THE RETARDATION OF THE NAVY BY THE ENGINEERS' STRIKE. By Archibald THE SACK OF YANGCHOW IN 1644 (a Chinese Narrative). Translated by IS THE PARTY SYSTEM BREAKING UP? By T. E. Kebbel GERMANY AS AN OBJECT LESSON. By Charles Copland Perry Arthur, Bart. THE LAWLESS' CLERGY OF THIS CHURCH AND REALM.' By Sir George THE NATURAL DECLINE OF WARFARE. By Alexander Sutherland THE THAMES AS A SALMON RIVER. By R. B. Marston 636 THE ENGLISH BIBLE FROM HENRY THE EIGHTH TO JAMES THE FIRST. By HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE STATE. By Dr. T. J. Macnamara WINGED CARRIERS OF DISEASE. By Lady Priestley OLD AGE PENSIONS: A SUGGESTION. By Sir Spencer Walpole THE HYPOCRISIES OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE. By Sidney Low RUSSIA IN FINLAND. By Dr. J. N. Reuter THE ETHICS OF WAR. By the Rev. Father Ryder THE FAILURE OF PARTY GOVERNMENT. By Professor Goldwin Smith THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS BY LAW ESTABLISHED. By Edmund Robertson WOMAN AS AN ATHLETE: A REPLY TO DR. ARABELLA KENEALY. By Mrs. THE INFLUENCE OF WOMEN IN ISLAM. By the Hon. Mr. Justice Ameer Ali 755 BOOKSELLERS AND BOOKSELLING. By Joseph Shaylor AN OUTBURST OF ACTIVITY IN THE ROMAN CONGREGATIONS. By the Hon. GERMANY AS A NAVAL POWER. By Colonel Sir George Sydenham Clarke HOMING PIGEONS IN WAR-TIME. By George J. Larner THE LAW AS TO CONSTRUCTIVE MURDER.' By G. Pitt-Lewis BRITISH TRADE IN 1898: A WARNING NOTE. By J. W. Cross WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AND 'BRAIN-WAVES.' By the Editor Hutchinson Almond SOME NOTES FROM WASHINGTON. By Richard Weightman THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. By H. V. Toynbee BENEFICENT GERMS. By Dr. Henry S. Gabbett THE DECLINE OF THE ART OF SINGING. By Richard Davey CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS: A REPLY. By Wilfrid Ward THE GOLD DIGGINGS AT BATHURST IN 1851. By Mrs. Huxley THE DECAY IN OUR SALMON FISHERIES AND ITS REMEDY. By JAINISM: A CHAT WITH RAJA SIVAPRASAD. By Ernest M. Bowden THE NINETEENTH CENTURY No.CCLXIII-JANUARY 1899 THE LIBERAL COLLAPSE I THE PARTY AND ITS LEADERS THE protracted crisis in the Liberal party has entered upon an extremely acute stage. It has come very unexpectedly, and it has been attended with some incidents which are almost sensational; but events have been so clearly leading up to it that, after the first surprise was over, the present development must have been welcomed as a relief from the painful tension of the last two years. This unrest has, in truth, extended over much more than two years. Primarily it is the result of Mr. Gladstone's retirement, but it may be traced even further back to the Liberal schism of 1886. It was impossible that a great party should lose so many of its most conspicuous leaders without sustaining permanent injury. For a time the consequences were not apparent. In the excitement of the conflict. Liberals were not disposed to acknowledge the real significance of the secession. Probably they did not appreciate it themselves. It was difficult at first to believe that seceders, whose differences had disturbed the Cabinet of 1880, would suddenly develop a spirit of unity, or that out of a difference on one point of Liberal policy there would be evolved an opposition of the most irreconcilable temper. Hence it was difficult to get rid of the idea that the schism would only be temporary. In the meantime the marvellous personality of Mr. Gladstone concealed the difficulty which it had created. He was not insensible to it himself, and in a conversation with me expressed the opinion. VOL. XLV-No. 263 B that it had changed the centre of gravity in the Liberal party. We are all beginning to understand it now. The circumstances of the time indicate with sufficient clearness that something more than the choice of a leader is necessary; indeed, that it is just the question which may wisely be adjourned until it has been decided whither he is to lead; while this, in its turn, involves another and equally important point as to the followers whom he may expect to support him. It is a curious feature in the discussions which have preceded the resignation of Sir William Harcourt, that it is the Ministerial journals which have shown such a keen interest in the Liberal leadership. The Times and the Spectator have been peculiarly diligent, not only in spreading the idea that there was a vacancy, but also in suggesting how it might be filled up. The outcome was the extraordinary proposal of the Daily Mail to take a plebiscite both as to the policy of a party with which it has not the faintest sympathy, and as to the man by whom it was to be represented. The proposal might fairly be described as gross impertinence. But it need not trouble any one. It is simply the latest extravagance of the new journalism, and perhaps ought not to be treated as a serious political move. Still, the Tory party have taken a most benevolent interest in the difficulties of their opponents. Possibly this may be due to the desire to forget their own, or to find some consolation for them in contemplating those of their neighbours. They have certainly contributed nothing to a settlement of the problems which they have started. We are not in such desperate straits that we need accept the guidance of our enemies on one of the most vital points in our policy. But their unctuous platitudes as to the need of a strong Opposition, and the importance therefore of bringing the present amorphous condition to an end by the election of a leader, ought to be a warning to us that in that direction there are probably 'rocks ahead.' It may well be that the course of true wisdom is to do last that which our benevolent advisers would have us do first. The undignified, almost indecent, exultation of Lord Salisbury may, in the meantime, be reassuring rather than otherwise. It must be confessed that the situation is almost phenomenal. There are no signs of the decay of Liberalism in the country, and yet there are no indications of any ardent desire for an immediate forward movement. There is a general uncertainty which may easily be mistaken for apathy. But, apart from all doubts as to what the immediate action should be, there is the preoccupation of the national mind with foreign policy. The fierce excitement of the last few months has