Page images
PDF
EPUB

must be something further, something behind all this, to account for the language of the Government. Can it be we ask the question with infinite reluctance can it be that Ministers do not

feel certain of the public? that they doubt whether confidence in themselves extends beyond the question of Home Rule? and that, if they used the means which Parliament has placed at their disposal for enforcing the passage of such measures as they believe in their hearts to be just and necessary, they doubt if they could depend on the moral support of the nation? If, with their present majority, they fear an Opposition in the Commons, it looks very much as if they feared an opposi tion in the country; for nothing else can make the party led by Sir William Harcourt, however well commanded, really formidable. If on educational, ecclesiastical, or agricultural questions they are not sure of being in sympathy with the majority of the people, it is easy to understand why they should not make the most of their majority in Parliament. Yet it is difficult to believe that Mr Balfour, the very Minister who tells us that he has learned his lesson, can have any doubt of the feeling of the country when he sees the process of "slow but steady conversion " to Conservatism going on before

[blocks in formation]

of the Government, and Mr Balfour's is. four's is. Yet it is impossible to doubt that on the question of fact Mr Balfour is in the right. Be this as it may, the Ministry on the whole have contrived to create an impression on the public mind that they are not sure of their ground. And if the impression is correct, we need not inquire any further. Unless a Government is sure of popular support, not on this or that particular measure only, but on the broad question of principle at issue between themselves and their opponents, their steps must necessarily be few and halting, the steps of men more concerned with what it is necessary to avoid than with what it is desirable to attain, regarding their own power as a house built upon the sand, and pretty certain to be overthrown by the first gust of popular caprice. Unless Conservative Governments believe in Conservatism in the abstract and that it is what the instincts of the British people naturally incline to-they are in a false position as regards both their functions.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, what we do not really believe, that the present Government does feel doubtful of its hold upon the nation, all we hear about the "swing of the pendulum" becomes at once intelligible. We have often regretted the frequent recurrence of these words in Unionist and Ministerial speeches: they are very disheartening to the great body of their supporters in the country; and, what is more, they certainly convey the impression that in the opinion of the speakers there is no such thing as political faith left among the body of the people. If every class in the country is guided only by its own special interests, and approves or condemns a party as it advances

L

[ocr errors]

But we never heard of a Minister being prevented from passing his measures by the largeness of his majority. The greater it is, the more liable it is to fall asunder and to cause the breakdown of the Government. But while it holds together there will always be enough Ministerial votes to carry through a Cabinet measure. The weakness to which overgrown majorities are always liable has been explained by Lord Beaconsfield once and for ever in his account of the first Reform Ministry a locus classicus in political literature; and fifty years afterwards Mr Balfour has nothing to add to it in fact, he uses almost the same words as are used in 'Coningsby.' But although the infirmities incidental to a majority of three hundred led to an early break up of Lord Grey's Cabinet, it did not prevent the Ministry from completing any one of their principal measures. They abolished the slave trade, they passed the Irish Church Bill, they passed the new Poor Law, they reconstituted the Bank of England, and they took the Factory question out of the hands of a private member and passed the first Factory Act, the foundation of all the rest. Here were five great measures of quite the first class carried in two years in spite of a strenuous opposition: so that although too large a majority may be a source of internal disorder, and hasten the dissolution of a Ministry, it does not necessarily destroy its working power while it lives; just as we often see men suffering from internal complaints which shorten their lives, who retain nevertheless their bodily or muscular powers in full vigour. Besides, Lord Grey's majority was twice the size of Lord Salisbury's; and if the one was no bar to heroic legislation, why

should the other be? Mr Gladstone's majority in 1869 was a hundred and twenty. We do not see, therefore, how the miscarriages of the Government are in any way traceable to the largeness of their majority. We have no right to expect more from a Government with a majority of a hundred and fifty, than from one with a majority of eighty. This we have often admitted. But we have a right to expect as much.

