INDEPENDENT LIBERALS.
MR. GOSCHEN, in his speech at Ripon last Monday, made some interesting remarks on the unnecessary cynicism of the political world in criticising the position of ex-Cabinet Ministers who offer the Government an inde- pendent support. It is always more or less taken for granted that men in this position, though they offer an independent support, really watch for a suitable opportunity of dangerous
attack. "My dear Goschen," said a Ministerialist to him, "it has generally been found that those who are outside the Cabinet in that way become very candid friends, and rather severe critics." And no doubt that expresses very fairly the general impression of the outer world, who, justly or unjustly, will impute to the unsuccessful minority of any administrative group, a feeling of soreness, if not grudge, against the majority,—a feeling which, sooner or later, is likely enough to drive them into active hostility. As a matter of fact, this imputation, like other imputations in which society indulge, is often quite unfounded. It would be difficult, we imagine, to find at present more loyal supporters of the Government on every subject except the particular point on which they find it necessary to oppose it, than Mr. Bright, Mr.
Forster, and Mr. Goschen, and we do not feel sure that we might not add than the Duke of Argyll. We doubt whether any one of the four would feel the least suspicion of pleasure, or, indeed, anything but positive chagrin, in the appearance of any probability that the present Government might be driven from office. Nor is there anything to wonder at in such a condition of things, if it be so. None of these able men can feel that any slight has been done to them by their former colleagues. Mr. Goschen was not included in the Government, for the very excellent reason that he is deliberately opposed to one of the most im- portant measures which the Government are pledged to pass ; and so far from depreciating his ability, they have done all in their power; by sending him to Constantinople, and bearing witness to the great service which he did them, to show how highly they value his services. The Duke of Argyll found it impossible to approve the Irish Land Measure of the Government, and separated himself from the present Administration on that question alone. Mr. Forster strongly disapproved setting Mr. Parnell and the Land-leaguers free before they had given some sort of pledge as to the use they would make of their liberty. Mr. Bright was quite unable to sanction the Naval and Military operations in Egypt. There is no sort of discredit attaching to such differences of opinion as these, and no opening, therefore, for the mutual reproaches and recriminations which have sometimes made of Ministerial resignations the cause of great party splits. It is childish to suppose that because an English gentleman cannot support a particular policy which almost all his friends can and do support, he must cherish a petty resentment against all those who decline to be convinced by his arguments, to the point of cherishing the wish to upset them on other issues on which, had he continued in co-operation with them, he would probably have had no fault to Sad with the policy pursued. It may be quite true. as Mr. Goschen's old friend remarked, that seceders from a Cabinet often are found to be extremely candid friends, and very severe critics. But when that is so, it will usually be found that the seeds of difference had been germi- nating for a long time before the secessions took place, and had involved a good deal of personal distrust and coolness between the seceders and the Administration which they deserted. When General Peel, Lord Cranborne, and Lord Carnarvon left the late Lord Derby's Administration, because it gave in its adherence to democracy in 1867, doubtless they felt like the true upholders of the Conservative cause against a Government which had betrayed it ; and in a case of that kind, it was to be expected, as it actually proved, that the candour would be extreme and the criticism severe. So, too, when a Minister virtually leaves one party for the other, as the late Lord Derby himself did, nearly fifty years ago, on the question of appropriating some of the revenues of the Irish Church to more national purposes, it is natural to expect some- thing more than candour and something more than severity in the attitude assumed towards former colleagues. Mr. Disraeli could hardly be called candid, even in the most unpleasant sense, towards Sir Robert Peel ; and to speak of his criticisms as severe would be applying to the most unmeasured denuncia- tion the language appropriate to caustic remark. So, too, when Lord John Russell turned Lord Palmerston out of office for not submitting his despatches to the Queen before sending them off, there was good reason to expect, what actually happened, that Lord Palmerston would take an early oppor- tunity of turning the tables on Lord John Russell. These, however, are cases where the split either involved personal pique, or else involved a positive change of front on either the one side or the other, so that it was hardly possible for those who remained where they were not to accuse those who changed their principles, of something approaching to moral obliquity.
