PARTY FUNDS.
TO case: please abuse plaintiff's attorney." That 1.1 well-worn story of the barrister's instructions has been strikingly illustrated by the way in which the Opposi- tion Press his received our comments upon the relations between Mr. Rhodes and the Liberal party. Our critics have said little or nothing about the true merits of the question, but have contented themselves with general in- vective against ourselves. We cannot profess to be greatly moved by these attacks, and we certainly do not intend to be deflected from the true points at issue by noticing them, or to wander off into a discussion whether our original words summarising the effect of Mr. Boyd's allegations were too strong. It is, of course, possible that when the correspondence is published in full it may be shown that we should have chosen other and different words to describe the transaction. If so we shall not hesitate to make whatever qualifications are right and necessary, for we do not hold, as Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman appears to do, that if you have used language that proves to be too strong you have no . need to withdraw or to modify it. But as we have said, the ques- tion of the strength-of our language is not the real issue, though it may be very convenient for the Liberal Press to pretend that it is. What is really of importance in the whole matter, and is the point about which we . care, and care greatly, is the general question of party funds and their _proper conduct and management. That is a matter which we believe to be of the profoundest and most vital • importance. - If- we can do anything to clear men's mind on • the subject, and to make party managers on. both sides more careful and more keenly scrupulous in the future in this respect, we shall feel amply cempensated for all the vituperation—most of it., we admit, due far more to muddleheadedness than to any- approaching malignity—with which we have been assailed.
As we. have pointed out repeatedly in these columns regard to other issues, party politicians cannot be toe careful'and too minutely solicitous in all that concerns questions of money. Itis not enough for them to know that -personally they have clean hands and pure. motives. They must keep clear of the possibility of any sort of financial entanglement, real or even only apparent. So with the management - of party funds the utmost discretion is required. Central party funds are, it is asserted, absolutely necessary for the carrying. out of the party system, and . we are willing for the moment to accept that assertion, • though personally we are inclined to think that the need is a good deal exaggerated. We merely demand that such funds should. be managed in such a way as, to keep the party free from dangerous external influences and damaging entanglements. If not, and if the party funds are to be open purses into .which any millionaire who chooses is to be allowed to pour his money, exacting at the same time terms and conditions, we shall run the greatest possible danger of . having our parties, and so our politics, con- trolled by men of wealth who stand outside the party system, but who, as their ambitions or their interests prompt, use the power_ of the purse to sway parties now one way and now the other. It is said that already in America the great millionaires, who seldom profess to be regular party men, and who certainly never take an open and active share in party politics, nevertheless give large sums to _ the campaign funds with the intention of having their say as to the party policy. This is a danger which we firmly believe threatens this country, and which can only be averted by making the party managers feel that they must be very careful not to accept cheques from persons who are not regular and recognised members of their party, and who attempt to make such external subscriptions conditional.
In our view, the question in the case of the accept- ance of Mr. Rhodes's subscription turns largely upon whether he was or was not in 1892 a regular and recog- nised member of the Liberal party. If he was a regular party man, then Mr. Schnadhorst might presumably accept from him a donation to the party funds without misgiving and in the usual way. But can any reasonable person say that Mr. Rhodes was then, any more than he is now, a member of the Liberal party? The test of a party man is the answer to the question,—Does he follow the party leader ? But at that time—i.e., in 1892—who answered to this description ? There can only be one answer,—Mr. Gladstone. At that time Mr. Gladstone was in the plenitude of his power, and every Liberal professed to follow him. Can it possibly be contended • that Mr. Rhodes was a follower' of Mr. Gladstone ? He was no more a follower of Mr. Gladstone than he was of Mr. Morley or of Sir William Harcourt, or of any other • Little Englander. He might conceivably have been willing to be regarded as a follower of Lord Rosebery, but Lord Rosebery was then a perfectly loyal follower of -Mr. Gladstone, and to follow Lord Rosebery meant there- fore to follow Mr. Gladstone. But in truth the contention that Mr. Rhodes was in 1892 a regular party man and a follower of Mr. Gladstone is ridiculous. He no doubt had given a cheque of £10,000 to Mr. Parnell on conditions, and for all we know he may have described himself as a man of liberal ideas, but in the party sense a Liberal and follower of Mr. Gladstone he was not. What he was known to the world as in 1892 was a great capitalist, a fervent and uncompromising Imperialist, a despiser of party distinctions, a Colonial Premier, the real head of the