Unless, then, we are prepared to allow, either that no Ministry could pass two such measures as the Education Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill in a single session, or else that an overwhelming majority is a positive hindrance to legislative progress, we must look for some other explanation of what certainly requires to be explained, in order to justify the changed tone in which Ministers now speak of the future.

Both members of the Government and influential members of the party sometimes are heard to say, when pressed on any given point, "Oh yes, what you say is perfectly true; what you suggest is perfectly right; but what chance would there be of carrying such a measure in the House of Commons?" We want to know why. Would Peel or Palmerston, or Mr Gladstone in his best days, or Lord Beaconsfield, have talked in this manner? When Government speak of opposition in the House of Commons, what opposition do they mean?

Not the opposition of the Radicals, for that could easily be overcome; and only in part the opposition of their own supporters, for a considerable flake might be detached from the Ministerial party, and even transferred to their opponents, without depriving them of sufficient strength to carry any measures they pleased. There

must be something further, something behind all this, to account for the language of the Government. Can it be we ask the question with infinite reluctance can it be that Ministers do not feel certain of the public? that they doubt whether confidence in themselves extends beyond the question of Home Rule? and that, if they used the means which Parliament has placed at their disposal for enforcing the passage of such measures as they believe in their hearts to be just and necessary, they doubt if they could depend on the moral support of the nation? If, with their present majority, they fear an Opposition in the Commons, it looks very much as if they feared an opposition in the country; for nothing else can make the party led by Sir William Harcourt, however well commanded, really formidable. If on educational, ecclesiastical, or agricultural questions they are not sure of being in sympathy with the majority of the people, it is easy to understand why they should not make the most of their majority in Parliament. Yet it is difficult to believe that Mr Balfour, the very Minister who tells us that he has learned his lesson, can have any doubt of the feeling of the country when he sees the process of "slow but steady conversion" to Conservatism going on before

[blocks in formation]

of the Government, and Mr Balfour's is. Yet it is impossible to doubt that on the question of fact Mr Balfour is in the right. Be this as it may, the Ministry on the whole have contrived to create an impression on the public mind that they are not sure of their ground. And if the impression is correct, we need not inquire any further. Unless a Government is sure of popular support, not on this or that particular measure only, but on the broad question of principle at issue between themselves and their opponents, their steps must necessarily be few and halting, the steps of men more concerned with what it is necessary to avoid than with what it is desirable to attain, regarding their own power as a house built upon the sand, and pretty certain to be overthrown by the first gust of popular caprice. Unless Conservative Governments believe in Conservatism in the abstract—and that it is what the instincts of the British people naturally incline to-they are in a false position as regards both their functions.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, what we do not really believe, that the present Government does feel doubtful of its hold upon the nation, all we hear about the "swing of the pendulum" becomes at once intelligible. We have often regretted the frequent recurrence of these words in Unionist and Ministerial speeches: they are very disheartening to the great body of their supporters in the country; and, what is more, they certainly convey the impression that in the opinion of the speakers there is no such thing as political faith left among the body of the people. If every class in the country is guided only by its own special interests, and approves or condemns a party as it advances

L

or neglects these, regardless of on one side as not "practical," public considerations, it is only to and to give themselves up enbe expected that the Government tirely to the methods of political should change hands with every empiricism,-then those who talk fresh general election. But by of the swing of the pendulum this hypothesis we surely do great may be quite right. If governinjustice to the British nation, and ment and legislation are to conto the labouring classes in parti- sist only of a series of expericular, whom we charge with the ments, "turn and turn about" is very sin of which in former days the obvious régime to which both they were wont to accuse the parties must submit, and Conaristocracy that is to say, of being servatives must be content to actuated solely by class interests, roll the stone of Sisyphus up the to the neglect of the general wel- hill only to see it rolled down fare. again; for, depend upon it, the old doctrine of finality will never be respected for a moment by the modern Radical.

