Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 27,1899. LIBERAL IMPERIALISM.

Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 152, 27 December 1899, Page 4

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1899. LIBERAL IMPERIALISM.

The present war, apart from its military and colonial .aspects, promises to have a marked and lasting effect upon politico) parties in the Old Country. Already the South African crisis has created, oi perhaps it would be more, correct to say brought to light, a deep schism in the Liberal Party. Th^ Gladstonian remnant is hopelessly divided upon great Im perial questions. One section, and from all appearances the most considerable section, is ready to follow Lord Rosebery in a policy of enlightened Imperialism, in a broad view of colonial and foreign responsibilities. . .The other division favours* Mr. Morley and Sir William Harcourt, and seeks to restrict Imperial activity,^ confine the responsibilities oi Empire to as small a field as possible. It is difficult to see how these antagonistic groups are to work together in harmony oven if Liberals returned to power. The Rosebery faction differs less from the Unionists than from the other wing of its own Party. The essential principle behind the Unionist coalition is Imperialism ; the immediate cause of its exigence was the fear of Irish Home Rule, but the real doctrine that fused it into on« s was the resolve to maintain the Empire in its integrity. The Rosebery Liberals theroforo seem to be pn the point of splittijig \% ith the followers of Mr. Morley and Sir William Hatcourt over precisely tho snme principle that drove Mr. Chamberlain nnd the Duke of Devohshire out of the Gladstonian camp more' than ton years ago: 1 . An alliance mny, it is true, be patched up, and an attempt made at the next general election to present a united front aguinst the Government, but the alliance can only be a hollow one. In ihe caso of the Unionists, Imperialism broke old Party tics and forged new Party bonds, and it is not unlikely that it will aijain prove the foroe that is to recast the political chains. ' As in tho United States so it seems in Great Britain, war is to divide the people and the politicians into Imperialuts and anti-Imperialists, or, to use the American terms, Expansionists and anti-Efcpansiomsts. v Lord Rosebery at present occupies a somewhat ,uncwtain plaoe in the political

world. He is no longer leader oi the .Liberal Party, bul- he has a dominant iniliionco over ita niture destmios. He ia still tho greatest among the men who profess adhesion to ii, and yet his principles accord betlei with, those of Lord Salisbury, Mr. Ba]four, and Mr. Chamberlain than with those > of the other leaders of the Porfcy lo which he nominally belongs. If British politics .are to find in Imperit^ism their new dividing line, then Lord Roscbery should bo the colleague of Lord Salisbury rather than of Sir William Harcourt.. Lord, Roaebery's future is the most interesting perepnal question in British politics, just as the future of Iho Liberal Party is th& most interesting gfneral problem. ■"Speaking the other day at a celebration in memory of the elder Pitt (Lord Chatham) Lord Rosebery expressed nisi firm conviction that in ten years' time the destinies of the nation would be controlled by the Party of Liberal Imperialism The Spectator takes up these words and gives the speaker a telling rejoinder. The destinies of the nation, it declares, are already controlled by the Party of Liberal .Imperialism. It singles out Mr. Balfoui, v member of the old Conservative Party, as & type of the Unionist who cannot be jaid to have acquired his political education *n the school technically knowrv as' "Liberal," and it* emphatically sa/B that he is every whit as Liberal and democratic in principles and methods as Loxd Ros&bory himself . Therefore, concludes our Londori contemporary, there is neither ueed nor room for a new party of Liberal Imperialism. There is one alfoaciy. « is actually tho dominant party m the State. This is perfectly true, and hence no doubt the difficulty e^perlencec. ' by the Opposition leaders in the Imperial Parliamrnfc in discovering a principle ' upon which they are united and against which Uieu opponents would also be united. The test must come as soon as the war L over, for the first question to be settled vtll be the fate of tho two' Dutch Repubhed They 'must certainly in some lorn, oi another be included in the British St<a''9 »yßtem^ and this inclusion will open up v controversy about expansion and Imperialism. Theni, may come a re-sorting of the political cards, and the future of Lord Rosebery will neoeesarily be involved in the outcome of the controversy. In i.ki> connection an interesting paper appeare ut the current Nineteenth Century. The writer, Mr. Massingham, is an anti-Imperialist, or, as he would call it, a supporter of "mid-century Liberalism." He says that the Liberals have mo further use for Lord Rosebery, and he offers him to the Unionists as their future Foreign Secretary. Upon this generous proposal the Spectator remarks:^ — "In spite of Lord Robbery's many brilliant qualities and hiß undoubted pop^ulhrity with the Press, we venture to think that this is not a proposition which would ever be received with favour by the Unionist Party in general* Should Lord Salisbury find the worlr % of Foreign Secretary too great wh&n combined with that of' the Prime Minister, the Unionists havo an id^al Foreign Secretary in Mr. Balfour." Lord Rosebery would thus appear to be somewhat in the position of a shuttlecock being sent from side to side. Ho is, however, a man who commands almost all the qualities that go to make a successful leader, and' he must sooner or later take a high place in moulding the nations destinies. Of this we may be sure — he will nlways be a domocrat, and he will always bo an Imperialist. How, then, can he wdll avoid falling into line booner •r later with tho Unionists?