materially affected the tone of public feeling. Aggressive action on the part of Liberals at present would be fatuous. They have to wait until the fever is past, and the highest considerations "of patriotism dictate the same policy which party interests demand. Never was Abraham Lincoln's favourite maxim against swapping horses when crossing a stream more applicable. The Fashoda incident has done much to rehabilitate Lord Salisbury in the opinion of his own followers, and, for the moment, no one dreams of any attempt to disturb his Administration. The business of the Opposition, at present, is to oppose. As the experience even of this reactionary Parliament has sufficiently shown, the mischievous tendencies of the present Administration may be very materially checked by wise and effective criticism. This is all that can be hoped for until a general election is nearer. It is something more than marking time. It is practical service of the most valuable kind, and in doing it the strength of the Opposition will be greatly consolidated. In this reconstruction of the party the question of leadership will probably settle itself. The present difficulties are doubtless partly personal. This element it would be useless to ignore, but it would be much worse to exaggerate and invest it with a factitious importance. Unfortunately, this is what has been done in the letters both of Sir William Harcourt and Mr. John Morley. The letter of the former, in opening the correspondence, is not dignified in tone, nor is it fair in the aspersions cast upon those who have followed him loyally wherever he was willing to lead. 'A party,' he writes, ' rent by sectional disputes and personal interests, is one which no man can consent to lead, either with credit to himself or advantage to his country. You and my other colleagues know well the desire I have felt, and the efforts I have made to secure unity of action,' &c. It was only necessary to have Mr. John Morley's gush about 'the steadfast reserve and self-command of his esteemed chief,' under the provocation of those unworthy insinuations to which you refer,' to make the comedy complete. Such taunts should have been left to Mr. Chamberlain. They are unworthy of one who has up to this enjoyed the support of the party he assails, even including those who were not in full sympathy with all his methods of procedure. Of course these bitter words will long be flung in our face by Tory critics and speakers, who, like Lord George Hamilton, will now discover in Sir William Harcourt virtues which they have never been able to perceive before. It would be folly, if not something worse, to indulge in recriminations. It would be of little purpose even to remind our lost leader that he is not the first who has been hampered by jealousies and ambitions within the ranks of his own friends. We would much rather be content to register this saying of Sir William Harcourt as a golden rule for the guidance of all politicians in the future. We now know on his authority the peril of 'sectional disputes and personal interests' in the conduct of a great party, and it is to be hoped the lesson will not be without effect. In vindication, however, of the rank and file, who are too often left out of account, but without whose steady work we could have neither party nor leader, it may be urged that they at least must be acquitted of the charge of regard to 'personal interests.' As to 'sectional disputes,' they are for the most part nothing more than an excessive zeal on behalf of some object in which a section may be specially interested, not implying any disloyalty to the chief or indifference to the more extended aims of the party as a whole. A strong leader, instead of being seriously hindered by them, might rather use the zeal which is at the root of them as a powerful instrument for the advance of the common cause. 'Personal interests' are very different, but these necessarily affect a much more limited class. It is those whose services have been purely disinterested, who have been ready to shoulder their knapsack and take their place in the ranks without hope of any reward, or even desire for any, except such as comes from the advance of the principles they love, who resent most keenly this somewhat reckless imputation. They feel that either they are not of the party or that Sir William Harcourt's judgment of the party is singularly unjust. Probably the former interpretation is the true one. The letter, addressed to a colleague on the Front Bench, referred chiefly, if not entirely, to the House of Commons. But that is the very point of which the great body of Liberals complain, and of which they are surely entitled to complain. Of the manœuvres and intrigues within the House of Commons, and still more of those within the charmed circle of officialism, they know nothing. Now and then rumours leak out in the letters of some "London correspondent' of their local paper, but they give no definite information, and, in truth, do not greatly interest them except as they affect the general fortunes of the cause, for which they have made many sacrifices, and, if necessary, are prepared to make still more. They have trusted their leaders, and it will come upon them as an unpleasant surprise to learn that they are not trusted by them. It may probably be assumed that the indictment was framed as against the party in the House and not that in the country. But that itself indicates a failure to appreciate the present conditions of the political situation. The time is past when politics were a game of chess to be played at the best club in the country. They are the serious business of large numbers of earnest men, anxious to discharge their duty to the State with all conscientiousness, and somewhat impatient of the personal differences which, in their judgment, have been hindering the work of progress. They have no overmastering personal attachments which might induce them to tolerate a policy of which they do not heartily approve. Gladstone has had no successor, and the favourite leader, in the view of robust Liberals, is he who will lead most effectively, and who, if he cannot win immediate victories, will at all events maintain the honour of the flag. The Liberal benches in the House of Commons must, after all, sooner or later reflect the opinion |