TOPICS OF THE DAY.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE AT BARNSTAPLE.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE was perhaps hitting the Mark more nearly than he imagined, when,having compared his new position as Leader of the House of Commons, in his good-humoured speech at Barnstaple on Wednesday, to that of a master of fox-hounds, he thus described the chief duties of that functionary, as he himself conceived them :—"A master of hounds has to take good care to be courteous to the whole field, to keep them in good-humour, at the same time that he does not allow them to tale any liberties, to cross the scent, or to interfere with the proper conduct of the hunt by doing any little thing of that sort. The position of the Leader of the House of Commons is, after all, not so very unlike that. He has to do all that he can to push business forward, to keep everybody in good-humour, and to prevent any unnecessary waste of time." That hardly describes, we think, the true ideal of the Leader of the House of Commons, but it describes Sir Stafford Northcote's ideal, and suggests the weak side of that ideal, which is also the weak side of his public work as a statesman. Perhaps he has learned from his lost leader the habit of thinking it too much a part of his duty to make everything easy all round. Only, while Mr. Disraeli habitually pursued that policy on matters concerning which he did not care,—and there were not, perhaps, very many matters except those essential to the organisation of the party about which he did care very much till this East- ern Question arose,—on the one or two points on which he was resolved to "educate his party," he somehow managed always to find that the line of least resist- ance was also the line of his own determined purpose. Is there not some danger that Sir Stafford Northcote will imitate his chief in the looseness with which he holds the rein, without giving character and significance to his leadership by having cer- tain fixed ideas of his own, which he pursues steadfastly, through evil report and good report, and always with increasing success and influence ? The danger of Sir Stafford Northcote as a public man has certainly been want of tenacity. He showed it at Washington, in the ease with which he allowed himself to be outgeneralled as to the unlimited claims of the Alabama' arbitration. He has shown it more than once in Bills like the Friendly Societies' and the Savings'-Bank Bills, in the House of Commons, when he has been so willing to give up the very drift and essence of the needed legislation to preserve its outward form. He showed it in one of his Budgets, when he provided a nominal surplus, which he had to admit would be more than consumed, if it did not exceed his estimate, by the sup- plementary estimates of the year with which he was dealing. And above all, he showed the same spirit in his speech the other night, the moment he got to the critical question of the day,—the Eastern Question.
In dealing with the Eastern Question at Barnstaple, there was one thing he never forgot,—" to be courteous to the whole field and keep them in good-humour." But we cannot say that he is at all so careful to prevent any one from "crossing the scent" If we are able to judge this matter at all, Sir Stafford Northcote himself crossed the scent almost every time he turned from one aspect of that question to another. Nothing could be more agreeable and catholic than his view of it. Everybody was to be made quite happy. Of course " India " and "British interests" are not only not "to perish," but to be made as safe as church mice. Nobody will quarrel with that part of his programme. But next, "the feeling of the country," nay, "the feeling of the civilised world," about• the solemn obligation of treaties is to be respected, and the seal of arrangements formally made between nation and nation is not to be broken. Well, that sounds very serious indeed. If any one thing is secured under the existing treaties, it is that Turkey's internal administration of her own provinces is not to be meddled with by Europe, and that on no pretext whatever can the European Powers intervene between the Sultan and his subjects. Sir Stafford Northcote sees that, and hastens to assure us that neverthe- less it is one of the great duties of Europe to see that the Christian subjects of the Porte shall be misgoverned no longer, and that there is nothing to prevent our securing this in the treaties which we are so solemnly bound to respect. Did not the Porte itself request us to give in our adhesion to the Andrassy Note, though it was very well pleased with our rejec- tion of the Berlin Memorandum? How, then, can the Porte deny that it has itself admitted the necessity for the modifi- cation,—though not the tearing-up, of course,—of the Treaty of Paris ? " We do not take these treaties and tear them up, and throw them to the winds. We have to consider what the spirit and meaning of the treaty was, to consider what was the meaning of the engagements into which Turkey practically entered by embodying in the Treaty of 1856 provisions for the better government of her