Mr. Rhodes and his doings. His power and influence is quite as much their creation as it is that of the Unionists. They have a grave and heavy responsibility for the encourage- ment given to him by them, and they ought to bear it, and as far as our efforts can prevail the country shall know the truth in this matter.
Finally, it is asked,—Why is Mr. Rhodes anxious now that the matter has been raised to show that he did not give his subscription to the Liberal party without exacting pledges as to Egypt? His attitude is clear enough. Whether in a right way or a wrong way, whether for good or evil, Mr. Rhodes is a sincere and. convinced Imperialist. • Naturally he would feel himself dishonoured and humiliated if it were believed that he gave £5,000 to the Liberals without taking precautions in regard to what he esteemed an absolutely essential matter,—our retention of Egypt. It would be unendurable to him that people should think that he ever gave money to party which • ht use its power to fling away all that we had achieved In gyPt. It is of vital importance to him to show that he gave no pecuniary help to a party who were preparing to evacuateEgypt.
Previous page
