TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. BALFOUR'S LEADERSHIP.
THE prospects of a Parliamentary Opposition depend upon two considerations. The first is the strength or weakness of its opponents. The second is its own internal condition. In regard to the first, nothing could well be more promising than the state of affairs at the present moment. The Liberal Government rests upon an unstable coalition. Unless it can secure the active support both of the Irish Members and of the Labour Party it must fall. But to secure this support is likely to become more and more difficult. No doubt if the Liberal Party itself did not exist it might be possible for the Ministry to conciliate the two groups. Unfortunately for them, however, the Liberal Party does still exist, if in a somewhat atrophied condition. There is therefore always the danger that if too many and too great concessions are made to the Irish the Liberal worm will turn. We admit that in theory the Government are always able to say to Mr. Redmond : " Do not press us too far as regards Home Rule, and especially Home Rule finance, for if you do we shall not be able to carry our own people with us," and, theoretically, again, Mr. Redmond ought to be amenable to this line of argu- ment. In practice, if the Government takes this line Mr. Redmond will in effect be sure to say : " We are sorry, but we are obliged to run these risks and to press you more than we ought to do, for if we do not we cannot carry Ireland with us. You must remember that if we compromise too much Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Healy will be able to undermine us in the consti- tuencies.'
Here is a most uncomfortable situation for a Government engaged in trying to devise a Home Rule Bill which will appear moderate and reasonable, even though it makes the people of England and Scotland pay some six or seven millions a year for the privilege of letting Ireland interfere with their domestic concerns, while they have not the right to interfere with hers, or even to see that the English money showered on Ireland is properly and fairly laid out. In addition to this the Government have got to consider how to placate the Labour Members and, still more, the Labour Unions, while preserving the country from starvation and disorder through anarchical strikes. Finally there is the hideous labyrinth of the In- surance Bill into which Mr. Lloyd George has led his colleagues. The Insurance Bill is bad enough by itself, but owing to its reintroduction at a moment when there is not time to pass it, if adequate discussion is allowed, a Parliamentary situation has arisen of no small peril. How the Insurance Bill and about six other Bills of im- portance are to be got through before Parliament is prorogued in the middle of December must be a veritable nightmare to members of the Cabinet who can spare time for reflection and are not altogether absorbed in making platform speeches about the kindheartedness of those who are going to give the working man ninepence change out of a fourpenny bit. Never was the position of a Government more difficult and pre- carious, and, therefore, never was the opportunity offered to a Parliamentary Opposition more promis- ing. And not only is the opportunity for damaging the Government beyond expectation good. The Opposition have the excellent fortune to possess a leader in the House of Commons who is absolutely unrivalled in his powers of Parliamentary criticism. Mr. Balfour is a past master in the art of opposition, and if any man can bring the Govern- ment down by the use of Parliamentary tactics it is he. Unfortunately if we turn from tke situation in which the Liberal Party is placed to discuss the internal condition of our own party we find that the evil plight of the Liberals is neutralized by the internal dissensions amongst the Unionists. Astounding as it appears, the Unionist Party, instead of closing its ranks and attacking the enemy at so great a disadvantage, has chosen this moment of all others to engage in that most futile of proceedings for a political party—a, dispute about the leadership. We are well aware that the founders of the Halsbury Club, the men who took the lead against Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne in the summer, are willing to make public protestations that they have not the least desire to oust Mr. Balfour from the leadership, and that they do not intend their action to show want of confidence in him in Lord Lansdowne. We do not, however, mean to let our minds be bemused or to help to bemuse those of our readers by pretending that we are taken in by these asseverations. We do not, in other words, intend to waste time in dis- cussing the intentions of the founders of the Halsbury Club. We will even assume that these intentions are in all cases of the very best. What we have to look at is, not intentions, but acts. Now there can be no doubt that the actions of the founders of the Halsbury Club are bound to weaken the authority, and so the efficiency, of Mr. Balfour's leadership. At the moment what he needs most for the work before him is the unabated confidence of the whole party, and that is what, is being withdrawn from him by the foundation of the Halsbury Club. We know, and the bulk of our readers know, perfectly well that there is a strong movement in a section of the Unionist Party against Mr. Balfour—a movement in favour of deposing him and choosing another leader. The foundation of the Halsbury Club lends support to that move-, ment. These are the facts, whatever may be the palliating arguments of official apologists, and we do not mean to blink them. As we said last week, even if it were possible to make out a strong case against Mr. Balfour's leadership it would be a capital crime against the party for dis- satisfied Unionists to press their point. There is no possibility of getting rid of Mr. Balfour. Whatever else may be his faults, he is a man of high courage and great tenacity of purpose, and we may be certain that he will not let himself be bluffed or bullied out of the party leadership by the threats of a cabal. The notion of turning him out by force when he is unwilling to go is ridiculous, for the very good reason that a majority of the party intend.to stand by him. This means that an attempt to get rid of Mr. Balfour can only have one end—the destruc-, tion of the Unionist Party. To put the matter in another way, there are quite enough people who mean to stand by Mr. Balfour at all costs to wreck the party. We are con- fident that if an attenipt were made to poll the Unionists in the House of Commons the anti-Balfourites would sager complete disaster. If Mr. Balfour liked to be merciless to his opponents he would only have to call a meeting of: his party and place his resignation in its hands. If he did so there would not be found a single Unionist of light' and leading to propose its acceptance. He would obtain a unanimous vote of confidence, which would place those critics who condemn him in private but dare not speak out in public in a very humiliating position. And not only is Mr. Balfour's position strong from the fact that, whether rightly or wrongly, a majority of the party mean to support him, but also from the fact that the anti-Balfourites have no leader to put in his place. They have attempted to cast Mr. Austen Chamberlain for that role, but there is no reason to imagine that Mr. Chamberlain would take the position even if it were offered to him. For ourselves, indeed, we are convinced that Mr. Austen Chamberlain, though, we think, he has shown weakness and want of judgment in taking part in the foundation of the Halsbury Club, is loyal to his chief. Mr. Austen Chamberlain is not of the stuff from which a political bravo is made. He is by nature honourable, sincere, and worthy of all trust. He may take a false step or two, but in the last resort we are sure he will play the game and refuse absolutely to stab Mr. Balfour in the back. What we have said of Mr. Austen Chamberlain may be said with equal certainty of the bulk of Mr. Balfour's colleagues, i.e., the men of Cabinet rank. They are not going to desert their chief. Here, then, are the facts. Mr. Balfour cannot be got rid of without shattering the Unionist Party to atoms, and even if he could be there would be no one to put in his place to reunite the party.
