MR. GLADSTONE'S "IMPRUDENCES."
THE Tories seem at their wits' end for stones with which to pelt Mr. Gladstone. At once bewildered and enraged by the reception accorded him by the people—a reception as unanimous and as cordial in Chester as in Edinburgh—they are now trying to accuse him of unpatriotic imprudences. He says things, they assert, which, even if he believes them, ought never to be said. A great statesman, even when out of power, ought first of all, they argue, to consider the difficulties of her Majesty's Government, and abstain, under all circumstances, from increasing them. This means, in their mouths, that if Mr. Gladstone considers a policy dangerous to the interests of the country, he is not to denounce it, because the policy may thereby be frustrated, or because the Government may have secret reasons for pursuing it ; and it would, if obeyed, reduce Opposition to a farce. We need not, however, argue against an assumption inconsistent with Parliamentary government, the very essence of which is discussion in public, but will rather examine quietly the specific instances in which Mr. Gladstone is alleged to have been imprudent. In four instances he is said to have either injured the cause of good government, or to have unfairly impeded a justifiable and wise policy. It is asserted that his reference to the Fenian agitation and the Clerkenwell outrage as events which brought the question of the Irish Church "within the region of practical politics," was a direct incentive to similar movements in order to produce similar results. Well, we can easily conceive sentences which, as they were to be read by an excitable population, might have been more wisely worded, and we regret that they were not accompanied by further explanations ; but everybody knew per- fectly well what Mr. Gladstone thought of those events, and that he referred to them as great criminal attempts, revealing a discontent which rendered it imperative on Parliament to remove such grievances as might increase or partly
justify disaffection. The very essence of Mr. Gladstone's policy in Ireland has been that Parliament ought to clear its own conscience in reference to Ireland, ought, that is, to remove every grievance which a wise and just Irish Parliament would remove, before proceeding to measures of pure coercion. The coercion may be unavoidable, but the removal of grievances is obligatory. Suppose the people of India to rise in insurrection against the bar practically imposed against their claim to military careers ? Would a statesman be condemned for stating that such an insurrection brought the question of granting Generals' com-
missions to Native officers within the range of practical politics ? It would be simple fact, though calamitous fact, and it was as a calamitous fact that Mr. Gladstone referred to the Fenian conspiracy and its incidents. Or suppose that the Times quoted the recent attempt to assassinate the Emperor of Russia as an
incident bringing reforms in Russia within the region of prac- tical politics, would it therefore be held to encourage Russian assassinations ? Then it is asserted that Mr. Gladstone thinks it proper for Parliament to expropriate land- lords' estates, in order to create a peasant proprietary. Even Lord Salisbury was not ashamed to say, on Tuesday, at Watford, that "the establishment of a system of peasant pro- prietorship in the land was a matter which, perhaps unduly, excited the interest of landlords, because Mr. Gladstone had said he was only held back from agreeing with it by certain doubts, and past experience of the right honourable gentleman had led him (the Marquis of Salisbury) to believe that the holding of such doubts, as a rule, led Mr. Gladstone to con- viction." Mr. Gladstone said nothing of the kind, but the direct contrary. He is, as we read his speeches, as distinctly opposed to the artificial creation of peasant proprietorships as a great landosvner—Hawarden is given in Domesday Book as yielding a rent-roll of £17,565 a year—might be expected to be. What he did say was, that he saw no wrong in the State expropriating, that is, purchasing with full compensation land for such a purpose, if deemed expedient, but that he himself did not so deem it. Who doubts the accuracy of that judgment, or denies that it is within the moral right of Parliament to sanction the compulsory purchase of land at its full value,
for any purpose deemed by itself beneficial to the community?
It does it every day, in almost every private Act it passes. The Legislature has, indeed, gone further than Mr. Gladstone ; for while he doubts whether a system of peasant proprietor- ship would be altogether advisable, it has in several recent Acts, and especially under Mr. Bright's clause of the Land Act, directly encouraged tenants to obtain such proprietorship. To talk of Mr. Gladstone, therefore, as fostering tenant agita- tion is as unfair as it is absurd, Mr. Gladstone's great Con- servative peculiarity—his liking for a social hierarchy with "a leisured class," able to attend to politics and county affairs— having been repeatedly proclaimed with a vigour which has half offended more democratic followers.
