APPOINTMENTS.
WE do not think that anything is to be gained by con- tinual. girding at the Government for appointing Lord Northcliffe. If before the event we had been asked whether Lord Northcliffe was in all the circumstances the light man to send to America—to "succeed Mr. Balfour," as Lord Northcliffe's own newspapers tell us, or not to succeed him but to take up an entirely new job, as Lord Curzon would have us understand—we should not have given an affirmative answer. Now, however, that the appointment is made and revocation or recall is entirely out of the question, continued criticism can only do what we should all deplore— 'weaken Lord Northcliffe in his work; _And produce an impression in America that we are treating the American Government and people with levity.
If the question of appointments is considered in the abstract, it will be at once apparent that a Government must be allowed a free hand in this respect. When the nation and the House of .Commons entrusted the duty of ruling this country to Mr. Lloyd George and his colleagues, they entrusted them also with the right to appoint the instruments of government. That being so, it would be a patent absurdity to attempt to hamper their choice or to put certain, men under a ban. In the matter of appointments, as in the rest of their policy, the Government must be judged by the result. If they deli- berately tell us, as in effect they do, that in Lord Northcliffe's appointment they have, in their opinion, put the right man in the right place, we must at a time of crisis like the present acquiesce and let it be known that we await the event. If the appointment succeeds, there is no more to be said about it. If, however, it fails, their responsibility will be admittedly specially heavy. Obviously the unusual appointment of a man without any previous record of public service and with- out special training, an untried man in fact, places an extra weight of responsibility on those who make the appointment.
Though we do- not think that any good can come of pur- suing a policy of pinpricks in regard to Lord Northcliffe, we are by no means prepared to say that Lord Buckmaster did wrong to take the line he took in the House of Lords. His intervention was useful for the following reason. It has made it absolutely clear to the nation that the Government accept the fullest responsibility for Lord Northcliffe's appointment. The net result of the debate was to ask the Government two things : (1) whether they were prepared to say that in appointing Lord Northcliffe they were appointing the best man they could find for the vacant post ; and (2) whether they were prepared to say that the appointment was not only might in itself, but made in the right way and on the advice of, or at any rate with the complete acquiescence of, the Minister most likely to be able to give a sound opinion on the subject ? That Minister is of course Mr. Balfour. He presides with the full confidence of the country over our external relations. He has lately been in touch with all the leading men in America, and he was therefore in a position to say exactly what kind of man was wanted to fill the place now filled by Lord Northcliffe, and to advise whether Lord Northcliffe had the personal qualifications required.—Remember that Mr. Balfour has known Lord Northcliffe for a long term of years, and remember also that he is the very last man in the world to be influenced in the slightest degree by Lord Northcliffe's attacks upon him and attempts to prevent him from being included in the present Government.—One of Lord North- cliffe's newspapers, no doubt for what it believed good reasons, desired to keep Mr. Balfour out of office, and declared with passionate emphasis that the post he was fitted to fill was not the Foreign Office, but the headship of some such institution as Greenwich Hospital.
To these questions, virtually put to him by Lord Buck- master, Lord Curzon, as we understand his speech, replied in the affirmative. if Lord Curzon would not admit that the Times was right in saying that Lord Northcliffe " succeeded " Mr. Balfour, he accepted the most complete responsibility for the appointment. In effect, he declared that the Govern- ment had appointed Lord Northcliffe because they believed that in the circumstances he was the best man they could send. But Lord Curzon's words conveyed more than this. They implied a complete repudiation of the suggestion that the Government appointed Lord Northcliffe out of any desire to get rid of him, or, again, because they wished to discharge an obligation due to him for putting them into office—as has been alleged in some quarters—or, further, to ensure Lord Northcliffe's support for the future. In fact, Lord Curzon met the issue fairly and squarely and replied in substance : We thought Lord Northcliffe the man best fitted for the post, and so appointed him." As regards the question whether the Government also accepted full responsibility for the way in which the appointment was made, the answer may at first sight seem a little less plain. We note that Lord Curzon would not say that Mr. Balfour had been con- sulted or had agreed to the appointment. But that perhaps was a piece of official reticence. We can well understand a man of Lord Curzon's experience in affairs arguing : " It would be a great mistake to allow Peers or Commoners to cross-examine Ministers as to the exact way in which appoint- ments were made, and as to who was in favour of them or who against them. All the public are entitled to ask is whether the Government take responsibility for an appointment. When the Government say they do, as in fact they do when they appoint, everything else must be held to follow from that. If minute cross-examination were allowed, we should ultimately be forced to supply shorthand notes of the dis- cussions in Cabinet about appointments. When we appoint a man it must be deemed that we regard him as the right man appointed in the right way." We hold, then, that we are not in the least overstating the case when we say that the general sense of Lord Curzon's speech was that the Govern- ment were prepared to accept the fullest possible responsibility both for the appointment and for the way in which it was made.
That being so, we say once more that the nation must now wait and judge by the event. If the appointment succeeds, no patriotic man, however grave were his original misgivings, will do anything but rejoice and candidly admit his mistake. If, on the other hand, Lord Northcliffe does not prove to have the requisite qualities of patience and gravity in action, if he is awed by rumour, depressed by the accidents of bad fortune, or over-elated by momentary gusts of good fortune, the Government must bear the burden of failure, and failure in a most critical matter. It will be no excuse for them to assert that they could not find any one with the qualities we have just named as essential. They are the characteristic qualities of all our best public servants. They may in fact belong, and we sincerely hope they do belong, to Lord North- cliffe. They certainly arc not rare in Englishmen.
One word more. While we await the event, no honest, no patriotic man who may now feel strongly against the appointment, and is inclined to prophesy risks and dangers, must do anything to help his prophecies to come true. That would not only be a gross act of injustice, but pure treason to the country. 'Whatever doubts we may have as to the fitness of the appointment must now be rigorously suppressed. It is the duty of every good citizen to give Lord Northcliffe a helping hand, and to refrain henceforth from personal criticism.
Previous page