Christian subjects ; and considering this, let us see in the light of events which have happened since, whether further promises and further guarantees are not necessary in order to secure the ample fulfilment of those promises which the Turk made, and which we fully believe it will be still possible for the Turk to carry out." (Note that last phrase, which is the only really significant hint in the whole speech, and which is significant in the sense of favouring the victory of the Prime Minister rather than the victory of that section of the Cabinet who, as we hoped, were of an opposite school of thought. If the Turks are to carry out their own promises, the fulfilment will not be worth much.) So that the treaties are to be most solemnly respected in all respects in which they are not to be modified, but, how far they are to be modified, and how far these modifications might be equivalent to a moral tearing-up, Sir Stafford Northcote is far too prudent to commit himself. If we are only going to ask for "further promises and guarantees" beyond those made in 1856, Sir Stafford might, we think, have been wholly silent as to any moclifications. For of promises we had too much in 1856, and of guarantees none at all, so that we do not want "further promises ;" and "further guarantees would mean any guarantees whatever, however trivial, since no guarantees were given then. But Sir Stafford has not even yet made things quite as comfortable all round as he intends. He goes on to say "British interests" are to be most reso- lutely maintained, but let no one imagine that that phrase has. any selfish ring in it. Far from it. The maintaining of British interests means the maintaining of the interests of all other States,—the interests of peace, in short. British interests are identical with the interests of European stability and peace. "We believe that no peace can be solid, unless it rests upon- solid arrangements for the good government of the provinces to which reference has so often been made." Now the only defect of these very comfortable opinions of Sir Stafford North- cote is, that exactly through being so complete on all sides, they fail to have much significance on any. We all know the old, and we must say, in a Darwinian age, semcwhat doubtful theorem, that if we could but see it, tbe4nterest of each individual in any community is the interest of the whole community, and the interest of the whole community is the interest of each individual. But even admitting the principle itself, which is dubious enough, the defect of it is the diffi- culty of applying it. Especially in this Eastern Question, what we all want to know is, not so much how far our statesmen approve of all the different ends which different sections of the public urge upon them, but which of several important ends is to be preferred if they clash,—or what is the same thing, as regards our imperfect human vision, if they appear to clash,—with one another. It is no use at all smoothing every difficulty over, as Sir Stafford Northcote does, telling us first that India is to be secured,—next, that treaties are to be sedulously observed,—next, that all wrongs which these very treaties have sheltered are to be most carefully redressed,—next, that peace is to be effectually guarded,—and finally, that in carrying out all these purposes, all the true English interests will be secured, since the in- terests of England are identical with the interests, and must ensure the peace, of Europe, when the whole question which is so fiercely discussed is how it is possible to reconcile all these ends, and when the present Ministry's own most ardent supporters,—the Pall Mall Gazette, for instance,—are day after day assuring us that we are beside ourselves, not to say wicked into the bargain, to think so much of the interests of a few millions of Slavonic Christians, while the interests of a great empire like the British Empire are to be put into the opposite scale. That shows exactly how the question really stands. What tests a statesman on the subject is to ask him what the _ relative worth of the various ends appears to him to be, and which of them he would sacrifice, if any must be sacrificed, to secure the others. For us, we admit, the first end which we think must be freely thrown to the winds is the attempt to secure the inviola- bility of a treaty of Which even the Tories admit that it must be "modified." In the next place, though we yield to none in value for the security of the British and 13ritish-Indian be satisfied with any smooth words, which do not show the Nor when we turn from the sacrifice of personal same relative appreciation of the various ends to be feeling which the Marshal must have made in accept- secured. As for Sir Stafford Northcote, his speech ing M. Jules Simon for his chief adviser, to the sacrifice of ought to satisfy none of us, for the simple reason that party feeling which the Left must have made in conceding he is bent on satisfying all of us equally ; so that, since we the point as to the Secretary at War, and indeed in accept- are not all of us of the same mind, and appreciate most ing M. Dufaure's