POLITICAL DIFFERENCES

Evening Star, Issue 18784, 7 November 1924, Page 8

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES

PRIME MINISTERS AND CHANCELLORS WHO DISAGREED. No doubt tho stories of differences of opinion on foreign policy between tho Labor Prime Minister and' his Chancellor of the Exchequer have been a good deal exaggerated, hut it may bo remarked that many Chancellors of the Exchequer have maintained a certain independence of view in their relations with their chiefs. Gladstone, for instance, declares a correspondent of tho 1 Manchester Guardian,’ was no slavish follower of Palmerston, On the question of tho rejection by the Lords of the Paper Duties Bill, ho remarked of the speeches inade by his leader and himself that “ the tone of the two remonstrances could not be in exact accord; but by careful steering on my part, and I presume on his, all occasion of scandal was averted.” Phiilimore seems to have thought (hat this was a very euphemistic account of the effect produced, and there was the famous “ proposing votes with innuendo and recommending expenditure in a whispered invective.” Later on Lowe found himself often at odds with Gladstone, and some of his criticisms were decidedly pungent. The difficulties between Salisbury and Randolph Churchill covered an area much wider than that of Budget differences, and touched foreign as well as home affairs. Balfour’s relations with Ritchie were by no means cordial, and their parting in 1903 was’sufficiently abrupt. Harcourt would not have been Harcourt if he had not burst out against his leaders at times. Morley never quite forgave his violent attack on the financial provisions of the 1893 Home Rule Bill on the eve of its introduction. As eoon as Rosebery succeeded Gladstone opportunities of conflict multiplied, and th® broadside which tho Chancellor of the Exchequer poured into the Foreign Office made very curious reading for the political student. When the inner history of Cabinets since 1908 can be given to the world there will be plenty more material.