THE PRESS AND MR. GLADSTONE.
TT1HE papers which are now indulging in such unmeasured 1. abuse of Mr.- Gladstone are, we believe, making a very serioue mistake, not simply in temper, but in policy. The Times, for instance, when it accuses Mr. Gladstone of treating his proposal for Ireland " merely as the ace which the gambler carries in his .sleeve," is taking leave of its senses, if it thinks that this is the best way to bring wavering Liberals, as we no less earnestly than the Times desire to bring them, to resist the concession to Ireland of an. Irish Parliament. If the object were simply to swell the torrent of Tory wrath, such accusa- tions, implying as they do distinctly foul play on Mr. Glad- stone's part, might be politic, though they would, of course, be none the• leas disgraceful. But the chance of defeating the proposal to authorises•separate Parliament for Ireland does not depend in any way on the volume or the fury. of Tory wrath. Let Tory wrath rage-and swell as it will, it will not be able to carry away the- House- of Commons. The only chance of per- suading the House of Commons that Mr. Gladstone's proposals are unwise, rests on the hope of convincing a considerable number of his sincere followers that they are unwise. Is that a result likely to be effected by launching at him the most actimonions• invectives day after day, and. actually accusing him of tricks exactly analogous to those of "the heathen Chinee r ? We believe that we have a fair right• to judge of the effect of such invective on the • minds of Liberals • by their effect upon ourselves. We have been, up to the new phase of the Irish . Question, among the firmest, the most earnest, supporters of Mr. Gladstone, heartily grateful to him for all the most conspicuous of the legislative changes he has introduced, as well as • for the high standard of political integrity and disinterestedness' which he• has set before the nation. We have not been able to follow him in his proposal- to cure the evils of Ireland by handing over Ireland •to an Irish Legislature and an Irish •Administra- tion, for many reasons,-but especially for this reason,—that the policy of the Irish Party in the House of Commons offers us ,no, reasonable • hope that such a Legislature and such an Administration would,be guided by those elementary principles of justice and common sense- which are the first, conditions of r political well-being. But in spite . of feeling this as strongly as- we • do,—in spite of heartily desiring to see the Irish policy of the. Government defeated,—we do not hesitate to say that the temper displayed by the Pressrand especially displayed in the monstrous accusation launched at Mr. Gladstone. in yesterday's Times, disgusts ns so thoroughly, that if our judgment, instead of being clear on the great issue. before- • the' country, were at all trembling in the balance, we should be in very, great danger of coming to the decision that it would be impossible to act with allies either so unscrupulous or so silly; Is it conceivable that the authorities of .Printing „House' Square.really think Mr. Gladstone capable of a foul trick for the purpose of securing himself in power If they-do, their judgment in political matters is simply worthless, and may be absolutely disregarded. Is it conceivable, on the. other hand, that, not thinking him- capable of such a trick, they think that the more mud they throw at him, the more likely they are to overwhelm him ? In that• case, we should.. be very sorry to act with partisans so incredibly base and un- grateful. Probably the real truth is this, that the • writer did not intend to accuse Mr. Gladstone of deliberate foul play, but did• intend to accuse him of an ambition which does not scruple to spring a totally new policy on tho public of which it is thought that he had given no fair notice before the General Election. Well, that- is, of course, a totally different .charge from that of foul play, and no charge implying foul ploy, and carrying with it all the associations of infamy con- nected with foul play, ought to have been brought. But in their pareionate- desire to defeat Mr. Gladstone, the authorities .of Printing House=Square- do -not very carefully scan phrases which are felt to be effective, though the smallest consideration would also show that.they are effective only because they are' associated with low and dishonourable transactions. What-we wish to insist on, however, is this,. that nothing can be more fatal to theehief object .to•be attainel,—namely, the detachment of, sound Liberal*• from• the- Hemel-rule policy,—than the• xnauifestation of this blind and undiscriminating fury. When a man's judgment is in the balance, it is not a good plan to intuit him as a mode of converting him. Now to tell •Liberals that Mr.-Gladstone has been acting as a gambler would act' who'kept an soe up his sleeve, is to insult them. They know very well how many reasons they have to be proud of Mr.
