TOPICS OF THE DAY.
" OUR HELPLESS GOVERNMENT."
" OUR helpless Government,"—so runs the phrase of the Daily Chronicle, and the Daily Mail is hardly less condemnatory when it talks about the possibility of its "lingering faith in the Government" being justified. Unquestionably at the present moment there does exist among a certain portion of the public—or perhaps we should rather say of the Press—a strong feeling that the Government are not doing their best for the country, and that somehow or other—no one ever specifies exactly how— they are not up to the mark, or capable of fulfilling the wishes and expectations of the nation. The Press has, in fact, succeeded in creating an atmosphere of distrust, and people who as a rule think very little, and certainly know very little, of foreign affairs, have got it into their heads that the coach is being badly driven, and that the driver does not know the road. In regard to this vague and nervous talk, we desire to register a word of protest.
We can do so all the more effectively because we are not to be counted among the thick-and-thin supporters of the present Ministry. We have never concealed from our readers our belief that the Government on several occasions have not taken the best and wisest course in dealing with the problems before them, and not unfrequently we have freely criticised their actions. But between free, or even severe, criticism, and scolding and screaming, there is all the difference in the world. If one thinks the driver has taken the wrong road on a dark night, one may tell him so quietly and firmly, even though he may not be then willing, or even able, to take another course ; but where is the sense in raving, and swearing, and protesting for all the world as if the coach had actually been thrown into the ditch and upset, or the wheel had come off and the horses broken down ? At present a great part of the Press and of the public is talking as if there had been a real national breakdown, and the interests of the country had been gravely injured. Such intem- perance and exaggeration in political criticism strikes us as altogether deplorable. It seems to show that the country is losing its nerve. It is not pleasant to see people clinging to their seats and bawling out that they are going to be upset, "they are sure they are," and that the driver must be mad or incompetent, or at any rate help- less, because he has injudiciously chosen a rough cross- road, and for the moment has not got his team perfectly in hand. In private life, when the driver is apparently showing want of skill, we feel disgusted at the yelling and swearing of the passengers, and at their futile clutches at his elbow. How much greater should be our sense of indignation when it is the affairs of the nation that are being treated with so marked a want of reticence and dignity, not the handling of a team of greys or bays on a country excursion.
Let us consider for a moment quietly and without heat in what the alleged helplessness and want of firmness of the Government consist. After all is said and done, theirs is not a feeble or inconsistent record. Take the Eastern question first. We held, and still hold, that the Government should, alone if necessary, have put such pres- sure on the Turks—by means of a blockade of the Arabian coast preferably—as would have forced them to stop the massacre of the Armenians, and free Crete. But though we think the Government would have done better to have acted thus, it would be preposterous to say that they showed helplessness or weakness. They adopted the policy of maintaining the Concert, and they stuck to that policy without deviating. They may have been wrong, but at any rate they knew their own minds. If we take the case of South Africa, where we were also in disagreement with them, we must admit that they pursued the policy chosen by them with firmness and consistency. We hold that after the Raid they should have revoked the Charter—the grounds for forfeiture were clear—prosecuted Mr. Rhodes, and then, as suzerain Power, have insisted on the main grievances of the Outlanders being set right in order to secure the future peace of South Africa. The Government elected to follow an opposite policy—i.e., not to throw over Mr. Rhodes and his Company, and to leave the Outlanders' grievances alone—and to that policy they have steadily adhered, accepting all its momentous consequences in regard to the future of South Africa. They may have been wrong, we think they were, but it would be idle because we hold such a view to say that they are " helpless," and "gone to pieces," and incompetent, and the rest of it. Take, lastly), the Chinese policy of the Government. Here we again think that the Government did not choose the best course..
They ought, in our opinion, to have realised early that Russia was certain to try to go to Manchuria and Port.
