THE TWO LIBERAL LEADERS. T HE recent speeches of Lord Rosebery
to the National Liberal Club, and of Sir Henry Campbell-Banner- man to the electors of Darlington, deserve a little more attention than they have received. The Liberals, it is evident, are greatly encouraged by the hope which now exists of the termination of the war. They believe, with some reason, that as soon as it has terminated the country, which never really attends to two things at one time, will begin to devote itself once more to internal questions, to taxation, to education, to the suffrage, to the long series of costly experiments usually described as philanthropic reforms. We rather distrust their forecasts, believing that in the present attitude of the great military Powers the country will see reason for increasing its insurances, perfecting its measures of defence, and trying if it cannot by far-sighted preparations strengthen its grip upon the endless populations whom it has fallen to its lot to govern, and, if possible, raise in the scale of humanity and happi- ness. Still, this is the belief of Liberals, whose permanent weight in the community should never be underrated, and so believing, they think that with internal questions occupying the general mind they have again a chance of obtaining office and political power. They are therefore most anxious, as their immediate cause of disunion is about to disappear, to emphasise their unity. That is the real object of the two speeches we have mentioned, and it is well worth while, in view of the coming conflict, to study them carefully, and detect, if possible, the methods by which the present leaders hope to secure a victory. Those methods are pretty plain, and, what is more important still, they are substantially in agreement. It is true that Lord Rosebery repeats in other and much more cautious words his faith in the necessity for " a clean slate," and that. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, though he was so happy that the humorous side of his mind was much in evidence—he is a first-rate story-teller —could not refrain from a rather savage outburst of per- sonal petulance. He never can, having a curious Highland instinct that whenever his views are attacked, say upon the quantities of cordite needed for the defence of the country, his personal honour is in some way assailed. He accused Mr. Chamberlain of being a noisy bee who collects vitriol as well as honey—which is a funny contribution to natural history—and declared that in speaking of the " methods of barbarism " pursued in South Africa he meant to reflect not on the Army employed there, but on the Cabinet at home, which is much as if a prisoner at Bow Street when denouncing the " brutality of the police" should affirm that he intended only to censure Mr. Ritchie. These things, however, are incidentals, the main purpose of both speeches being to point to the subjects that Liberals should take up.
Of these the first is finance. Lord Rosebery, it is true, avoids details on that point, and is rather careful not to recommend economy in general ; but he laughs like the rest of the world over the proposal to double the tax on cheques, and is solemn in his denunciation of the shilling Corn-duty as contrary to the principles of Free-trade. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, as becomes the representative of the Radical wing, is a good deal more bitter, stating that general expenditure has been increased by £31,000,000 a year, and intimating that most of this has gone in " doles to the landlords and the parsons." He declares that Mr. Chamberlain has spent £228,000,000, and that the capitalised value of a wasted £30,000,000 a year is twelve hundred millions, by which sum he suggested the credit of the country had been reduced, —a really delicious piece of exaggeration. One wonders if whenever Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman pays £300 a year for the " jobbing" of a carriage and pair, he reflects that he is the poorer by £12,000. The second subject offered to the party is the Education Bill, which Lord Rosebery boldly affirmed would " deprive us of real and effective education, and sterilise education for generations to come." As Lord Rosebery is a master of words, and can always when he pleases say something pungent, we can only imagine that he saw many Nonconformists among his audience, and never having studied the Bill, indulged himself and them in the gloomiest prophecy he could think of, a prophecy which has this advantage, that only the next generation can prove it to be futile. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was only a little less vague. He did not stoop to discuss the arrangements by which the Bill will do mischief, but affirmed that it would " put money into the hands of sectarians," meaning the Church of England, " for clerical purposes," which may mean the purchase of cassocks, or may mean the diffusion of belief in the Catechism. And lastly, there is the pacification of South Africa. Upon this Sir H. Campbell - Bannerman's opinion would have been invaluable, for he declares that all his opinions about the war " have been justified by the event; " but he refrained from giving any, lest perhaps he should inspire Lord Milner and Mr. Chamberlain with a wisdom they do not at present possess. Lord Rosebery, however, made more of the topic. He evidently regarded it as one upon which the Liberal party might conduct a successful struggle with their opponents,—whose policy, nevertheless, they do not know. " If," he said, " the Liberal party, which about Christmas seemed to be united on that subject, and which seemed to have attracted many adherents from other camps to their views on that subject, cannot make them prevail in the Parliamentary debates which must ensue on the pacification of South Africa, then, again, I say that the Liberal party will have lost a great chance, or must have been deprived in some mysterious way of some vitalising principle."
Will this programme secure its two objects,—viz., to attract the country, and to rebind the shattered divisions of the Liberal army ? We doubt it greatly. Neither of the speeches leaves the impress ion that the party has at last found a great and original leader, and the proposals them- selves will scarcely arouse enthusiasm or produce the much-desired unification. No doubt a proposal to reduce expenditure is often popular; but then expenditure upon what ? It would very soon be found, were Liberals in office, that they could not recall the " doles " or reduce greatly the cost of turning South Africa into the most valuable of Colonies, and that for the rest the cause of increased expenditure was mainly the increase of popular demands, especially in the direction of education. There would remain the national defences, and upon these the country would watch economies in alarm, fearing they might be economies in payments for insurance, and the Liberal party itself would be rent by cleavages as deep as those which divide sane Imperialists from Little Englanders. You cannot either govern or protect a fourth of mankind with a corporal's guard, and men like Mr. Asquith or Sir E. Grey or Sir H. Fowler would consider outlays which to Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Labouchere seemed the wildest extravagance as only necessary, indeed inevitable, precautions. Liberals would split even in the Cabinet over the number of men needed, the number of the ships, and the amount of reserve muni- tions wanted to keep the country safe, and would divide even their own electors into two warring factions. As to the pacification of South Africa, we doubt if there are even two opinions, unless, indeed, it is upon the subject whether laws should be published in English and Taal, or in English only ; while on education the Liberals misread the feeling of the masses as completely as they do upon the • Temperance question. The clergy, and the clerically minded of all denomi- nations, care much probably about " sectarian " details, but the bedy of the people are anxious only that their children should " have a chance " through effective education, and that it should be for themselves tolerably cheap. They will allow anything to be spent upon good schools, provided that they are good and that they are not themselves directly charged. Their real feeling, in fact, is that of the Jew tradesman who told Dr. Rogers that he wished his son to attend Bible classes, for he himself at home "could keep him a Jew." Before Liberal leaders can create a majority they will, we think, have to make more attractive offers.
Previous page
