TOPICS OF THE DAY.
" PEpolicy of laissez faire consists in bringing matters to a crisis and then allowing them to take their own course." The schoolboy who produced this brilliant definition hit upon almost an exact description of Mr. Balfour's system of conducting public affairs. He and his Ministers are always, through rashness, carelessness, or want of a proper appreciation of public opinion, bringing matters to a crisis, and then, with the utmost self-com- placency, allowing them to take their own course. By first philandering with Home-rule, and then surrendering to the Ulster Members, they brought the administration of Ireland to a crisis ; and now, apparently, they are letting things take their own course, quite indifferent as to where they may next find themselves landed. It looks also very much as if the same process were going on in the case of the Army. Probably we shall dis- cover in a week or two that a crisis has been brought about there also. But if it is, we may be certain that Mr. Balfour will propose to get out of the difficulties thus created by letting things take their own course. The best example, however, is afforded by the present state of the Fiscal controversy, and by what happened in the House of Commons on Wednesday night. During the past .year and a half the Government have been engaged in the apparently congenial task of bringing the condition of the unfortunate Unionist party to a crisis. By first encouraging Mr. Chamberlain to " go in and win," if he could; by getting rid of the Free-trade members of the Cabinet; by packing the remade Administration with Chamberlainites ; by refusing to do anything to prevent the local organisations being seized by Tariff Reformers ; .and; finally, by such acts of political hypnotism as the 'Edinburgh speech and the moving of the Previous Question only a' fortnight ago, Mr. Balfour brought the affairs of the Unionist party to a condition of crisis. This reached, he at once applied his famous remedy, and allowed everything and everybody to take their own course.
No doubt Mr. Balfour is delighted with the success of his policy, and considers that he has performed a most brilliant feat in bringing the pot to the boil and then whisking it off the fire before it boiled over. Possibly from the purely-House of Commons point of view he has indeed achieved great things. Of that he is a very much better judge than we can profess to be. All we know is that the effect of his action in the country will prove the very 'reverse of what Mr. Balfour desires. It will neither strengthen him nor maintain the unity of the Unionist party. A very little reflection will show that this is so. • In 'the country practically every elector has decided views on the Fiscal question, and knows quite clearly whether he is for or against the Chamberlain policy. The exceptions are the wirepullers in each constituency, who no doubt form their ideas much as do Members of Parliament. The people have made up their minds in regard to Free-trade and Protection. The Free-traders are dead against the 10 per cent. duty on manufactured goods. The Chamberlainites are strongly in favour of such a duty. And both sides are ready, nay, eager, to back their opinions by their votes. The question is in no sense an open one to them. Again, the voters do not in the least understand how a definite proposal such as the average 10 per cent. duty put forward by a leading statesman like Mr. Chamberlain, and backed by a powerful political organisation like the Tariff Reform League, can be treated as an academic matter about which politicians have a perfect right to hold no opinion one way or the other. Whatever Mr. Balfour may say, they realise that the Fiscal issue is before the country, and that Mr. Chamberlain's proposals in regard to taxes on manufactured goods are an essential part of that issue. When, then, they see the Government and the House of Commons deliberately declaring that Mr. Ainsworth's Motion is an abstract proposition which does not concern politicians, they merely feel that either the Government must be formed from men who are willing to say the thing which is not, or else is a body of Rip van Winkles with the House of Commons for their Sleepy Hollow. But for such an Administration and such a House of Commons the country has no use. In spite, then, of the quips and jokes of the Prime Minister, and of the gallant efforts of the Ministerial Press to represent Wednesday's debate as highly satisfactory, we feel sure that a deep impression has been made upon the electorate.
