TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE FIRST DAYS OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT. THESE are early days, but the Rosebery regime seems at least to have begun in disappointment and muddle. The country, perhaps unreasonably, had ex- pected something more from the meeting at the Foreign Office, some indication of a new and strong hand at the helm, some glimpse even of a new, or at least a more definite, line of policy. The Premier in this country must lead a party, but he governs an empire, and there was a hope that in this his first address to the whole people, Lord Rosebery would have risen a little out of the party quagmire, and left with us all at any rate the impression of a strong and separate individuality at the helm. The hope was not fulfilled. Lord Rosebery spoke well, as he always does, but the substance of his speech was only that the Government "stood where it did," that he had nothing new to say about Home-rule, that the wretched Newcastle programme, which at best is only a cleaning of machinery against next week's work, would still occupy the time of Parliament, and that " questions of priority " which are only serious so far as they are bargains with the factions within the party itself, would be left entirely to " our honoured colleague, the leader of the House of Commons." On the Irish policy of the Govern- ment nothing was said, except that the Government would keep its pledges ; and as to the Lords, the only definite utterance was, as we have tried to show elsewhere, an increase to the general perplexity. Lord Rosebery accen- tuated Mr. Gladstone's parting speech by declaring the organisation of the House of Lords "a danger to the Constitution ;" but instead of pledging himself to remove that danger, or hinting how he would do it, he glided off into a declaration that Peers were not pariahs, and that be could not consent to place them under a disability for the public service. There is not much that is nutritive for the whole country in that speech, and even in the party it roused no enthusiasm, as was proved beyond all doubt by the revolt of the following day. We do not say, be it understood, that the chilliness of the affair could have been avoided. Lord Rosebery is hardly in the saddle, he has always Sir William Harcourt to con- ciliate—that is, a man who actually believes in the party value of the Local Veto Bill ; and it was essential to show that Gladstonianism bad not ended with Mr. Gladstone's withdrawal ; but still his speech was to the public a dis- appointment. There is, in fact, nothing of him in it, not even his talent for scoring a success. People were longing for something different from the old screed, of which even those who deem it wise are a little tired, they fully ex- pected it from " the young man who is not in a hurry," and who is so different from Mr. Gladstone ; and they did not get it. The impression will die away, and the differ- ence will become by degrees apparent enough ; but for the moment the feeling is that a great historic occasion has been rather frittered away. Lord Rosebery spoke to more purpose on Monday night in the Lords, and, indeed, uttered one sentence of great moment,—that in which he insisted that Home-rule for Ireland was impracticable until England had been con- verted ; but the impression even of this was lost in that of the muddle which next day followed in the Commons. The exact cause of this muddle will probably never be known till Mr. Ellis is dead, and somebody writes his memoirs ; but as a matter of fact, the Government was defeated on an issue of importance in a House of nearly three hundred, by two. Mr. Labouchere, who, probably because he belongs to a Peer's family, hates the House of Lords with an unsleeping hatred, rejected several offers of compromise, and insisted on moving as an amendment to the Address, that the House" prayed her Majesty that the power now enjoyed by persons not elected to Parliament to -prevent Bills being submitted to her Majesty for her Royal approval should cease, and that her Majesty would, with and by the advice of her responsible Ministers, use the power vested in her Majesty to secure the passing of this much- needed reform." The Queen was, in fact, asked to use the prerogative, and create five hundred Peers in order to revolutionise the Constitution. Nothing more monstrous could be conceived in a constitutional country, and especially in a country in which it is an understood principle that any proposal for the reform of either House must come from within that House itself ; and even Sir William Harcourt, though he concurred with the mover in hating the Lords, and promised that the existing state of things " ought not to, and shall not, continue," rejected Mr. Labouchere's motion. His Radical followers, however, his Irish followers, and his Welsh followers all deserted him ; and although the Unionists in the House, with Mr. Balfour at their head, stood by the Constitution, the Radical Whip never warned the groups of Unionists, scattered about the Palace, and the Government wan defeated by a majority of 147 to 145. That is to say, the Government were ordered to present her Majesty with an unconstitutional Address, praying for a revolution to be effected by prerogative, on which they had not decided, and to which indeed they were opposed.
There never was such a muddle, and the method of extrication almost made it deeper. No possible subse- quent amendment could do away with the effect of words like Mr. Labouchere's, the Ministers could not leave her Majesty's message unanswered, and after a Cabinet Council, in which one imagines some strong things were said, Lord .Tweedmouth for example having great ex- perience how Whipping should be managed, the Govern- ment resolved to create a precedent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should vote against the whole Ad- dress when put from the Chair, and move a new Address of the most purely formal kind. This was done on Wednesday, Sir William Harcourt making, a pon- derously constitutional speech, in which he declared that the Ministry were not prepared to recommend the creation of five hundred Peers, and rebuked everybody's levity,—especial the levity of Colonel Saunderson, who, to the huge delight of both parties, moved that, as a new- Address was to be proposed and seconded, the House should adjourn for twenty minutes, in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put on the uniform which, on such occasions, it is etiquette to wear. Mr. Balfour, of course, poured out ridicule on the Government for its humiliating situation, but promised support, and on the closure being put to allow the proposal of the new- Address, it was carried by 227 to 145. No further division was taken. The new Address was accepted, and the Government are therefore out of their scrape ; but the incident showed that they had lost the control of the House. Every faddy little party can put them in a. mess. It is easy to say it was a snap-division, but many a great measure has been carried with lower numbers ; and what is the use of Whips, and all the parade of organisation, if such scenes cannot be pre- vented ? The scene of Wednesday, too, was not a sudden one ; and it showed a Cabinet which is always denouncing the Lords, allying itself with the Opposition to save the Lords, and declaring, with some pedantry of constitu- tionalism, that it would never recommend the only consti- tutional method by which the Lords, if they choose to defend themselves, can ever be coerced. All this, however, is of minor importance compared with the impression which will be created throughout the country, —that the new Government is not efficient ; that there is no hand on the reins in the House of Com- mons ; and that the coach may be upset any day.. It clearly may, as far as Sir William Harcourt is con- cerned. Lord Rosebery is not responsible for the mis- fortune, though he suffers by it. He is compelled by his disability as a Peer to leave all such matters to " our honoured colleague ; " and this is how our honoured co'.- league manages them. His own especial following, the very men who nominated him for leader because his rival was a Peer, jump on his back and throw him down with shrieks and kicks of delight. We suppose the true mean- ing of the scene is that many people, possibly even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the First Whip himself, were willing that Mr. Labouchere should approach victory, and that the numbers were a little miscalculated ; but what sort of blundering is that? Sir William Harcourt disclaims levity on so serious a subject as the Lords, and so mismanages the House of Commons that a farceur like Mr. Labouchere, never admitted even into a Radical Cabinet, can carry an Address to the Throne praying that the Lords be abolished, as Sir William said, " to-morz ow." The Rosebery Government may be a disappointment, but the Harcourt leadership is certainly a muddle.
Previous page