Parties, it is true, are not now divided from each other, as they were seventy years ago, by definite principles with which there could be no trifling. The power of the Crown, the position of the Church, parliamentary reform, the rights of corporations and other vested interests, were questions on which men felt deeply, and which they never postponed to class interests. But still, both Englishmen and Scotchmen ought to have certain general beliefs with regard to the merits or demerits of the political and social system under which they live. They ought to be able to make up their minds whether they think the country is likely to be greater and happier under a totally new order of things than she is under the constitution which has already made her great and happy. This is a question which is totally distinct from all particular measures. There may be many defects in the existing edifice-some remediable, others perhaps not. Do they think it wise, for the sake of these, to pull down the whole fabric and begin over again? There is something to be said on both sides. But of course, if the nation on the whole cannot be got to look this question in the face; if they prefer to brush it

We should be extremely sorry if we felt obliged to take this view of British politics. If the conflict of parties is only to be a game of seesaw, how can men of great abilities and high aspirations continue to take an interest in it? There are Conservatives who think very differently; who have hoped, and still hope, that the work done by the party during the last quarter of a century has not been without its effect upon public opinion, and that the popular mind is gradually being brought to understand that Conservatism is the best system for the welfare of the whole people. This is what Mr Balfour says. The effect, of course, would not be produced in a day, or without some ebb and flow; but we are surely justified in hoping, with Mr Balfour, that the progress has been steady, and that, if only inch by inch, ground has been gained which will not easily be lost again. At all events, it seems a pity to talk as if there were nothing whatever to be said for this view of the subject; as if both Liberal and Conservative majorities were dictated only by love of change, and were as

certain to succeed each other at stated intervals as night and day. It cannot be very encouraging to the subaltern supporters who work so hard in their respective constituencies to keep the party interest together, to be told that all they may gain in one term of years is sure to be lost in the next. And this, moreover, is one of those prophecies which tend to fulfil themselves. If possunt quia

posse videnter is true, non possunt quia non videnter is equally true. Mr Balfour at Rochdale enjoined upon his hearers the necessity for constant effort to keep what they had got: they must work as hard when they are in power as when they are out of it. But what is the good of telling men this if another Cabinet Minister gets up directly afterwards and says practically that it is no use, and that the swing of the pendulum will bring their opponents into power at the next election by what has now become a fixed law?

We are told, on authority, that as a Radical Government is sure to return to power in another six years, we must confine our legislation to such measures as they will be unwilling to repeal. We are afraid that, as far as "rational and moderate" legislation is concerned, this would leave a very small margin, to say nothing of the undignified and even ignominious position to which it would reduce Conservatives. It would be a recognition of the Asquith doctrine without reserve or qualification. If the Conservatives could win at only two elections running, and have two Parliaments of their own in succession, their measures might have time to take root, and their full effect to be seen. This would be likely

not only to ensure them a third victory, but to deter their opponents from meddling with their legislation when they did return to power. What we ought to

aim at is not to limit our measures to such as Radicals might be willing to spare, but to ensure for our policy such a fair trial as shall enable the public fully to appreciate it, and make it impossible for the Radicals to reverse it. We shall never do this if we believe in the swing of the pendulum. There is no finality now but what is ensured by the ascendancy of one party.

It is not surprising that the attitude of the Government has caused some disappointment to an influential section of their supporters; and we have expressed plainly, we hope not too plainly, the way in which it strikes ourselves. It suggests we hope and believe, falsely that they are more afraid of their antagonists than they ought to be, and it whets our curiosity to know the cause of such timidity. If speculations founded on this not very unnatural feeling do them any injustice, is it not their own fault?

We have said that the defensive and constructive functions of the Government must necessarily work together, and keep step with each other. But they can be separately considered; and whatever uneasiness may have arisen in connection with the one, Ministers should command the confidence of the whole body of their supporters in regard to the other. Large majorities, though they have been made answerable for more than can fairly be laid to their charge, no doubt have this inconvenience

namely, that the more supporters you have, the more demands you must expect, and the more you are bound to disappoint. But the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »