TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD ROSEBERY AS THE MAN ABOVE PARTY. THE true intention of Lord Rosebery's much-talked-of letter is to declare that there is room in our political system for a man outside and above party, a man who can exercise political power and influence from a detached and independent position, and that he means to occupy it. This is no new idea with Lord Rosebery. A year and a half ago in a speech at Bath he preached the same doctrine.
He told us that Chatham and also Cromwell had occupied such a position of independence outside and above party, and he hinted that he was willing and able to play the part of the saviour of society, of "the necessary man."
We ventured to tell Lord Rosebery then, and we feel bound to tell him so once more, that there is no place in English politics for the saviour of society, "the necessary man," of 'whom he dreams. To use a very forcible Americanism, the country "has no use" for the man out- side and above party politics. -Unless a statesman can take his place in one of the great parties of the State, the country has not merely no use for him, but finds him a positive incubus. We do not, of course, deny that smaller men in a private sphere may do good work as outside critics of politics. Men of letters, historians, legal experts, jurists, and publicists can do much that is use- ful by freely and frankly criticising the work of our public men from a standpoint detached from party. But theirs is a far humbler and entirely different role from that which Lord Rosebery aspires to fill. They do not desire to govern and administer, or to take any active and first- hand share in politics. They do not propose to enter the boat to take an oar or to use the rudder, but are content to shout their criticisms, sometimes useful, sometimes irritating, sometimes merely futi]e, from the bank. For the man who wants to propel the boat, or to steer it, the position above and outside party is impossible. He must either prepare to act with or to steer a particular crew, or else he must abandon all thought of taking an active share in politics. The only result of his attempting the indepen- dent attitude is to cause quarrelling and confusion, and, to make still more difficult the already very difficult task of finding men to work the boat efficiently. We do not say that in other countries, or in times of chaos and revolu- tion, there may not be a place for the statesman who ' desires to fill the position which Lord Rosebery aims at filling. In countries differently constituted from ours and without a party system, or in countries in the throes of revolution, it may be necessary to adopt other expe- dients to get the public work done. All we are con- cerned to know and to state is that in England at the present time there is no need for the statesman of Lord Rosebery's thoughts.
Those who have had their minas fixed chiefly on the admitted and undoubted evils of the pasty system—though we believe that the balance of good is strongly in favour of the party system, we realise that it is also attended with certain evils and inconveniences—will find it a hard saying to assert that a great statesman cannot, as they would put it, "rise above party," and take his place outside and above, and so independent of, party. We believe, however, that if such persons will only look at the matter fairly and candidly, they will realise that the view we hold is the true one, and that though a great statesman while remain- ing in his party may rise above the narrower party spirit, or may leave one party and join another with whose views he finds himself more fully in accord, he cannot usefully remain outside the party system. The way to realise this is to remember and to note that no man can act alone in our public life. He must act with other men, and even though he leads, they must influence him, and to a very consider- able extent their views and predilections must be con- sulted by him. That is, a great statesman, in order to become an effective ruler and administrator, must have colleagues, associates, and followers who act with him. He cannot, to use our metaphor again, step down to the water's edge and pick up the first crew that comes to hand. If he is to do any good with the boat, he must have a crew who are ready and anxious to work with him. But the man in political life who has such a crew of co-operators has in truth a party. Any man in our public life who is capable of forming either an efficient Ministry or an efficient Opposition is bound to have a party,—to have a body of men-whom he knows,andwho know him and who will pull together under his guidance. It is a delusion to suppose that any English statesman, however splendid his talents and, great his administrative skill and experience, can descend from the clouds like an Olympian, and suddenly take office and form a party ad hoc. The imperative need for associates is shown in the good old political maxim that before approving of a man's policy or admitting his fitness to office you must ask, "Who is he acting with ? " That is a perfectly sound principle. The prudent citizen says, and says very wisely, of a particular statesman : I think Lord Blankacre seems a very able man, and I like his policy as he states it, but I know by experience that a policy may sound very fine and yet end in nothing. Before I commit myself to him I want to know who are the people who are acting with him. He cannot do everything himself, and a great deal must depend on his assoeiates. If he has a really good set of colleagues with him, and is able to combine with some of the best men in the country, then I shall feel per- fectly safe in supporting him. Till I know, however, who he is actin°. with I cannot give him my confidence.' In other word's, the prudent citizen in our system does refuse, and is quite right in refusing, a mysterious, detached, and independent leader. He wants to know what leader he is acting with, or, in other words, what is his party. You cannot, in fact, escape the party system in a free Govern- ment like ours. Of course it would be another matter if we had an autocratic King who had in effect the power to say to the people : Never you mind who are the men who are acting with him. Whoever I order to act with him will do so, and you, my subjects, will support my Minister and his colleagues because I tell you to do so.' Our Con- stitution, however, we are glad to say, was not made in Germany, and with us a Minister must depend upon the support of the people voluntarily rendered. to him.
To come to concrete facts, if Lord Rosebery wants to lead and rale he must tell us who are the men with whom he proposes to act,—tell, in fact, what is his party. Till, he does that the country, as we have said, "has no use" for him, and must, and we believe will, refuse absolutely to recognise that he is capable of fulfilling any patriotic function as the man outside and above party. Lord Rosebery, in truth, ought never to have abandoned the leadership of the Liberal party unless he meant to abandon public life altogether. He should have said : Either I will leave public life for good and all, or I will remain in my party. I am its leader at present, but if my followers depose me, I will either accept such deposition loyally and work under the new leader they choose, or if I find that impossible I will take the supreme step of revolt and will found a party of any own.' We do not, of course, desire, or approve of, the breaking up of parties, but Lord Rosebery would, in reality, have done less harm to the Liberal party by such a bold step than by resigning the leadership and yet still remaining in public life. Groups are bad, but secret groups are far worse than open groups, and Lord Rosebery's action, though not in name, did, in fact, create a Rosebery group. An open Rosebery group might have rejoined the other half of the party on some great issue. The secret Rosebery group has in truth poisoned the party.
We hold no brief against Lord Rosebery, and under stand and greatly admire his splendid intellectual gifts, but we cannot conceal from ourselves that by his restlessness, his sensitiveness, and his political fastidi- ousness he has ruined the Liberal party. That was a great injury to the nation. It would be still worse, however, if he were to mislead the public into thinking that it had any need for a statesman outside and above party, and so were to destroy what we believe with all its faults to be the antiseptic of popular representative institutions,—the party system.
Previous page