retirement,—for that is pretty nearly the differently the relative worth of the different views which he sum of what they have gained,—as a discharge in full of so impartially adopts, it can be no satisfaction to us to be told their claims, is there less reason for satisfaction. The ex- that we are all equally right. • Sir Stafford reminds us of the change of M. de Marcere for M. Jules Simon at the Home Office Cambridge student who, when asked whether the earth is hardly an exchange for the better, in the Liberals' sense of revolved round the sun, or the sun round the earth, sought the term, except on the one point on which M. de Marcere had to conciliate both views, and avoid anything like narrowness, identified himself with the action of M. Dufaure in countenancing by replying, " sometimes one and sometimes the other." the refusal of a military guard of State at the funerals of civilians The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say the same in who had received the ribbon of the Legion of Honour, in cases regard to the intentions of the Government in relation to in which those funerals were conducted without religious the furtherance of Slavonic and so-called British interests. rites. For the rest, M. de Maniere is probably quite as strong a They will sometimes, it would seem, if Sir Stafford man as M. Jules Simon, as well as quite as strong a Republican. Northcote is to be trusted, promote the interests of M. Jules Simon, in his first declaration to the Legislature, the Slavonic provinces, and sometimes the interests of the confesses himself, indeed, " profoundly Republican," but adds British Empire. Well, he might just as well say, what would that he is "profoundly Conservative," and we doubt whether M. not be far from the truth, that in leading the House of de Marcere would have said the same in the same sense. Commons the Government would sometimes consider the Again, the substitution of M. Martel as Minister of Justice for M. wishes of the Conservatives, and sometimes the wishes of Dufaure is hardly a gain to the Liberal party. M. Martel is, like the Liberals. No doubt ;—but in all critical and important M. Dufaure, a member of the Left Centre, and almost, if notquite, crises they would throw over the Opposition, and conciliate as Conservative in his Liberalism as his predecessor. The net their own supporters. Are they going to do the same gain to the Liberal party is this,—that the head of the new by the apparently opposed interests of the SLavo-Turkish Government is a member of the Moderate Left, instead of a provinces and of British policy Are they going to member of the Left Centre, and that therefore the whole colour grant infinitesimal concessions to the former, and give sub- of the Government may be regarded as more Liberal. Esti- stantially all that is asked, for the latter If so, we know mated merely by its constituent elements, the last Cabinet was what he means but we wish he would say it a little plainer. quite as Liberal as this. But now the chief of the Cabinet Indeed, as Le Leader of the House of Commons, Sir Stafford and one of its subordinate members have, as it were, changed Northcote may very easily overdo the laudable wish to make places. A Conservative Liberal has taken the subordinate things pleasant all round. The House of Commons likes that place, an advanced Liberal has taken the leading place. And teinper, in small tfiings, but in large things it likes to see a that, so far as it goes, is a clear gain. It is as if in England a definite policy and a strong purpose behind it. We confess we Cabinet of which Lord Hartington was the head, had been ex- soMewhat doubt whether Sir Stafford Northcote has sufficient changed for a Cabinet of which Mr. Forster was the head,— mettle to place so definite a polity before Parliament, and without any other change in the least affecting the composition to -make it evident that there is a firm purpose behind it. of the Government. Of course, the result would be regarded as a Hitherto at least his faults have been in the other direction, step gained for the advanced Liberals, but the step would not Pbakes the meaning out of his measures to satisfy his oppo- be a very marked triumph. It would mean an advance into a iiente, and leaves the empty form to vex them and to please more definitely and actively Liberal policy, but yet a cautious such-of his friends as empty victories will please. If he con- and prudent advance. And that is precisely what, from a i iies to display conciliatory qualities of that kind habitually, Parliamentary point of view, the change of Cabinet involves in lie3411I not earn the reputation which is still within his reach. France. It4ould: be far better either to alienate his friends, or to raise Nor would the French Liberals have been supported, we storm among his opponents, than to make things so pleasant imagine, by public opinion in France in standing out for a more all round that no one can understand his drift, or lay any radical change. Had they insisted on a change in the Minister of store by his declarations. War,—without any substantial ground for such a change in
Previous page
