Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page



THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION. TilE new Gladstonian administration is more remarkable for those who are not, than for those who are, members of it. Three most im- portant sections of the Liberal party are un. represented in the Cabinet. The Radicals are not represented, now that for some reason or other Mr. Gladstone has decided to omit Mr. Labouchere the Labour party is not repre- sented since Mr. Thomas Burt has been content with AII L nder-Secretaryship of State and Wales is not represented, for Sir Osborne Morgan and Sir Edward Reed have declined the paltry offices offered to them, an:l Mr. T. K Ellis lias consented to accept an office which is ludicrously inadequate to satisfy his own personal claims as a politician and as the repre- sentative of the most Radical portion of the United Kingdom. The exclusion of Mr. Labouchere is as yet surrounded with a good ileal of mystery. From Mr. Labouchere's own version of the matter in this week's number of Truth it would seem that a prominent politician called on Mr. Labouchere from Carlton Gardens, and, after some "hedging," told him that the member for Northampton was Mr. Gladstone's chief diffi- cultv in forming his Ministry. Mr. Labouchere WAS finally asked to write a letter to Mr. Glad- stone declaring his unwillingness to take office, on the ground that he could be of more service below the gangway than on the Treasury Bench. This Tur. Labouchere very naturally and very properly refused to do. The question has arisen whether Mr. Gladstone's difficulty arose out of the unwillingness of the Queen to receive Mr. Labouchere as one of her advisers, or out of the reluctance of Mr. Gladstone to add a Statesman of Mr. Labouchere's well-known views with regard to Egypt to a Ministry whose foreign policy is guided by Lord Roseberry. If the latter is the true explanation it is most A -1 disingenuous and unfair to bring in the Queen's name into a party squabble. If Mr. Labouchere refused to accept office except on his own con- ditions—as he seems to hint in this week's Truth that he would have done—Mr. Gladstone would have been perfectly justitied in excluding him frotn the Ministry. We have no sympathy with Mr. Labouchere's policy of scuttle in Egypt and hi; anti-Imperialist views generally and much as we would wish to see a politician of such honesty and reforming zeal in a Liberal Government, we consider that domestic reform would be too dearly bought at the price of insecurity abroad. But Mr. Labouchere does not seem to have been offered any post in the new administration, and Mr. Glad- stone could not. therefore, know on what terms Mr. Labouchere would accept office. Possibly Mr. Labouchere's terms would have been far milder a month ago than they are to-day. It is, on the other hand, in- conceivable that Mr. Gladstone should have objected to Mr. Labouchere on account of his uncompromising Radicalism. Had this been the case the Premier would never have been guilty of the utter folly of sending a messenger to Queen Anne's Gate, and thus deliver himself into the hands of his enemy, by confessing that the member for North- ampton was the chief difficulty in his way." The only exphnatioD possible is that the Queen personally objected to the inclusion of Mr. Labouchere in the list of her advisers. It is absurd to say that a grave constitutional ques- tion been thereby raised. If Mr. LaLouchere's exclusion is due to the Queen's prejudice against him, the responsibility lies not with the Queen but with Mr. Gladstone. No sovereign would dare to resist the demands of ¡ a statesman, of Mr. Gladstone s weight and 'i f authority. Sovereigns have before now dis- liked their advisers but in contitutional countries the sovereign's likes or dislikes are powerless against the irresistible will of the people. That the Queen has a prejudice against the critic of the Royal Grants, we can well believe but that she would presume to dictate to her responsible Minister who should and who should not make up his Cabinet betokens either great ignorance of constitutional usage on the Minister's part, or to great weak- ness in dealing with Royalty. No one can accuse Mr. Gladstone of ignorance of the Con- stitution. His action can, therefore, only be ex- plained as being due to an excessive subservi- ence to the wishes of the Queen. We cannot so much blame, as deplore, Mr. Gladstone's old- world respect for the personal wishes of the Sovereign. There was no more honest states- man and no more democratic reformer than the elder Pitt and still it is related that he, the most illustrious statesman of his age, would almost grovel at the feet of a stupid royal master, and that on one occasion he burst into tears when George III., then a youth of about :20, addressed a few kind words to him at a court reception. Mr. Gladstone does not of course carry things to this extreme but in excluding Mr. Labouchere, out of deference to the Queen's wishes, he has show a most lament- able weakness. As the Queen's Prime Minister, the action and responsibility are his and it is unjust and unconstitutional to blame the Queen for the action of the responsible Minister of the Crown. The absence from the Cabinet of a Labour member is another serious ommission, which is already bearing fruit in the troubles at New- castle. At the time of writing the result of the now historic struggle between an honest Statesman and his