TOPICS OF THE DAY.
PARLIAMFINTARY LOYALTY AND MR. GLADSTONE.
ONE of the great occupations of the Recess seems always to be to lament the absence of political leaders in whom any one has any confidence. For many years during the decline of Lord John Russell's popularity before 1841, when budget after budget seemed ever more and more hopeless, and again when he succeeded Sir Robert Peel between 1846 and 1852, this was the great theme amongst Liberals for every quiet political moment. The matter was not mended after Lord Palmerston took the leadership. The unpopular French policy of Lord Palmerston, and the restless foreign policy attributed to him, were made the constant excuse for deploring that some man in whom steady Liberals could repose confi- dence was not at the head of affairs, and when, after his fall on account of the Conspiracy Bill, the Liberals returned to power in 1859, every one may remember the tedious debates in the press as to the relative claims of Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston to the first place in the confidence of the Liberal party. Even during Lord Pal- merston's last undisputed reign, scarcely a week elapsed in which some paper did not point out with regretful candour the evils of his too protracted career. We must put up with him,'—that was the phrase,—' while he lasts, for at his age it would be impossible to displace him, but the present regime is a mere condition of suspended animation. We are waiting to be a party and to do what we ought to do till Lord Palmerston no longer stands in the way.' That was the talk two years ago, repeated week after week, in journal after journal. What is it now ? Why, take up the very clever but very unequal article in the current number of the North British Review, and there, in better words, but pretty much the same language as a dozen other papers, we find the old wail rising again. " It is not easy for any leader more completely to have disintegiated his party than Mr. Gladstone has done in the last two sessions." The Session of 1867, says the reviewer, " has witnessed a dis- integration of party far beyond anything that has been seen in our own time or in our fathers'." If we are not mistaken in our impression of a very remarkable style, the same able writer was making the same strong statements, in equally trenchant language, in 1858-9, and at that time energetically recommend- ing a remedy which nobody seemed inclined to adopt, namely, the cessation of party government, properly so called, alto- gether, and the substitution of a group of Departmental chiefs for what we now call a Cabinet. And the chronic com- plaints made by the Liberals of the want of any leader they can trust, are generally fully rivalled by the complaints of the Conservatives. The Quarterly Review has lifted up its voice against Mr. Disraeli year after year in ineffectual moans. Everybody knows, and our North British reviewer recalls, what Sir Robert Peel did towards breaking up,—or, if the reviewer prefers the more solemn word, disintegrating,'—the Conser- vative party. In fact, as far as we know, this cry of no leadership, or no adequate leadership, is not one which is proper to any one year so much as to all years,—a cry which may be expected as regularly as the stress of public attention to any particular political subject is in some degree relaxed. That particular men are recognized by the nation as leaders from time to time we do not deny. The late Lord Grey, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Gladstone have all in their turn been so recognized. But that any one of them has ever satisfied his party as a leader, even so far as to prevent outcries of 'exoriare aliquis,' in any single session, we do not believe. No doubt, had Lord Palmerston lived, he would not, as Lord Elcho remarked, have allowed the revival of the subject of Parlia- mentary Reform by his own party. But on that very account at least half his party spoke of him as merely " stopping the way." And had Reform ever been forced upon him again, the source of his strength would have been, as every one knows, the preference of the moderate Conservatives for his counsels over Mr. Disraeli's, so that he would have been com- pelled to play off the Conservatives against his own followers. Had he done so,—as he might, adroitly enough,—what would not the anger of the mass of his advanced followers have been ? Would any course have been more savagely denounced as breaking up the Liberal party than that The simple truth is, that the Liberal party, and to a less extent the Tory party, and every party, are always in a condition of breaking up and renewal, or, as the North British reviewer would prefer to say, of " disintegration and reintegration." There is no such thing as a perfectly satisfied party of movement, and very rarely any such thing as a perfectly satisfied party of resistance to change. Except during foreign wars, it is barely possible that any party in Parliament should even suppress- its= differenceswith its leader. There is no more real chance of perfect cohesion for a whole session of political life, than of an. undisturbed atmosphere for a whole season. We can ourselves recollect a pretty long stretch of politics, but we cannot recollect the session,—except, perhaps, during the Crimean war,—when there were not even fierce criticisms on the tem- porary leader of the Liberal party. Lord Palmerston's jaunty and flippant manner gave almost as much chronic offence as Lord John Russell's cold insouciance in throwing over his sup- porters. And when it became indecent to denounce Lord Palmerston on account of his age, his followers openly said' that they were in suspended animation till after his retire- ment. It is possible that Mr. Gladstone has been more bitterly criticized by his followers