We note with indignation the attempt to make a dead
set against Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and to lay the blame of our want of military preparation on his shoulders. Even if it were true (which we think most doubtful, and which certainly no one can be sure of, for Cabinets keep their secrets) that he refused the money asked for by the War Office, the responsibility for our difficulties would still rest, not on him, but on the War Secretary. If the War Secretary was refused money he deemed essential for military prepara- tions, and did not at once tender his resignation, he would be entirely unworthy of his post, and we utterly refuse to credit Lord Lansdowne with conduct so discreditable. The fact that the War Secretary did not resign, and that the Cabinet did not either dispense with the services of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or order him to give the money required, shows that the responsibility cannot be laid upon Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is ordered to do so by the Cabinet, gives the money asked for or resigns. If the order is not given the responsi- bility rests with those who did not give it.
Previous page