opportunist enemies is not yet known but all who value, truth and honesty and candour in a' Statesman, and gratitude and clearsightedness in the people, must hope that Mr. John Morley will win a crushing victory. Mr. John Morlfey' is a true leader of the democracy-a man with an infinite love for the struggling masses, with a far- reaching sympathy for their troubles and trials^ but with an honest and courageous determina- tion to give good, straightforward, and candid advice, at whatever cost, to those who are rising in a blind revolt against the present order of things. The democracy of Newcastle is on its trial, and with it the democracy of England. On the fate of the election at Newcastle there depends more than the mere victory or defeat of Mr. John Morley more indeed than the mere victory OJ defeat of the Eight Hours' Bill. The election will determine whether the working men of England relish honest, whole- some advice even when it is unpalatable to them and whether the future leaders of the English democracy are to be intelligent, inde- pendent, thoughtful Statesmen or Cleons who will shout with the biggest crowd, and cheer- fully ruin their country for the sake of an ephemeral popularity. Mr. Gladstone would have made Mr. Morley's path much easier had he conciliated the Labour party by the inclu- sion in the Cabinet of a direct representative of Labour. Wales, also, has not received sufficient recog- nition at the hands of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. D. A. Thomas did good work in drawing attention on Wednesday to the fact that although the strength of the Scotch and the Welsh vote on a division are equal, six places in the Government have been given to Scotch members, while only one has been given to Wales. We would be indifferent as to the manner in which the loaves and fishes are distributed, were we certain that the construction of the Government does not indicate the relative importance which Mr. Gladstone attaches to certain public ques- tions. It would he a matter of no moment to us whether Mr. T. Ellis should not have received something better than a Junior Lordship of the Treasury, or whether the member for Cardiff should not have received the Secretary- ship to the Admiralty, if we were convinced that after Home Rule had been granted to Ire- land, the Church in Wales would be disestab- lished and disendowed. We care nothing for our members' personal claims to onice but we- must protest against the deliberate way in which Wales has been ignored. We have lately seen it stated in some papers that Mr. Stuart Rendel intends to introduce a Suspensory Bill for fixing the date after which no rested interest can be created in any benefice in any of the four Welsh dioceses. No doubt a Suspensory Bill is necessary but it should be introduced, not by a private member like Mr. Stuart Rendel, but by the Liberal Government. It is no wonder that the Liberal leaders think that Wales can be conveniently ignored, when our Welsh papers are rejoicing over the fact that Mr. Tom Ellis has been promoted to the inner ring of official- dom, when it is not even known whether Mr. Gladstone is prepared to carry out his promise with regard to Welsh Disestablishment. We are glad to think that Welsh members are be- ginning to realise what we predicted some months ago, that the day of their trial would come when Mr Gladstone came into power. It was a very easy matter to play at being inde- pendent when the Liberals were in opposition the question is whether they have enough grit" in them to withstand the charms of office and great men's blandishments, and insist on the due recognition of their country's claims. Mr. Arthur Williams was the first to declare that next after Irish Home Rule the claims of Wales to Disestablishment must be held to be second. Mr. Alfred Thomas has said that he will not vote for Home Rule unless a distinct pledge has been given that Welsh Disestablishment will immediately follow. Speaking at Cwmbach on Wednesday, Mr. D. A. Thomas said that the Welsh members were pledged to the hilt to leave no stone unturned to push forward the cause of Disestablishment,, and the people of Wales might rely on it that they would not hesitate to do their duty when the proper time arrived. Speaking at Llan- dyssul on the same day, Mr. S. T. Evans said that they must have Disestablishment in the second session, at any rate, of the present Par- liament. Of course, Home Rule must take the first place but they must know from the Government whether they intended to give Wales Disestablishment in the second session. Mr. R. D. Burnie, on the same occasion, said. that they were not to be dilly-dallied, and they would brook no delay." Mr. Gladstone has, therefore, missed his object, if he meant to crush the independence of the Welsh members by promoting Mr. Ellis to the post of an official Whip. The Welsh members are deter- mined to prcsiS the just claims of Wales eyen AJ the risk of adding to the DIFFICULTIES of Miv Mr. Gladstone. We are glad to see that the suggestion we made some weeks ago is being taken up. The (RENETU, in its last week's issue, echoes our suggestion that the Welsh members should meet to determine what is meant exactly by Disestablishment. By doing so, they would he emphasising the uncompromising attitude which has already been taken up by some Welsh members on the urgency of the question of Welsh Disestablishment.


...-.".'".--."'.. --------+------r---THE…

[No title]