this session than any Liberal leader for some time back. But that is natural, for he has not yet any of the prestige of a lengthened chiefship. When people talk of the Nation having so much more confidence in him than the House, they say what is true, but irrelevant. The nation is compaiatively at a much greater distance from. its statesmen than the House. The duty and function of the House is criticism on its leaders. The nation judges by general moral impressions, by picturesque intellectual effects, by general achievements, by one or two great speeches, by the visible results of a striking policy. It judges from a distance, and without either the responsibility or the oppor- tunity for criticism on numbers of minute circumstances. which determine the relation between the House and its' leaders. The nation trusted the Duke of Wellington because- he had shown great power and fortitude, cold, calm judgment, and deep sense of public duty, on many striking occasions. It- trusted Sir Robert Peel because he had so courageously and efficiently transformed our financial policy, extricated us from something like bankruptcy, and, finally, sacrificed. himself, like the Duke, to his sense of public duty. It trusts Mr. Gladstone because he, too, has shown the same original and courageous financial mind, and has impressed the people not only by his lucid and brilliant budgets, but. by his eager, noble, and delicate moral sentiment. It trusted Lord Palmerston for his great coups in foreign policy;. his pluck, his energy, his cheerful humour. The nation sees men only in outline, and therefore almost always feels much more cordially to a public favourite than the House, which. sees all the mental and moral detail of very complicated public business. No statesman, however able, is thoroughly popular with the mass of those directly around him. And, then,. the qualities which make him more or less popular with those around him, are not the same qualities which produce the- same result for the external world. Perhaps a quick and sound judgment of the common-place kind, and usually based on common-place considerations, with an easy temper, are the most attractive qualities to political followers in close relations with any statesman. They feel helped by his judgment being quicker than their own, and are comforted and confirmed when they find it rests exactly on the sort of grounds which they themselves understand best. Time Sir Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston were more popular with their followers than either Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli,—and so, too, in America, Mr. Seward was always thought more of among politicians than Mr. Lincoln,—because there was in all these cases more- rapidity of thought in the common old tracks than in the case of their wiser or more ingenious rivals. Mr. Gladstone is too subtle and earnest, Mr. Disraeli too unstable and curious, Mr.. Lincoln was too solid and slow, for appreciation by professional political followers. That which most deepens a popular fascina- tion is often a new fault in the eyes of parliamentary critics.
Though we admit, then, that there are special qualities which, to a certain extent, diminish parliamentary unpopularity,. we believe that the natural and chronic condition of a parlia- mentaryparty towards its leader—unlike thevaguer mental con- dition of the nation towards its most trusted chief—is one of per- petual dissatisfaction and criticism. Mr. Gladstone may be now incurring a little more of it than Lord Palmerston did between 1861 and 1g65, but he is not incurring more than Lor' Pal- merston did in 1858, or Lord John Russell in 1852. He has- had a very difficult game to play, and he has not made a special hit in playing it. So much we admit. But for the rest, these idle complaints of Mr. Dillwyn's and others as to his unfitness for the leadership of the Liberals strike us as mere wind. Mr. Dillwyn says he is not a hearty Liberal on ecclesiastical questions,—meaning that as to the Universities he has not yet quite got so far as wishing to see Dissenters in the go- verning bodies. But every one knows that Mr. Gladstone's mind is opening on all these subjects, and on almost all .ecclesiastical subjects who would wish for a stronger and more effective leader I Who has put the Liberal side of the Irish Church question so powerfully as he ? Who has showed the absurdity of refusing to let the Lord-Lieutenant be a Roman Catholic more amusingly ? Who but he has opened the way to an almost certain and easy settlement of the Church-Rate question ? Nor is it on such questions alone that the Liberal party may heartily trust him. No man has done so much to advance the question of land tenure in Ireland to a satisfac- tory settlement. No man has shown views so large and 'enlightened on the subject of charitable trusts. No man has -done so much to encourage the thrift and providence of the working classes. No man has taken a wider and nobler view of Italian politics. No living statesman has declared 'views which ought to give such deep satisfaction to Liberals ox► the still pending Germanic crisis. It was quite certain, of 'course, that the cry of no fit leader,' which we have heard :session after session almost ever since the first Reform Bill, would be renewed this. But for our parts, the Reform clues- 0n being at last out of the way, we doubt if the Liberal party has ever had a better leader than it has now got. That he bas certain disqualifications may be admitted ; but the ques- tion is, are those disqualifications nearly so great as were Alleged against Lord Melbourne, Lord Russell, and Lord Palmerston by the dissatisfied of their time ? We suppose Mr. Dillwyn and Lord Elcho will say so. But after all, Mr. Dillwyn. and Lord Elcho are small men.
Previous page
