THE OLD " SATURDAY " REVIEWER ON THE STATE OF
POLITICS. LORD SALISBURY is very amusing, at Lord Granville's expense, on the ambition of Liberal statesmen to connect their names with some great act of legislation. The legislation of the Liberals, he suggests, was evidently not meant for the remedy of popular ills, but as a" mark of genius." What Liberal statesmen really thought, says Lord Salisbury, was this,—" You may violate Constitutions, or you may upset Churches ; you may attack the land, you may smash public-houses, but don't be dull." " You may be flashy, eccentric, startling, in your legislation, but never dull." Lord Salisbury himself goes quite on the other tack, Ile likes dull legislation, and lively talk about it. He is the Conservative littirateur still that he was when he wrote his amusing contributions to the Saturday Review, and still embellishes political inertia and apathy with bril- liant talk. Nothing more like epigrammatic " leaders " has ever been spoken than Lord Salisbury's political speeches at Brad- ford. They have all the faults and all the merits of literary exer- cises; they invent broad theories for the benefit of special instances ; and disguise hasty generalisations by the aid of apt and witty illustrations. Nobody ever panegyrised practical dull- ness in a more amusing speech, or found more plausible ex- cuses for notorious political defeat and failure than Lord Salisbury. No one knows better how to gild a selfish policy with the semblance of humility, and dilatory apathy with the ap- pearance of conscientious scruple, than the clever journalist who at Bradford on Thursday made the best of an Adminis- tration which he certainly does not admire, and which, as we gratefully admit, he has done very much to save from blunders which would have been not only blunders, but crimes.
Consider, first, what he says upon the War. He is entitled, no doubt, to the merit of declaring the truth that this is not a war of policy, but of peoples, and that the objects for which it is waged go far too deep to the heart of the great races impli- cated in it, to admit of any merely diplomatic solution while neither party is exhausted. So far, he is statesmanlike enough, though Sir Stafford Northcote will hardly thank him for treat- ing with so little respect that little bit of "blue sky" on which Sir Stafford fed his hungry imagination at Exeter on Monday. But when we get beyond this frank admission, what do we come to ? First, the absolute statement that England never could have done anything to prevent the war, because England never could have found allies willing to support Russia, if Turkey chose to refuse the terms offered at the Conference. "I never heard at the time," says Lord Salisbury, "and I have never heard since, that any single Power, except only Russia, was ever prepared to draw the sword to enforce these suggestions on the Turks." Why, how was he likely to hear it, when the very first restriction im- posed on the scope of his own mission to ConstantinoEle, and not only imposed on it, but confidentially imparted to Turkey before the Conference began, was that nothing should induce England to enforce on Turkey any demand, however reasonable We set the example of refusing to be any-one's practical ally in this good work ; we assured in the strongest language the very Power whose obstinacy is feared, of our intention absolutely to discountenance compulsion, in case she persisted in that obstinacy, and then we go and complain to the world that however much we had been willing to do, we could have found no ally but Russia alone, Why, of course, the very simple answer is, that to find allies ,for any duty, a Government must be willing to be an ally, and that our Government was not so willing. It advertised to .all the world that nothing should induce it to form such an alliance, and now goes about pleading that only Russia was ever willing to join it. How can it know that, when it was itself never willing to join? There is a give-and-take in all alliances, You can t know who is willing to take, if you cry out before- hand that you are not willing to give. England absolutely led the way in discouraging and even decrying any alliance for the purpose of securing reform in Turkey, and then the Government want to take credit for knowing that no one would have come forward to meet them, had they taken the opposite line of encouraging to the utmost the policy of common European action. They snubbed the idea of such an alliance in the early stage, at the time of the Berlin Memorandum, and they snubbed it in the latest stage, in the very letter of Lord Salisbury's credentials, and then they shelter them- selves under the plea of others' reluctance for one of the cardinal and boasted features of their own policy. Tho mis- tress who anticipated her servant's thefts by so reducing her wages as to indemnify herself beforehand, acted just as reason- ably. She gave her servant as, strong a motive as she could for the thefts she provided against, and so, too, the British Government gave the other Governments of Europe as strong a motive as it could for refusing the alliance which it had by anticipation rejected. Before Lord Salisbury can know what Europe might have done, had England been willing to join in coercing Turkey, . he should have tried the experiment of declaring that willingness, instead of parading her absolute determination to have nothing to do with any alliance of the kind. Such examples are apt to be in- fectious. But next, Lord Salisbury goes on to show why we were justi- fied in being reluctant to form any such alliance. It is