TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE RADICALS' IMPATIENCE.
Ithe Conservatives are too servile in their political discipline, it is pretty certain that the Liberals are much too little disposed to pay even a proper deference to the discretion of their leaders. At the very first suggestion of an inconsistency between the principles avowed by the Liberals in Opposition, and the principles pursued by them in power, the moral in- dignation of the party begins to rise high ; in many quarters, hardly an attempt is made to appreciate the relative weight of responsibility attaching to divergent interests ; and we hear denunciations of time-serving as glib and eager as if it were the easiest and most common thing in the world to reverse effectually the lines of a mischievous and immoral policy, and undo the evil that has been done. Now, the truth is that nothing is more difficult than the position of the successor to such an oppressive inheritance as that left by Lord Beacons- field. So far as we can judge, though Mr. Gladstone may not have displayed quite equal promptitude in grappling with every side of the great field of difficulties, he is doing all in his power, according to the best of his experience and judg- ment, to grapple with those difficulties. And to accuse him of insincerity and time-serving fickleness before he has been three weeks in office, because he does not at once dismiss a particular public servant whose insubordination his party had justly condemned, shows an utter inability to estimate the rela- tive significance and claims of different duties, which promises very badly for the future capacity and efficiency of the party. We are disposed, as we have elsewhere indicated, to regret that Mr. Gladstone's Government did not determine rather to risk whatever chance there may be of the confederation of the South-African Colonies, than to risk any further transgressions of discipline by colonial satraps who fancy themselves better 'judges of policy than their chiefs. But though we incline to this view of a difficult question, it seems the perfect imbecility, of political vanity and impatience to accuse such a statesman as Mr. Gladstone of bad-faith or cowardice, be- cause he does not at once determine that it is better to recall Sir Bartle Frere, than to make all the use he can of his ser- vices in the difficult endeavour in which he is now engaged. What the Liberals so profoundly condemned in Sir Bartle Frere was his reckless invasion of Natal, without, and indeed against, the order of his superiors. And it is quite clear that, if there had been no other interest to take account of in the matter, Sir Bartle Frere should have been recalled even now, for that disposition of his to make war with a light heart. We cannot properly treat such high-handed acts in a subordinate as even venial. At the same time, it is not unusual to pass over greater acts of insubordination, such as Nelson's inability to see the signal ordering him to dis- continue the naval action before Copenhagen, when the service in which the officer is engaged is one of the highest moment to his country, and one likely, if it succeeds, to atone in some degree for the offence itself. The Government, we suppose, holds this to be the case in relation to Sir Bartle Frere's attempt to bring about Confederation between the different South-African Colonies. If anything could atone for the great blunder and great failure of the invasion of Zulu- land, it would be the successful political confederation of those great dependencies whose isolation and rivalries were the chief cause both of our danger, and of our impatience of that danger. The moment for so recalling Sir Bartle Frere as to mark best the Government's displeasure at his insubordination, passed, when Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent out, and he was not recalled. So far from his being now engaged in doing the sort of mischief due to his spontaneous invasion of Zululand, he is doing his very best to repair that mischief, and to remove the chief motive for it. It may be—we hold it is—. a blunder to think more of this effort than of the previous fault. But it is at least the pardonable blunder of candid and hopeful statesmen. And it is to us hardly credible that such an error as this should be treated as if it had implied an in- sincere partisan censure on Sir Bartle Frere before, and a cynical withdrawal of that censure now. What was so strongly condemned has long been done, and cannot now be undone. What Sir Bartle Frere is now engaged in is a work which, if successful, will remove much of the danger lest the same temptation should recur. It is a mistake, we think, to regard this consideration as outweighing the vast importance of enforcing the resolve of the Government that it will tolerate no independent satraps. But if a mistake, it is a pardonable mistake, the mistake of statesmen who are anxious to be moderate even against their own bias, rather than the mistake of personal vanity and political self-will.
And what else is there that the severest Liberal can bring against the Government, to justify all this fretfulness and impatience ? Could there be stronger declarations than those. given by Lord Hartington of his intention to get the invading army out of Afghanistan with all reasonable speed consistent with securing the safety of those in Afghanistan who have taken our side ? He tells the House of Commons plainly that he is not yet clear what the effect of the treaty engagements. entered into by the British Government during the late regime may be, but that though, of course, one Government cannot repu- diate the solemn engagements of its predecessor, his first wish, is to restore Afghanistan to that independence, and, if possible,. that self-government of which the late invasion robbed it. And Lord Hartington is a man to be trusted. Even Radicals have often attested that he is apt to be rather better than his word, instead of rather worse. Again, what declaration could be more satisfactory than that of Lord Granville in the House of Lords, on the use he hopes to make of the concert of Europe- in the Eastern Question ? What better evidence of its im- portance,—its importance in a sense reversing the policy of the Tory Government,—could have been given than Lord Salisbury's bitter outbreak against that European concert yesterday week ? Greece and Montenegro, Bulgaria and Armenia,. are all of them perfectly aware of the important meaning of Lord Granville's declaration, and all of them astir With new hope.
Or again, if we look at home, what right have Liberals to. be dissatisfied with what is promised ? Already we have the Burials Bill, the Bill for giving tenant-farmers the inalienable right to deal with the ground-game on a footing of perfect equality with their landlords, and the Irish Borough Franchise Bill. Is it possible in a short Session such as this to gi46 more solid proofs of earnestness and business-like good- faith ? And after all, do Liberals forget that when they have had their own way in every respect as regards the Govern- ment, it is for their chosen Government on their responsibility- as Ministers, and not for themselves, to decide, what they can- and what they cannot do to carry out effectually the policy they have avowed? It seems to us as though the idea of confidence, the idea of reposing anything approaching to moral trust in their leaders' high principle and discretion, are almost confined to that party whose trust is an abstract passion, and not founded on rational conviction at all. The Conserva- tives take their leaders' word for what is right, with an un- flinching fidelity through long years of trial which is quite pa- thetic. The Liberals begin to shriek before theirleaders have been three weeks in power, and after the fullest evidence of the sincerity and good-faith of their chiefs, only because on a few questions of great delicacy and difficulty Mr. Gladstone's judgment differs from theirs. On one question, it differs materially from that of this journal. But what of that ? Did we choose Mr. Glad- stone to carry out in everything our own views ? or because we believed that he had a wider experience, a higher range of principles, and a more thorough grasp of administrative means, than any of us, and that we could well believe his judgment to be a better judgment than the average Liberal judgment, even where it differed from that of the greater number If the Liberals get the Government of their choice, and then will not trust it to form any judgment whatever which differs from theirs, the prospect of the ascendency of the party is poor indeed. To our minds, though it is well to criticise, to show our reasons for differing when we do differ, from the statesmen in whom we confide, it is not well, but almost imbecile, to talk as some do of their treachery, of their deserving an instant desertion by their party, because the way in which they exercise their responsibility is not always our way. The strong presumption is that where the opinion of such a Cabinet as the present differs from that of the numerical majority of the ,Liberal party, it will so differ at all events for substantial reasons, which, though they may not be final, are at least well worthy of the deepest respect. Let it not appear thus early that Liberalism tends to party anarchy almost as surely as Conservatism, in its most recent phase, tended to the despotism of individual wills.
Previous page
