TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND THE GOVERNMENT.
F the ultimate effect on the Unionist party were not ,likely to prove so disastrous, there would be some- thing distinctly amusing in the way in which, in spite of all the facts, men still solemnly debate whether Mr. Balfour and his Government are not really at heart for Free-trade and opposed to Mr. Chamberlain. The more ardently men wish that Mr. Balfour should be a Free- trader, the more easily they seem able to satisfy them- selves that he is one, and to ignore all proofs to the contrary. The fact that if Mr. Balfour were opposed to Chamberlainism he could by a word set all doubts at rest never seems to weigh with them. They cling to the circumstance that he has never in so many words said he is in favour of Preference and Protection. As long as he does not do that, they put a whisper that he is " hardening ' in the direction of Free-trade" far above those positive evidences of his views which we have again and again set forth. Probably it is of little use to combat their views any more. They will retain them till "the proper time comes,"—till, 'that is, the understanding between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour is made operative.. Then the inevitable Dissolution must take place, and the true nature of Mr. Balfour's views in regard to Free-trade become clear.
But even though the practical result of insisting on the real relation between Mr. Chamberlain and the Government may not be very great, it is, we hold, our duty to point to each fresh 'piece of evidence that accumulates 'in support of our contention. This week the new evidence is of very great importance. As • our readers will doubtless remember, the Liberal Unionist Association is to be reconstituted. While the Duke of Devonshire was President of that body Mr. Chamberlain could not obtain complete control of its operations. Under the new organisation the Duke of Devonshire is to cease to be President, and Mr. Chamber- lain is to take his place. But this is not all. In order to leave no doubt as to the connection between the Liberal Unionist Association and the Government, two of the chief members of the present Cabinet—Lord Lansdowne, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Lord Selborne, the First Lord of the Admiralty—are to become Vice-Presidents under Mr. Chamberlain. Is this arrange- ment consistent with the theory that the Premier and his Government have not adopted the Chamberlain policy, but instead are opposed to its adoption ? Mr. Balfour may have considerably relaxed the bonds of Cabinet discipline, but it is not conceivable that if he were opposed to Cham- berlainism he would have allowed his two chief colleagues to join a political organisation from which the Free-trade element is in process of being excluded, and over which the arch-Protectionist is to preside. Suppose that before Mr. Gladstone openly declared himself to be a Home-ruler his Secretary for Foreign Affairs and his First Lord of the Admiralty had joined some political organisation which was being reconstituted to exclude Unionists, and of which the Home-rule leader was to take control. Would not the whole world in those circumstances have declared that Mr. Gladstone was a Home-ruler ? Why, then, should we now find so much difficulty in deciding whether Mr. Balfour is or is not a Chamberlainite? Unless things can be and not be at the same time, the fact that Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne without protest from their chief or their colleagues join as officers a ship which is being admittedly refitted in order to fight Free- trade is surely proof that the present Government are not opposed to the Chamberlain policy. If it should be urged that the new Liberal Unionist Association is not intended to support Mr. Chamberlain in his Fiscal policy, and that it is to remain nothing but a Unionist organisation, we would ask our readers to recall what has been going on in the Liberal Unionist party since last autumn. There has been a persistent effort on the part of the Free-traders in that party to prevent its funds and organisations being used to further the cause of Fiscal Reform, and an equally per- sistent effort on the part of the Chamberlainites to use those funds and org,anisa,tions in furtherance of Mr. Chamberlain's campaign. The result has been the virtual, though, we admit, not nominal, deposition of the Duke of Devonsbire,-and the reconstitution of the Association on lines which will render it a more efficient instrument for supporting Mr. Chamberlain. In a word, those who are cognisant Of the facts must be fully aware that there has been a struggle between the Protectionist and the Free-trade elements within the party organisation, and that the Protectionist element has won. This victory for Chamberlainism is now endorsed by two of the most important members of the Cabinet coming forward to serve under Mr. Chamberlain in his new organisa- tion. Are we unreasonable in asserting that this is another proof that the Government are a Chamberlainite Govern- ment, and that when "the proper time comes" their chief will declare himself and openly join Mr. Chamberlain in his attempt to convert the nation to Protection ?
For those who are still unconvinced, we will suggest yet another test for determining the relations between Mr. Chamberlain and the head of the present Ad- ministration. Those Free-trade Unionists who still believe that Mr. Balfour is with them on the main issue, in 'spite of their belief, are admittedly anxious and uneasy. They are always canvassing Mr. Balfour's " real " opinions, asking themselves as to his views, and making use of one subtle argument after another to convince themselves as to his attitude. How very different are the actions of Chamberlainite Unionists. We never hear of them puzzling their heads as to Mr. Balfour's views, or doubting as to his ultimate course. They are perfectly at their ease as to the direction in which he will move, perfectly satisfied as to existing conditions. No rumours are set floating to encourage them during the period of slack water and while they are waiting for "the proper time" to come. They never show any peevishness or annoyance at Mr. Balfour's silence or want of definite- ness. They are content, and regard his attitude with the utmost serenity. Nothing, in fact, could be more strongly marked than the contrast between the attitudes of the two sections of Unionists. But has this fact no significance ? Does it give us no indication as to what is Mr. Balfour's position ? Surely it can only mean one thing. It means that the Chamberlainites know that Mr. Balfour is with them, while the Free-trade Unionists have no such assurance. But it may be said : "Why should not the Chamberlainites be misled ; their confidence is no sign of knowledge." To this we answer, first, that the Chamber- lainites are confident because they have received assurances that all is well from Mr. Chamberlain ; and secondly, that Mr. Chamberlain is in such close touch and sympathy with Mr. Balfour that it is inconceivable that he is the victim of self-deception, and that Mr. Balfour is not really on his side: Besides, even if Mr. Chamberlain were self- deceived, Mr. Balfour's high sense of personal honour could not possibly allow this self-deception to continue. Mr. Balfour is well aware of the realities of the whole situation, and if he had in some way unwittingly deceived Mr. Chamberlain, it is certain that he would have -en- lightened him six months ago. He is not the man to endure the thought that at some future time Mr. Chamber- lain could say to him : "How could you have allowed me not only to think that you were in sympathy with me, but to pledge myself to others that this was the case ? " We may be quite sure that the complete contentment of the Chamberlainites with the existing situation is proof positive that Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain under- stand each other, and when "the proper time comes" will act together.
Previous page