Chartered Company, and the donor of £10,000 to the Pamellite funds. Of course, if it appears from the correspondence- that Mr. Rhodes: told. Mr. Sclmadhorst that he had come to the conclusion that the Liberal: party - was after all the party to which a man of his views ought to belong, and that henceforth he desired to be regarded. as a member of the Liberal party, and wished definitely to join that body, we agree that the Liberal managers could not be expected to refuse their new reernit and his cheque. But we shall be very much surprised if . Mr. Rhodes thus entered the Liberal party in 1892. What we expect happened was that Mr. Rhodes offered his sub- seription on condition that ho was assured that the Liberals if they came in would not leave Egypt, and that nothing was said as to bis.joining the party.. • . . We cannot better summarise what we believe to be the -sound and -true view of the whole question than -by quoting from-an:admirably sane and judicious leader in last Satur- day's Morning Post. It declares that the obvious moral to be drawn from the whole controversy is: "that donations to party funds cannot be accepted with impunity from persons who do not belong to the party. We should like to add that such a gift should not be accepted unless the object and reason of the gift is fully understood and approved by the party as a whole, or, at least, by those responsible for the policy of the party." Curiously enough, the Manchester Guardian in its leader of last Saturday carries this principle even farther. " The one principle," it says, " above all others which must regulate the acceptance of subscriptions to party funds is that such subscriptions must be absolutely free from any- thing of the nature of a bargain. By this we do not mean only an express stipulation. We mean that a man offering a, subscription has no business to ask any ques- tions about the future policy of the party, and that if he asks such questions, implying that the gift depends on the answer, correspondence with him should at once be closed. It is extremely difficult to believe that any responsible Liberal in 1892 can have violated this rule of conduct. Should it prove to be so, the party will have an account to settle with the delinquent." Our only objection to this view is that we consider that a bond-fide member of a party, before renewing a previous subscription which proves him to be a member of the party, has a right to inquire as to the views of the party on a particular point. Taken generally, however, both these criticisms strike us as excellent. Their general tenor is endorsed by the Western Morning News (August 19th), which makes the best 'possible use of the incident by pointing to the real and . obvious danger that lies in the loose 'treatment of party funds. " Imperialists," it says, " should be the last to -complain of the retention of Egypt, but when one millionaire gives money to the party fund. on condition that his policy shall prevail, and writes to the wire-pullers to insist upon his bargain when he thinks it in danger, and a company promoter offers a similar sum for a title which he did not get, it is about time that there should be a clear understanding as to the grounds on which contribu- tions to the party fund are received. What guarantee is there that in future some millionaire will not enrich a party on condition that a dangerous policy is carried out before the public have time to stop it ! " The last sentence, which we have ventured to place in italics, contains with admirable force and clearness the gist of the whole matter. It is, as we have said, for this very reason that we have taken the matter up so warmly, and when the public in general on both sides realise the true point at issue they will, we believe, agree absolutely with our contentions.
We are specially glad that the Western Morning News • has included in its strictures the matter of the contribution of a notorious company promoter to the Unionist funds. The incident has been most absurdly thrown in our face as if it somehow affected the present controversy. We believe, as a matter of fact, that the cheque sent by Mr. Hooley to the Unionist party funds was returned, but our readers may be assured that in any matter of this kind we shall be willing to condemn the Unionist party no less strongly than we condemned their opponents. Naturally we are more, not less, anxious that our own party should maintain the highest possible standard in this matter. For eirample, if it can be shown that the Unionist party funds accepted a contribution from Mr. Rhodes after he had given the £10,000 to Mr. Parnell, we should. not hesitate to denounce such acceptance as disgraceful. But we do not for a moment believe that any transaction of the kind has ever occurred, and we merely take 'this illustration to show that we have raised the whole question in no narrow party spirit, but as a matter of vital public interest. As we have said, what we desire to see is a clear and definite understanding as to the con- ditions under which the managers of party funds may accept contributions. Once loose and flabby ideas are .allowed to prevail in the matter we shall find our politics and our party system at the mercy of the men with the long-purses, who prefer, as they say, to stand outside and above party. A, friendly correspondent congratulates us on our determination to have " a clean up," as he expresses it, on the whole question of contributions and contributors to party funds. We gladly accept his phrase. What we want and mean to do our best to obtain, is to see "a clean up" on the whole subject.
Previous page
