TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. GLADSTONE'S DECLARATION.
MR. GLADSTONE'S speech in the House of Commons on Thursday night will not only put a new heart into the Liberal Party, but will bring over to it, for a time at all events, no inconsiderable number of those genuine Conser- vatives, who hold that it is a Conservative tradition for the House of Lords to give way on all issues of principle to the House of Commons. That tradition is, we say, a Conser- vative tradition ; and it is so, not only in that general sense in which guarantees for reasonable improvement are always guarantees for the stability of what does not urgently demand change, but also in the historical sense that it is a tradition of Conservative origin. It was the Duke of Wellington who made the memorable declaration that the House of Lords could not pretend to insist on its own opinion against the clear resolve of the House of Commons ; and it is the Duke of Wellington's maxim that the Tory Party are now casting to the winds. Moreover, that declaration was made on an occasion which renders it much more than germane to the present crisis. The Corn Laws had been repealed by a House of Commons which was not only not elected to repeal it, but was elected to enforce the protective system. Sir Robert Peel came into power to support Protection ; and the House of Commons elected for that purpose was Lye years old when the same great Minister asked it to abolish Pro- tection. The final majority in the Commons for abolishing the Corn Laws was 98, and then the repealing Bill went to the Lords. The Lords, if they had been led by Lord Salisbury, would have rejected the Bill contemptuously, on the ground that it was a duty to compel an appeal to the people. There was much more excuse for such a plea in that case than in this. In that case the House of Commons was really going against the mandate which it had received from the electors. In this case the House of Commons is complying with the mandate it received from the electors. In that case the majority was only 98. In this case the majority, which had reached 130 on the second reading, and which was even greater on other amendments, had been so uniformly large, that it was not even thought worth while to divide on the third reading at all. Hence, in every particular the case now for the surrender of the Lords is vastly stronger than was the case then. Yet what was it that the Duke of Wellington said then. He said :—" My noble friend says, and with truth, that this vote differs from the original vote given by the same House of Commons, and with the views, or with the supposed views, of the constituencies. But I do not think, my Lords, that this is a subject which you can take into your consideration, because you can have no accurate knowledge of the facts; and because, in the next place, we know that it is the Bill of the House of Commons which has come up to us, and we know by the votes which have been passed that it is the Bill which has been recommended by the Crown. If we reject this Bill, my Lords, we know that we reject the Bill which has been passed and agreed to by the bwo other branches of the Con- stitution, and that the House of Lords will stand alone in re- jecting it. This is the consideration with which I beg your Lordships to look at the question. This is a position, my Lords, in which you ought not, in which you cannot stand. It is a position in which you are powerless, and can do nothing." Now what do our readers suppose that the Duke would say if he were still in the position which is now unfortunately occupied by Lord Salisbury ? He would be compelled, by the whole moral logic of his previous statement, to repeat it with vastly greater emphasis. He would remind the House of Lords that there is not only not an iota of evidence for supposing that the country repudiates the House of Commons, but the most astounding mass of evidence to prove that the country especially elected the House of Commons to pass this Bill, and now requires it to pass it with a unanimity of enthusiasm almost unexampled. He would laugh to scorn Lord Salis- bury's contention that the House of Commons has no right to pass a Franchise Bill before it passes a Redistribution Bill. That is the very point on which the House of Commons has rejected, by a majority of 130, Lord Salisbury's contention. That is the very point on which the country has been engaged during thela.st two months in vehemently applauding the decision of the House of Commons ; and it follows, therefore, that the Duke of Wellington, were he the Tory leader, would condemn in tote the policy of the present Tory leader.
We have laboured this point because we want to show that Mr. Gladstone's firm, though quiet declaration on Thursday night of the prin2iple on which the Government intend to take up an unalterable stand, rests on genuinely Conservative prin- ciples, if the Duke of Wellington may still be regarded as having in 1846 laid down the law for the Conservative Party. Lord John Manners and the other Tory chiefs assert that when Mr. Gladstone declares that if the House of Lords do not yield now they will raise a more dangerous question than that of the Franchise, he is uttering an unconstitutional menace. Why, the Duke of Wellington said exactly the same thing in 1846, under circum- stances not half so decisive. He told the Lords plainly that "they ought not to stand," that they "could not stand" alone against the other elements of the Constitution. What did that mean except that, if they had the temerity to do so, they would raise the graver Constitutional question to which Mr. Gladstone referred. "You have vast influence OR public opinion," he said, "but separated from the Crown and from the House of Commons, you can do nothing till the connection with them is revived." What words could imply a more definite threat than those ? The House of Lords was not, in the Duke of Wellington's opinion, a body which could safely enter into a quarrel with the House of Commons. It would be worse for them if they did. Well, that is all that Mr. Gladstone contends for. If they do defy a resolute House of Commons, backed up by a resolute people, it will and must be worse for the House of Lords. It will then necessarily become a question how to get rid of the obstructiveness of the Lords. The Duke of Wellington indicated that as clearly as Mr. Gladstone ; and the House of Lords of that day did not venture to ignore the advice of the Duke of Wellington. If the House of Lords of to-day ventures to follow the advice of Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote, we can only say this,—that it will part company with all those Conserva- tives who still look back with reverence to the Duke of Wellington, and by doing so will take the whole strength and marrow out of the Conservative party.
Mr. Gladstone, then, is now the real leader both of the tru3 Conservatives and the true Liberals. His warning is a warn- ing addressed to the Lords in the spirit of the Duke of Wellington ; and if Tories insist on neglecting that warning, they will have against them not a party, but a nation. It is true that Sir Stafford Northcote's tone was mild ; and well it might be, when he was, by refusing compromise, venturing on the most audacious political step ever taken in the present generation. Doubtless his own temerity took away his breath ; and he did not venture to be at one and the same time both reckless and pugnacious. Mr. Gladstone also spoke in a sub- dued tone ; but the reason why he spoke in a subdued tone was that he feared for his opponents, and not for himself. He has openly declared that where the House of Commons and the House of Lords cannot agree, the House of Lords must give way, if they are not intent on raising the ultimate question of how it would be most convenient to heave away the obstacles they present. That is the real question before the country. The Duke of Wellington pre- sented it clearly enough thirty-eight years ago. Mr. Gladstone presents it to us now. Those who have followed Mr. Glai- stone up to the present time will give him a unanimous support. Those who have considered the Duke of Wellington the b3st type of prudent Conservatism, will also give Mr. Gladstone a unanimous support. Who will be left on the other side ? An affrighted party, that will shrink and dwindle from day to day, —a party from which all prudent Conservatives will at once separate themselves, and from which lukewarm politicians of all kinds will slink quietly away. Lord Salisbury doubtless will remain a host in himself. But does he seriously expect those dis- heartened Peers, who know that if the House of Lords goes, all their consequence will go with it, to support him ? We hardly believe it. When next Lord Salisbury challenges the House of Lords to postpone the Franchise Bill, he will do so with slender hope of carrying his followers with him ; and he should do so with a fixed resolve in case he fails to retire from a leadership for which he is obviously and utterly unfit.
Previous page