But then his reference to the Arms Act ? Ile said that he disapproved the Indian Arms Act, as showing distrust of the
people of India, depriving the people of a protection they still require, and impeding the purchase of explosives necessary for many engineering operations. That is shocking, implies the Pall Mall Gazette, for Mr. Gladstone must have known that
this Act was intended to prevent large importations of arms by the Indian Princes, a fact which cannot be stated by Ministers, without compromising either the interests of the country or themselves ? Why not, when the organs of Government are always talking of the necessity of reducing the Native armies, and every Prince in India is aware that his military preparations are strictly watched ? There is nothing whatever to iSrevent the Viceroy from telling any Prince that he is accumulating too much military
materiel, and " advising " him to discontinue that practice, in-
stead of worrying our own subjects in order indirectly to reach him, or rather to drive him back on the far more formidable expedient of manufacturing firearms of his own. The ex- pediency of disarming India, the Princes included, is a very open question. We ourselves believe that the least formid- able Prince is the one who forms an army which we can break to pieces in the field ; that the most formidable is the one who, failing soldiers, excites a popular insurrection ; but we need not discuss that to-day. Surely, if ever a question was open to
debate, it is an Arms Act ; and if it is imprudent to warn the Princes that the Act is directed against them, it is the Pall Mall Gazette, not Mr. Gladstone, who commits the imprud-
ence. He gave no hint of the kind, nor does his objection in the least compel Lord Cranbrook to give one, or to say any- thing except that, in the judgment of the Indian Government and her Majesty's Ministers, an Arms Act is temporarily required. As to the assertion that Mr. Gladstone is unscrupulous in heaping up charges against the Government on account of the Afghan war, because he must have heard that the Ministry possess . a complete answer, in the shape of documents conclusively proving the intrigues of Russia with Share
Ali, it is simply absurd. Why is Mr. Gladstone, in the first place, to believe in any such story, when, if the documents exist, the Ministry would be certain to pub- lish them ? Their very raison d'e'tre is that they have found out Russia, when the Liberals were too stupid to discover her designs. The notion that Russia would be injured or irritated by their publication is almost laughable, when Lord Salisbury already has spoken speeches which, if words have any meaning, are defiances to war. What, again, is the date of these "documents ?" That Russia, expecting an imme- diate declaration of war from Great Britain, sought to make of Afghanistan an ally or tool is possible at all events, but then, what is the objection to publish proofs of that? Who doubts that if we prepare for war on Russia, she will prepare for war on us ? The justification' if any were possible, of the Afghan war, would be not that Russia had asked Shere Ali to invade us, but that Shore Ali had asked Russia. What makes an Ameer more responsible for the letters addressed to him than other people ? The Pall Mall Gazette's allega- tion, if true, would indicate this,—that we ought to have gone to war with Russia, whereas we went to war with a little Power whom Russia ineffectually endeavoured to gain over. France asks Belgium to join in an invasion of England, Belgium replies that she wants neither France nor England ; whereupon England occupies Brussels, shoots any Bishops within reach for preaching resistance, and mildly murmurs about unproduced and unproducible documents. And Mr. Gladstone for objecting to that course of proceeding as immoral is denounced as unpatriotic ? Is it really come to this, that Englishmen are to approve any war, however unjust, because England has declared it, or rather—for technically we are not at war with Afghanistan, but are lending British troops to suppress a rebellion against an ally whom we have imprisoned—has commenced it. We need not, how- ever, extend our answer, for all these arguments are but efforts to suppress Mr. Gladstone, or rather to convince the Liberals that Mr. Gladstone is a very reckless person. The great wheel throws such a volume of water, that if it is not stopped, some- body's silks or broadcloth will now and then be splashed. Well, we regret that water splashes, but the corn must be ground.
Previous page
