TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD SALISBURY'S DELIVERANCE.
" pROPUTTY. proputty, proputty ; that's what I hears 'un say," said the Northern Farmer, as he listened to the beat of his pony's hoofs ; and that is what Lord Salisbury bears, as he listens to the rhythm of the movement of the age. The Tory leader has very often seemed in his speeches to be over-careful for the "rights of property," but at Liverpool, on Wednesday and Thursday, he talked of them as if they con- tained some mystical and almost sacred secret of statesman- ship,—as if Property were the Ark, and Mr. Gladstone Uzzah. There are statesmen who speak of " Order " as if it were divine, and others who bestow on "Freedom" something akin to worship ; but Lord Salisbury supersedes both, in favour of his more sordid idol. His explanation on Wednesday of all that had occurred in Ireland, was that the Liberal Government had "legislated in a sense hostile to the rights of property," and thence had arisen that "social revolution" of which the Premier spoke, and which, said Lord Salisbury, with strangely suggestive and most genuine narrowness, "is, I suppose, generally a revolution against the laws of property." One wonders if he thinks the greatest social revolution which ever occurred, the overthrow of Paganism by Christianity, was impelled by hatred for existing property laws. Because the Government and Parliament had suddenly, " for the first time, transferred to one set of men the property belonging to another "—did Lord Salisbury never hear of Elizabeth, Cromwell, or William III. I—therefore a social revolution had burst out, and the Irish, taught by the Liberal Minister that no bribe was final, were tempted to further outrage, in the hope of something more. So completely does this expldnation satisfy Lord Salisbury, that he offered no other, that he asserted improvement in Ireland to be impos- sible, until the hope of obtaining more had been put down, and avowed that to protect property he would even "hurry on" a vaster revolution,—that transfer of all land-ownership from landlords to tenants which he obviously wishes to pro-
• pose, and of which we have spoken elsewhere. There may, he thinks, be a remedy in peasant-proprietorship, not because that makes contented citizens, or enlightened citizens, or good citizens, but because in that is involved the crea- tion of a physical power adequate to defend property. Without righteousness shall no State live, say the Divines ; • but Lord Salisbury, if he postulates the righteousness,
postulates also, as an equal datum, property. Were pro- perty but secure in Ireland, say as secure as property was when the Roman Empire perished, then the State also would be secure. So convinced is the Tory chief of this truth, that on Thursday he actually applied it to explain the absence of manu- facturing capital in Ireland, and ignoring the want of coal, the social disorganisation, and the character of the people, declared that this want was solely produced by Parliament's "incessant tampering with those rights of property," that "sanctity," indeed, of property, "on which the whole of our civic in- stitutions rest." "Depend upon it, that in all classes of society, if we desire prosperity and progress, if we desire the promotion of civilisation, if we desire the maintenance of tran- quillity and peace, if we desire the existence of all conditions that are the most opposite to those which Ireland displays at the present moment, we should support, and earnestly support, those who contend for the rights of property." And by rights of property the speaker means landed property, and landed property in absolute ownership, for Parliament has interfered with no other rights, has not even discussed manufac- turers' dividends, and has, as Lord Salisbury acknow- ledges, increased even to a questionable degree the pro- perty of all tenants. It is in that limited sense that the idea of property possesses the speaker, till, though righteously indignant at the outrages, he only speaks of them after he has exhausted the property question, and till we are almc;st forced to believe that the defence of Imperialism, into which he shortly broke, was founded on the same thought,— that the Empire was an estate, and must be held, like an estate, sacred against all men. He speaks of England's duties, indeed, and we do not doubt that he acknowledges them ; but his heart goes out most freely, and his words acquire their deepest glow, when he describes the extent of the Empire, the vastness of its Colonies, the number of its subjects, and calls upon his hearers to defend the "great creations due to the energy of England's sons." "Look at these fields," he seems to say, "these houses, these endless tenants,—are not these
well worth sacrifices to maintain ?" "My father," says the Northern Farmer, "run up to the farm, an' I runs up to the mill, and I'll run up to the brig." And in these words is, if not Lord Salisbury's theory of statesmanship, at least his ac- count of its great motive.
It is as difficult to argue with a man possessed with an idea like this, and trying everything by it, as it is to argue with a man who has a grievance against the Judges, or who believes that the secret of all the politics of the world is a Russian plot, or who explains all English history by the descent of her people from the Ten Tribes ; but Lord Salisbury leaves us little else to discuss. There would be nothing gained by showing that Mr. Forster did not refuse to appear before the House of Lords because he was afraid lest the cross-examination would reveal his partisan motive in selecting Land Commis- sioners. No one but Lord Salisbury would have made the insinuation, and he probably only made it to avenge himself for the fierce restraint he Rut upon himself about Mr. Glad- stone, whom he only described as an "eminent empiric," and only accused of securing a "scratch majority" by "means he would not characterise." What of enlightenment has his speech contributed to the country, in the difficulties of the hour? He is willing, apparently, to help to put down out- rage, provided it be by repressive means, but he has no plata for putting it down to propose. He has no remedy for the paralysis of Parliament, except to denounce the Closure as a "muzzling of the House of Commons." He has nothing t& say of foreign policy, except that anybody can get into smooth water who steers for it, out of his course, and so neglects his duty and his owners. He denounces the " caucus " as some- thing monstrous, but helps to establish a Tory caucus in Liverpool ; and detesting the new control exercised by con- stituencies, only says that as they are closer to their members, they influence them more. Even on the great subject of his thoughts—the turning-out of the Ministry—he gives us no clear assurance. Is he ready to take power, if the people will give it, or not? The proposal to "hurry on" peasant proprietorship, looks as if he was ; and the Times de- clares, in its loudest tones, that through the Liverpool meet- ing, "the Opposition has recovered its ground in the State as a party, with reasonable hopes of succeeding at no distant day to power ; " but we can find no scintilla of evidence that Lord Salisbury is prepared with plans, and a programme, and a Dissolution. He is a little more moderate in his tone, despite his venomous attack on Mr. Forster, and he is a little less rash about foreign and Colonial policy ; and he hints that if Dissolu- tion comes, the scratch majority may disappear ; but he gives no other sign of expecting soon to take office, and had he ex- pected it, would hardly have delivered that long academical essay on the rights of the House of Commons being only per- fect when the Members were checked by the House of Lords, and when they were free of caucus dictation. As the House of Lords is no check when great proposals are made, but only dams up the stream to make it fuller, and as the caucuses cer- tainly do not " dictate " votes like the old boroughmongers, that contribution to constitutional history is not valuable ; and what else is there ? Nothing but the proposal to make Irish tenants owners—a great proposal, but only hinted, not put for- ward as a pledge—and a repetition in a dozen different forms of the great dogma that property is sacrosanct. While that grand principle is maintained, all is safe, for all may be restored. As no Liberal denies the dogma, but only adds that property must be rightful, nothing to guide the Government or the people can be gained from speeches which were evidently intended to make a new impression, and which in many passages are models of rhetorical skill,—if, indeed, that be rhetorical skill which has every effect upon the reader, except persuasion.
Previous page
