LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE SUCCESSION TO THE LIBERAL LEADERSHIP. [To on EDITOR ON on "ssacntoe."1
Sia,—Your article of December 17th on "The Succession to the Liberal Leadership" raises one of the most important and interesting political questions of the day. The four men named in the article as the only individuals whose political position and qualifications place them (so to speak) "in the running" for the assumption of the leadership after Mr. Gladstone, are Sir William Harcourt, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Henry Fowler, and Sir George Trevelyan. I have no wish to discuss the relative merits of these distinguished politicians ; the remarks which the article induces me to make (with your permission) have a different object in view.
It is stated in the article that the leadership in the hands of a Peer could " hardly be anything but nominal as regards the House of Commons ;" and it is concluded that a man like Lord Rosebery (though you do not apparently ignore his claims) cannot be taken into account in any forecast about the Liberal leadership.
I do not dispute the premiss ; but I venture to question the conclusion, notwithstanding that it is the House of Commons whence the Administration of the day must derive its real power. Lord Rosebery is, as you will probably admit, a man of great parts and remarkable power. He has shown himself to be a most able administrator in the office which, more than any other department, puts administrative capacities to the test. He is known, respected, and admired throughout the diplo- matic world. He is essentially in touch with the democratic tendencies of the age. He possesses powers of oratory in which wit, humour, keen sense of debate, courage, and grace all abound. He is a man of consummate dexterity and manifold resource. His wealth and social position place him above all sordid considerations with which the temptations of office have, unfortunately, too close a connection. He was one of the earliest apostles of the newest article in the Liberal-Radical creed ; indeed, some time before Mr. Gladstone launched his Home-rule scheme, Lord Rosebery (as is well known) had advocated considerable constitutional changes in the direction of Federation, which, among other things, might conduce to the solution of the Irish problem. He has the fighting power of Sir William Harcourt, the moderation and fairness of Mr. John Morley, the robustness of Mr. Fowler, and the polish of Sir George Trevelyan. He is possessed of an innate genius for statesmanship. My contention is that, when a party is fortunate enough to have such a man in its foremost ranks, there are con- siderations of no small weight which, ao far from disqualifying
him for the assumption of the leadership because he is a Peer, make it desirable that the leadership should be reposed in him.
To the leadership of a party, the office of Prime Minister, when that party has secured a majority in the country, naturally belongs ; and I submit that there is much to be said in favour of entrusting that office to a member of the House of Lords, when his other qualifications are equal, if not superior, to those of his colleagues.
My belief is that many of the blunders in administration and mistakes in policy committed by successive Governments, are in no small degree attributable to the fact that the Prime Minister is usually overweighted by the duties of his office; and I hold that this must be the case when the Prime Minister occupies the position of Leader of the House of Commons, as he has done during about eighteen years out of the last quarter of a century. The duties attaching to the office of Prime Minister have long been heavy; they are now overwhelming. The Prime Minister has not only to preside at Cabinet Councils, to be in constant communication with the Sovereign, to dispose of patronage, to smooth over difficulties, to deal with personal questions, to shape generally the policy of his Administration at home and abroad ; he ought also to assist in the construction of all measures to be submitted to Parliament, to advise on all administrative and executive questions of any moment, to attend closely to the work of the Foreign Office, to be conversant with all important Colonial and Indian questions ; to have sufficient leisure to look ahead, instead of "living from hand to month," and only dealing with matters when they have become really urgent ; to be a referee easily accessible to all his colleagues,—in short, to exercise a general supervision over all the administrative departments.
I submit that such duties, if they are to be fulfilled with real efficiency, are hardly compatible with the present leadership of the House of Commons, which constitutes such a heavy tax on the time and strength of a Minister. The tax, indeed, is so great as nearly to justify the present unprecedented and anomalous arrangement whereby the office of the First Lord of the Treasury, involving no departmental work, has been bestowed on Mr. W. H. Smith.
My conclusion, therefore, is that, contrary to common belief there are certain distinct advantages in having a Peer as leader of a party and First Minister of the Crown which at any rate go far to counterbalance the disadvantages resulting from such an arrangement; and that, consequently, Lord Rosebery is in no sense debarred by the accident of birth from assuming the lead of one of the great parties of the State. I venture to think that it is to him that the Liberal Party will do most wisely to look as the man on whose shoulders Mr. Gladstone's mantle may most worthily and befittingly fall, to whom they can without fear entrust their destinies, and in whom they can without mis-
givings place their confidence.—I am, Sir, Sic, C. S.
Previous page
