LORD ROSEBERY AND THE LIBERAL UNIONISTS.
[To THE EDITOR cc THE " SFECTRTOR."1 SIE,—May I beg space in your columns to discuss what must be regarded. from whatever point of view one looks, as a serious matter? I mean the proper attitude of Liberal Unionists towards Lord Rosebery. After a tolerably careful study of that statesman's recorded utterances, it is my con- vinced opinion that he took office in 1894 with the deliberate intention of weaning his party from anti-nationalism, including its then most dangerous form, that of satisfying Irish aspirations on Gladstonian lines. At that time Liberal Unionists, even if they recognised his purpose, might well have doubted his power to carry it out. Therefore they were well justified in maintaining the Conservative alliance to combat the still exiSting danger of Home-rule. Since then times have changed. There is no longer Mr. Gladstone to take count of, and no one of his late subordinates who is still at pains to identify himself with his late chief's Irish policy can compare with Lord Rosebery as a natural leader of men. He has lately again raised his standard, and it becomes men who are liberal Unionists to consider the changed circumstances. And first I will make this admission. After several troublous years the position of Liberal Unionists is a pleasant one for a political party. To begin with, they are probably better represented in the House in proportion to their numbers in the constituencies than any other party, They retain the old name of Liberal, a matter of importance to men many of whose ancestors have been Liberals for generations, and yet are able to dissociate themselves from revolutionary resolu- tions to which the ordinary Liberal Member gives occasion- ally unwilling adherence—so I should imagine. If the maim Liberal party were to return from the error of its ways things would not be nearly so pleasant for Liberal Unionists. Their raison dare would be gone; for one thing, Conservatives who chafe under the beati possidentes arrangement would be liable to kick over the traces, and probably within ten years the Liberal or Conservative parties would have absorbed them all, except perhaps the Birmingham section. But I merely
hint at disagreeable possibilities as an additional incentive to a party which has once saved the United Kingdom. We think the better of Cromwell's army to-day for disbanding quietly when, after absolutism had been crushed, the nation desired again a limited Monarchy. I now return to my point. Lord Rosebery is again attempting to make of the Liberal party a second national party, and consequently an alternative governing party, surely 'a much-to-be-desired consummation. Should not Liberal Unionists, who do not feel that, in case he succeeds, they must play their future part as Conservatives, extend their most cordial sympathy to the attempt, and in certain cases, as when a Liberal candidate expressly repudiates Home-rule, co-operate with it, and by their actions convince the Liberal " Centre " that if a breach with a few extremists is necessary their places will be taken by others whose company may possibly be more grateful? Is it not quite conceivable that from an alliance of Liberal Unionists, Liberals, and Lord Rosebery's personal admirers, who swarm everywhere, the desired alternative party could be formed P And if it could, is it not the duty of those of the men of 1886 who are still Liberals to join in forming it? If the answer is in the affirmative, the last word has
been said.—I am, Sir, &c., H. F. CORNES. Inner Temple Reading Boom,
Previous page