But, though the facts are as we have just stated them, we have no intention whatever of defending Mr. Balfour's leader- ship of the Unionist Party on such narrow grounds. Mr. Balfour is not merely a pis alder as a. party leader. We have not always seen eye to eye with Mr. Balfour, nor again have we approved of many of his acts of leader- ship. We say, however, with the most absolute conviction that we believe him to be not only the only possible leader of the party at the present moment, but that he is in many ways a specially effective leader for the existing situa- tion; a leader, that is, in whom the party can and ought to have confidence, and who is capable of leading it to victory if he be fairly treated and if he receive the confidence of the troops behind him—and more especially of the officers and non-commissioned officers of his army. Among the rank and file we do not believe that there is any dis- affection.
There is nothing about which there is more cant and nonsense talked than party leadership. While a party is succeeding, party leaders get credit for acts of heaven-born statesmanship which are in no sense due to them, but which are purely the result of accident. When, however, for any reason a political party becomes weakened and discredited, every piece of ill luck, every buffet of fortune, is put down to the incapacity of the leader. This is what has occurred in Mr. Balfour's case. He has been made the scapegoat of all the misfortunes of the Unionist Party and of all the rashness and folly of other men. Anyone who will look at the facts fairly will see at once how Mr. Balfour has suffered in this respect. It was not he who broke up the Unionist Party by the introduc- tion of the fiscal controversy. It may be true that Mr. Balfour has now become reconciled to Tariff Reform— very possibly he was always an anti-Free Trader—but if he had had his way he would certainly not have thrown down that apple of discord. In any case it does not rest with the Tariff Reformers to ask why he was not strong enough to prevent it from being thrown down. But though Mr. Balfour did not break up his party, he has had to bear the brunt of all the evils which have come from its disintegration, including the loss of the great democratic Lancashire constituencies to the cause of the Union, for that is what the Tariff Reform policy means in practical politics. The Unionist Party has been for the last eight years like a body of men floundering about in a morass and abusing and injuring each other in their efforts to get on to firm ground. While this process is going on it is no doubt human nature for the miserable and bemired flounderers to look out for somebody to abuse, and natural also that that somebody should be their leader. The fact remains, nevertheless, that it is not he who is responsible for their difficulties. However, we do not in the least want to cry over spilt milk. The question we most fully admit is now, not how we got into the mire, but how we are to get out of it. In our opinion there is only one way, and that is through the leadership of Mr. Balfour and therefore through continued confidence in him. If the party will only rally behind him he can and will, we believe, get us out ; but the rally must be a real one, and the confidence must be real, and not a matter of lip-service. If that true confidence is given to him we have little doubt that in a couple of years' time, or perhaps less, we shall have all the people who are now abusing Mr. Balfour turning round and finding that he is a Heaven-sent leader, and that the Unionist Party could not possibly be in better hands. In that happier hour we may again claim the privilege of criticism. Till it arrives no word shall fall from us to weaken Mr. Balfour's hands.
Feeling as we do that confidence in our leader, unity of purpose, and concentration of action are the things to be desired above all others for the Unionist Party, we shall say no more about the Halsbury Club. It would only mate the blunder of its foundation worse to indulge in recriminations against its founders. All we ask them, now that the club is founded, is to show their confidence in Mr. Balfour and to put an. end to the talk about his deposition, and to do this not by the expression of pious Opinions like Lord Halsbury's letter, but by giving him a loyal support. The first step is for the club to take the earliest possible opportunity of passing a vote of confidence in Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne. If they will do this Unionists will cordially sympathize with them in their attempts to show the people of this country how great is the need for putting an end to the rule of an unchecked House of Commons, and how necessary it is to keep the Constitutional question to the front. In conclusion we would ask Unionists every- where to be patient, and to remember that when a party once finds itself in the position in which the Unionist Party is at the present time it cannot be expected to win on its own merits or on its own legislative proposals. Beaten parties, and indeed all parties in opposition, win not by their own strength but by taking advantage of the failures and follies of their opponents. All that the Opposition can do is to keep themselves ready to take the helm the moment the owners of the vessel come to the conclusion that they want a new captain and a new crew. All the omens show that they will be conscious of this want in a very short time. But it must be remem- bered that the owners will not send for a new captain and a new crew, but will put up with those now in charge of the vessel if they see the alternative crew fighting among themselves and apparently unable to agree as to who is to be their captain. Anything, they will argue, is better than entrusting the ship of State to people who are squabbling among themselves.
Previous page
