THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1912. THE UNIONIST LEADERSHIP.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15350, 13 January 1912, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1912. THE UNIONIST LEADERSHIP.

Amowj the more interesting contents of the English magazines which reached us this week are the articles that, consequent upon the recent chango of leaders, have ns tlioir subject tho quality of Mr Balfour's conduct of the Unionist party in the House of Commons, The least discriminating, and most favourable to Mr Balfour, is ono contributed to tho Nineteenth Century by Sir Alfred Lyttelton, who was a member of tho last Unionist Administration, and was not onlv a Cabinet colleague of Mr Jialfpur, but is his intimalo friend and a frequent companion of his in his hours of recreation. Mr Lyttclton's testimony may consequently bs regarded, perhaps, as that of one whoso feelings towards Mr lialfour aro too warm anil his admiration of him too enthusiastic to admit of his offering a dispassionate judgment. And assuredly Mr Lyttelton is unstinted in his cidogv of Mr lialfour. "Great intellectual powers combining grasp of general principles with a truly amazing quifknesfi of apprehension, and nerves of iron," he says, "havo enabled Mr Dalfour, a man of no great bodily strength, to liear the enormous burden oT leading his party in tlio House of Commons for nearly a quarter of a century. Hut the task, though never made by him the subject of reproach or complaint,- has not l>een accomplished without physical effort which at times seemed almost intolerable, and was bnrno only by the sustaining forces of courage, unselfishness, a senso of duty, and a chivalrous loyalty to his comrades." Mr Lyttelton pays a just tribute to Mr lialfour's administrative work as Irish Secretary and claims for him that his legislation in Ireland " no Jc.'k established his jiennnnent fame as ;he far-seeing and wise architect of constructive reform." Meantime, ho says, practice and experience wero equipping Mr lialfour "with tho weapons of a parliamentary debater which lie has since wielded in a manner unsurpassed in the history of the House of Commons." Even the caution which, to the undisguised disappointment of a highly inllucnlial section of the Unionist party, Mr lialfour displayed before committing himself to acceptance of the policy of tariff reform, of which Mr llonar I*tw, his successor, will certainly he a much more vigorous advocate, prftscivetl a high virtue in Mr Lyttclton's eyes. " I have not the slightest doubt," he writes, " that the wary policy of |nstponemenl in 1903 and 1905 did in fact enable the vast majority of the Unionist party, which was at first greatly severed ii|K>n the question, to consider and assimilate the facts and reasons which led them ultimately to adopt the new opinions. Hut the time was gained and party union preserved, at a heavy cost, and only by the'exercise of a courage and «>lfeffacement to which the history of party leaders furnishes no parallel." Of the graciousness of character and manner which has invoked Mr Halfour's personality with an indescribable charm Mr Lyttelton mites with all tho authority

conferred by intimate friendship, but tho reference to it and to some of Mr Balfour's other interests, such (is his lovo for music and for mechanical inventions, is not very relevant to a discussion of tho quality of his leadership. A more critical estimate is that provided by nn anonymous writer, "Curio," in the Fortnightly Review. In the opinion of this writer Mr Jlalfonr'a leadership was "a permanent blight on the development of the Unionist party."The ground upon which this somewhat harsh judgment is based seena to be that there has been a lack of adantabilily on Mr llalfoiir'fi part to the changing polttical conditions of the country. "Mr Halfour, above all, was a Salisburian; ho typified and represented that curious union between middle-class shibboleths and aristocratic ideals which made Frcetrado almost an article of Tory faith, and a distrust in social reform and in an extension of tho franchise one. of tho creeds in which even intelligent, Unionists were expected to believe. Personally, of course,, he soared far oulsido all these shadows; he demanded the trust of the electorate without taking any means to secure it; and when Mr Chamberlain or the Snlishurian record got it for him he showed himself, as history will provo, the greatest Foreign Minister since Pitt. Hut he never could understand tho democracy—and if he lived to a hundred he never would." Tho writer becomes more explicit later on. After acknowledging tho greatness of the sen-ice Mr llalfour rendered to his party in preserving its unity whon the crisis in its fortunes came in 1903 and in rcconsolidating a shattered organisation between that date and 1908, "Curio" proceeds: "Mr lialfonr could not light Mr Lloyd George on the now ground and beat him, and tho terrible fighter who had never lost his hold on ideas or democracy bad passed from the ring. What might havo lwen a passing catastrophe in 1906 had. ken proved to have been a Radical shift in the whole balance of political ideas and electoral jtower. Mr fialfonr surmounted the temporary catastrophe with unmatched ability and courage; it was not in hk nature to adapt himself to the new and enduring conditions tho cataetropho had brought about. While his voice onco ■moro dominated a House of Commons which was under Cabinet control rapidly locing its touch with tho pooplo, and under a press censorship gradually ceasing to be studied closely even by intelligent people, the Biirging waves of demo, cratic feeling outside were swept hither and thither without a semblance of Tory guidance. The age had marched past and left the great man behind. Mr Balfour, particularly in tho election of 1910, strove magnificently against fate. Whatever he has wanted, he has never wanted courage. Hut the physical conditions of leadership in a hustling age became too onerous: the pooplo failed to respond to the accents of statesmanship, logic, and uniinpasrioncd lucidity. Tho Salisburian epoch had gone mid taken its arguments with it, and newer and moro raucous voices now tickled the popular oar." In much the same strain Mr Alfred A. Haumann writes in the samo review. "Mr Ttolfour," acccordihg to this critic, " found himself physically and temperamentally unfitted for the leadership of a parly under the conditions of modern political life. . . , That is why the man, who in the llouso of Commons was so easy, so acute, and so brilliant, was too often on tho platform a pitiful stammerer of ambiguous generalities." The National Review, which bad for several months before his retirement with malignant persistency attacked Mr Halfonr in terms of tho most violent abuse, had little comment to offer upon his resignation except to say that it " put an end to an impossible position."