and one wholly unfavourable to Mr. Balfour, and in a lesser degree to Mr. Chamberlain. The electors like men who not only have opinions, but who stand up for them, and for such men they search in vain, either among those who talked platitudes on Wednesday, or those who stayed away and said nothing. If what happened on Wednesday had been a solitary incident, it might conceivably have been forgotten. But Mr. Balfour has assured us that exactly the same thing is to occur whenever in future the Fiscal question in any of its aspects is brought before Parliament. It is invariably to be treated as a matter unworthy of the consideration of the majority of the House. The net result of these proceedings is regarded in many quarters as a heavy blow to Chamberlainism. So in a sense it is ; but it would be exceedingly rash to argue from this fact that the understanding between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain has broken down. On the contrary, we believe that the understanding is as firm as ever, and that the two "accomplished whist-players" never felt more confidence in each other's loyalty. The fact that things are going against them in the game only makes their co-operation the closer. No doubt Mr. Balfour has of late, and under the stress of Parliamentary pressure, been obliged to do things which seem hostile to Mr. Chamberlain ; but they have only been done under compulsion, and entirely without any desire on the part of the Prime Minister to injure his late colleague. The situation, indeed, recalls that most poignant passage in Stevenson's " Kidnapped " where James of the Glens tells his friend Alan Breck, with deep emotion, that he will be obliged to "paper him,"—i.e., offer a reward for his capture as if be were an enemy, though in reality James is doing his best to further the fugitive's escape. Alan fully realises the necessity, and perfectly understands that being " papered" by James of the Glens will not mean either treachery or a change of feeling in his friend. In the same way, when Mr. Balfour is temporarily obliged to " paper " Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Chamberlain fully under- stands that it is only a move in the game, and that nothing hostile is intended. Whether when the Election comes Mr. Balfour will be obliged by the threatening state of political affairs actually to " paper " Mr. Chamberlain in his election address remains to be seen ; but even if that extreme step is taken, it will no doubt be with a'private assurance to Mr. Chamberlain that no ill is meant to him.
It is the fashion just now to talk of Mr. Balfour's exceeding cleverness in giving Mr. Chamberlain rope enough to hang himself. We are even told that Mr. Balfour all along meant to kill Chamberlainism with kindness, and that, in fact, Mr. Balfour has ruined Mr. Chamberlain by clinging to him till be was ready to throw him over the precipice. We do not ourselves for a moment believe that Mr. Balfour has played so base a game. It is much nearer the truth, in our opinion, and much more consistent with Mr. Balfour's character, to, say that he has simply lived from hand to mouth. The correctness of our view may be tested in the result. If Mr. Chamberlain has been injured by the fact that up till now Mr. Balfour has clung to him, Mr. Balfour has been equally injured by the fact that Mr. Chamberlain has per- sistently locked his arm in that of the Primo Minister. Mr. Balfour-and the Balfour policy have suffered equally with Mr. Chamberlain and the Chamberlain policy. The two leaders have stood by each other loyally in spite of the bickerings of their underlings, and they will fall together. The dodgings hither and thither that have occurred, first in moving the Previous 'Question to Mr. Winston Churchill's Motion, and then in treating Mr. Ainsworth's Motion as a matter of no importance, have done quite as much to discredit the Prime Minister and his policy as to discredit Chamberlainism. Mr. Balfour was full of pleasant jokes and of gay self-satisfaction when he called forth peals of laughter in his Wednesday's speech. It is difficult, however, as one reads that speech not to be reminded of Dryden's famous epigram on the Duke of Buckingham and his witty sallies to his creditors—
"He had his jest, and they had his estate."
Mr: Balfour' ad his jest on Wednesday night ; but while he raised foals of merriment in the House, he was throwing away hifi estate,—the estate of a statesman and a political leader. The confidence of the country at large, the belief that rightly or wrongly he is a man who knows his own mind, the knowledge that he is prepared to direct and inform public opinion, and not merely to wait on it,— that is the estate of a statesman, and that it is which Mr. Balfour has been squandering. While the House of Commons has been enjoying his sly hits, and the party Tapers and Tadpoles have been throwing up their caps in admiration of his astonishing cleverness, Mr. Balfour has been making himself bankrupt in the gold and gear of statesmanship.
Previous page