Gladstone, and how grateful they are to him for his inestimable services.- And they will not listen seriously to those who treat him as if they ought to be ashamed of him, instead of being thus proud of him.
Besides, the. whole tenor of the accusation is manifestly untrue. We are quite willing to admit that if Mr. Gladstone had really contemplated in September changes as large as h e actually contemplated in December, it would have been wise and right, if it had been possible, to indicate his views both more clearly and more prominently than he did in the. Mid- lothian address. But there were, of course, great difficulties in the way. In September nobody knew whether Mr. Parnell's boast -of being able to carry more than eighty personal followers in the Irish constituencies was not an immense exaggeration of the truth. But Mr. Gladstone could not properly have explained that if Mr. Parnell should succeed in showing that Ireland was, by an immense majority, in favour of Home-rule, he should then feel it incumbent on him to propose what would satisfy the Home-rulers. Such an- announcement, though made hypothetically, would have been regarded by all the world as an immense stimulus to the extreme and violent party in Ireland, indeed, as dangling before them a rich prize in case their efforts should be successful. Had Mr. Gladstone taken this course, every one would have cried out on him as acting openly in concert with Mr. Parnell. On the other hand, it was impossible for him to advocate Home-rule without reference to the result of the Irish elections, because there can be no doubt that but for that result Mr. Gladstone's judgment would not have been what it is. It is certain that the return of eighty-five Parnellites to Parliament gravely affected his own opinion on the subject, as it also gravely affected Lord Spencer's. It is, therefore, as it seems to us, absurd to accuse Mr. Gladstone of undue reserve in not speaking in September as he speaks now. If he had said more then than he did say of the danger and inexpediency of thwarting Irish wishes, in case they should be strongly expressed, we may be quite sure that he would have been assailed in September for making a disgraceful bid for Irish support, and every one must admit that such a course at that time would have been at once undignified and mis- chievous. So far as we understand the matter, with Mr. Gladstone's view of the Constitutional exigencies of repre- sentative institutions, he could neither have said more than he did-in September, nor less than he did in January, without rendering himself liable to even worse accusations than those now levelled against him. It was the situation itself- which compelled reticence in September. Any avowal of his view would have implied a promise to crown the edifice of Irish independence on condition. of Mr. Parnell's being able to return a sufficient number of representatives to the new Par- liament. And we cannot imagine- any course which would have ensured Mr. Gladstone a worse torrent of invective than that.
The. obvious -duty, as well as the obvious policy, of politicians who desire to detach Liberals from the Home-rule party, is then, as it seems to us,—to acknowledge frankly that Mr. Glad- stone is perfectly in earnest in the line he is taking ; that it is a perfeotly disinterested and perfectly serious line ; and, indeed, a perfectly arguable line, though we need not say that, in our opinion, the weight of the arguments against it is far greater than the weight of the arguments in its favour. But this we will also say. If Mr. Gladstone had concurred with us in thinking that almost any conceivable issue from the deadlock in Ireland is better than the issue of Home-rule, he might be at the present moment the most popular Minister whom England ever had, with half the; Conservatives, and almost all the Liberals, at his back.. No one - can doubt that it is Mr. Gladstone's influence, and Mr. Gladstone's influence alone, which has disposed so many great constituencies in Great Britain even to consider Home-rule. Without his adhesion, Home-rule would have been laughed out of court. His adhe- sion is still the great factor,—the only important factor—in the Liberal view of the matter,. which makes for. Home-rule. It does, therefore, seem to us not a little unfair to say that-in incurring the very great risk he is now incurring, a risk which will very probably be fatal to his position, he is yielding to that coarse ambition which sacrifices everything for power. We hold, and we have no doubt at all that he holds, that if he had led the resistance to Home-rule, he would at this moment-be more popular in Great Britain than at any other moment during his great career. He has not done- so, because' he believes that constitutional independenoe will save Ireland. That is, at least, a view which we should respect.
Previous page