Where there is no question of mutual recriminations of this kind,—and certainly there has been no question of them on any of the matters dividing Mr. Goschen, the Duke of Argyll, Mr. Forster, and Mr. Bright from the present Cabinet,— it is difficult to understand what reason there can be for acrimony, unless on the coarse ground of political jealousy and envy,—the ground suggested in the picture referred to by Mr. Goschen of the starving boy," out in the cold "himself, and looking in on the jolly Christmas fare which his old companions are sharing within. That politicians on the successful side who do not get office always resent being excluded from it, is, we believe, quite untrue, though we have no doubt that the influ- ence and importance which belong to high office are usually, in spite of the responsibility and labour, more or less enjoyed by those who hold it, and more or less desired by those who do not hold it. Still, reasonable men do not lose their reasonableness simply because they would like to have what they have not got. Mr. Goschen knows perfectly well what the difficulty is which prevents his former colleagues from asking for his co-operation, and is quite con- tent to admit the soundness of the reason ; and the same may be said of the actual seceders. Each of them, no doubt, thinks that if his advice had been taken, the Cabinet would be on stronger ground than that on which it now stands ; but each is aware that he cannot have the satisfaction both of putting his protest in a public and emphatic form, and also of con- tinuing to co-operate with those who have rejected that protest. This being so, there is nothing left but either to give cordial support to the Government whenever they agree with it, or to gain the reputation of treating a Government from which they have once seriously dissented as so discredited by that dissent as to be quite unworthy of general confidence. That would not be a reasonable or creditable attitude to take up. And it is very much to the credit of the leading Liberals who stand aloof from the Government, that they have never attempted to take it up.
Mr. Forster's speech at Leeds shows him to be as honest and hearty in his general support of the Government from one side, as Mr. Goschen is in his support of it from the other.
Mr. Goschen supports it from the point of view of a Liberal who rather distrusts democracy, and does not wish to see democracy more fully developed in this country than it already is. Mr. Forster supports it from the point of view of a Liberal who thoroughly trusts democracy, and who does wish to see democracy more or less fully developed in this country by the next Reform Bill. Here, then, we see, or think we see, where the cleavage between the Government and the Independent Liberals is very likely to increase, but to increase without any sort of discredit either to the Independent Liberals, on the one side, or to the Government, on the other. It may be taken for granted that Mr. Goschen will throw his whole weight into the scale of the most moderate view of Redistribution which can claim any Liberal authority at all. He will obviously adhere to Lord Hartington's view that the principle of Redis- tribution should not rest on mete numbers ; that some regard should be taken, we will suppose, to the value of property held in any represented district;, that some regard, too, should be had to variety in the kinds of interest represented, the less powerful interests having, for instance, something more than their numerical weight in the scale of representation, and the more powerful interests somewhat less. Doubtless, Mr. Goschen will also take into account indirect representation, as,
for example, the moral influence of the Capital, and of the Press of the Capital, as a reason for assigning London less than its full numerical share of representatives in the House of Commons ; and he will wish to be generous, for the same reason,
in giving distant portions of the country, like Scotland and even Ireland, something more than their exact numerical share of representation. And indeed, generally, Mr. Goschen will deprecate any very extensive changes, and try to keep the redistribution within historical limits. If we understand Mr. Forster aright, he would throw his whole influence into the opposite school, into what may be called the school of the electoral districts" principle, the school which would separate great cities into wards, and give each ward a single representative, the school which would make light of all considerations derived from the indirect representa- tion of various interests, the school which would hardly even take property into account as a separate factor in consider- ing the redistribution. We may fairly expect, too, that the Duke of Argyll will side in this matter with Mr. Goschen; while Mr. Bright will side probably with Mr. Forster. Here, then, we shall undoubtedly have a line of cleavage likely to widen, rather than to diminish,—but to widen on grounds of principle, and not in the least on those petty personal grounds of grudge to which the suspicions entertained of Independent Liberals so often refer. Mr. Goschen will probably become more Conservative than he would have been, had he been able to join the Cabinet and to take part in its discussions; Mr. Forster will probably become more democratic than he would have been, had he remained in the Cabinet and joined in its discussions. Each will lean more on his own view than he would have done had he remained associated with the re- sponsibility of his colleagues, and each will, in consequence, be often regarded as to some extent influenced in fighting against the Cabinet, by political pique. For our own parts, we do not believe that that will have anything to do with the matter. Pique, when it really causes a break-up of a Cabinet, of course has its influence on the combinations of the future. But when it does not exist at first, we do not think that it springs up afterwards. Doubtless, Mr. Goschen and Mr. Forster will both go farther in their own direction, when isolated, than they would have gone had they remained under the collective influence of men whom they respected. But that will not be due to the influence of political grudge, but to the very natural effect of isolation in driving a man back upon the principle which has got the control of his own individual thought.
Previous page