Arthur, and that there was no reason, or at any rate no reason justifying war, for stopping her. This admitted,, they should have made it their business to help Russia, to get what she wanted, taking at the same time ample assurances that such parts of China as we- desired to retain under our influence should be secured to us. Had this been done Russia, instead of being in Manchuria contrary to our wishes, would have been there- in a large measure owing to our good offices. In fact, the Government find themselves in a position which was the inevitable outcome of the forces at work- i.e., our resolve not to fight for Manchuria, Russia's resolve to go there, and China's weakness—but plus a disagreeable, instead of, as it might have been,. an agreeable, incident with Russia. But unfortunate as this fact is, we can no more here than in the cases.
of Turkey and South Africa, talk about helplessness,. and drifting, and incapacity. No doubt if the Govern- ment had actually landed us in the ditch of war there would have been some excuse for the swearing, but then they have done nothing of the kind. We are not at war with Russia, and the most that can be said is that the Government did not do as well as they might have done. In our belief their chief blunder was not being able to conquer that defect which Lord Palmerston detected in all our statesmen,—a defect which is common to most English- men, and may best be called lack of political imagination. We cannot as a race imagine, and so understand, what will be the result of the forces that are shaping them- selves, but have as yet no clear definition. Lord Palmerston once wrote to our Ambassador in Paris :—" / foresee difficulty in getting the Cabinet to take any vigorous resolve. Very few public men in England follow up foreign affairs sufficiently to foresee the con- sequences of events which have not happened." Here is the root of the whole matter. Foreign policy is the art of foreseeing the effect of the things that have not happened, but which will or may happen. Any one can work out the results of a revolution as soon as it has taken place. The difficulty comes at the second remove. What is wanted is to see what is coming, and then to work out as far as may be the inevitable after consequences. Directly the Russians had actually gone to Port Arthur against our wishes the Cabinet found no difficulty in working out the inevitable consequences,—the effect on our prestige at Pekin, and so on. What they failed to do was to foresee the effect of the occupation of Port Arthur when it had not happened. Had they been able to do so, they should have forced China to give Port Arthur to the Russians, not tried half-heartedly to keep them out. But to fail where practically all our Governments fail is not to be helpless, or imbecile, or objects of pity and contempt,— the despair of their friends and the delight of their enemies. The Cabinet has not shown a special inspiration for foreign affairs, that is alL Let us not, however, in the name of decency and good sense, and indeed of patriotism, call this helplessness and fatuity. The Cabinet remains what it was, a Committee composed of very strong, very capable, and very well-instructed men, who take the wrong road sometimes, or, if you will, often, but who are not in any sense a set of fools or weaklings.
Perhaps it will be asked why we should think it worth while to defend a Government in regard .to whose policy we feel obliged to make so many criti- cisms. The answer is easy. We are concerned to defend the position of the Government, and to speak strongly about the absurdity and exaggeration of the language used about them by both friend and foe, because we hold the growth of such exaggerated and nervous and excitable talk as we are now hearing to be little less than a national calamity. Surely it is bad policy at a time of great international trouble and perplexity to give the nation—not to mention foreign States—the impression that it is being ruled by a Junta of helpless and be- wildered men. No doubt if they were really and truly as incapable and helpless as they are represented it would be perfectly right to say so openly and plainly. Such a crisis would demand drastic measures. But since no reasonable or instructed person seriously believes the present Govern- ment to be anything of the kind, it is surely madness to create what we have called above an atmosphere of dis- trust. That the Government will in the end be damaged by the present outcry we do not expect. In all probability they will ultimately be greatly strengthened by it. When the public, after enduring a few more weeks' screaming about helplessness and incompetence, comes to itself and begins to ask, " What's the truth about all this ?" it will find that after all its fate is in the hands of a very strong and able Administration. Then will come the inevitable reaction, and in a very short time we shall be told that, after all, this is the ablest Ministry that ever sat in Down- ing Street. There is nothing so good in the end for a Ministry as over-abuse. The revulsion of feeling is sure to come, and when it does, the country thinks it cannot say strongly enough that it has been in the wrong and under a complete mistake as to the men who ruled it. Depend upon it, the present Government are fully worthy of the confidence of the nation. They may have made mistakes, but then would not any other conceivable Government have made even more,—different mistakes possibly, but not less bad ? What is wanted in the country just now is the sort of tone and temper one sees in a good and capable master who is watching a trusted servant at work on a difficult job. When the coachman is working his way through a vast piece of traffic the wise master does not keep thrusting his head out of the brougham window in a fury screaming "Fool" and "Idiot," or bursting his lungs by shouting incoherent orders. He sits still, holds his tongue, and lets the man do his best to get the carriage out of the block.
Previous page