because English interests could not have been sufficiently implicated to justify any Government m risking English lives and treasure. "There is nothing easier than to be brave with other people's blood, and generous with other people's money.' The " blood " and " money " with which the Government would deal, in case of war, would not be their own, but those of the people of England. Therefore, unless they thought the people of England would gain by the war, what would compensate them for that loss of blood and money, the Government could not, as righteous trustees, go to war. If that argument conies to anything, it means that the Govern- ment of a country are judges able to weigh its physical gains and losses, but not to weigh its moral gains and losses,—that they may net for the nation in computing the danger of terri- torial sacrifices,—the menace, for instance, to our Indian empire or our Colonial empire,—but may not act for the i nation n relation only to great moral responsibilities, such as those incurred by the Crimean war and the policy which fol- lowed the Crimean war. As for its being other people's blood and other people's money with which Govern- ment deal, and not their own,—that is just as much true in the case of a war for physical interests as for moral interests. When Lord Palmerston went to war against Russia, when he virtually threatened war against the United States in case they declined to restore Mason and Slidell, when Mr. Gladstone went to war against Ashantee, it was, of course, not their own, but the English people's blood and treasure which were expended or risked. Will Lord Salisbury seriously contend that it is not within the limits of a Government's discretion to judge of the moral responsibilities and sympathies of the nation it rules, at least as well as of their physical interests ? If it is right to hazard blood and treasure to prevent what seems to be an aggressive policy, or the loss of a paltry settlement, who can. pretend that it is not right to hazard it for the redemption ot the English nation from its responsibility for a gigantic blunder, which has resulted in innumerable crimes Lord Salisbury's ad captandunt reply in this matter is almost contemptible, and certainly wholly un- worthy of his genius. Lord Salisbury's defence of the Conservative home policy is much more amusing, but quite as deficient in solid substance as his defence of the Conservative foreign policy. Parliament is the doctor, he says, of the body politic ; and a politician who values a Government in proportion to the amount and showi- ness of its legislation, is like the head of a family who values his doctor in proportion to the amount and drastic effects of his medicines. What the Marquis of Salisbury is proud of,, apparently, is the modesty and .mildness of the Conservative legislation. They are not ambitious of performing great opera- tions, but of effecting safe and salutary cures, which may dis- turb the system of the patient as little as possible. Now, that apology would certainly apply to such measures as Mr. Cross's amendment of the Labour Laws, or Lord Sandon's Education Act (as finally settled), or the Prisons Act of last Session, but to how much else of the Conservative legislation would it apply Was the Royal Titles Act a modest attempt to remedy a serious evil in the body politic And should not Governments which at- tempt little, and make a boast that the little they do attempt is modest, be thoroughly practical and business-like in getting that little done ? It is all very well to complain, as Lord Salisbury does, of the difficulty of getting omnibuses through Temple Bar, when a broken-down omnibus is laid right across the road, and the Irish driver vituperates all who wish to get it out of the way, in a rich brogue, but how about the time at which the Government omnibuses were started on their way ? What is the complaint made on all sides about the Government conduct of business ? Why, that though little was attempted, that little was always late, and pushed through at the end of the Session, after very inade- quate deliberation, on the plea of urgency. Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell did not operate with much effect early in the Session, and could not have operated with much effect, if the few things which Government wished to do had been introduced early and pushed properly at its opening. Even as regarded the very important South Africa Confederation Bill, a good many English Members of weight gave the Obstructionists some countenance, precisely on the ground that very weighty points of the utmost importance,—such as, for instance, the inclusion or exdusion of the Cape Government and the Natal Govern- ment from the Confederation,—were debated in the small hours of the morning, when it was simply impossible for the House to weigh grave issues well. The Government attempted little, but they attempted that little late and in a slovenly fashion, and so played into the hands of the Irish faction. The Omnibuses would have been through Temple Bar long before the broken-down omnibus stopped their way, had the Government for which Lord Salisbury apologises been conducted at all after the fashion of the preceding Government, which he ridicules. Lord Salisbury is a skilful advocate because he well knows how to distract attention from the real issue. No one ever more brilliantly diverted attention from the issues which need discussion than he did at Bradford on Thursday. But his speech leaves U8 with an even deeper impression than before, that he sees no great cause, either abroad or at home, for which it is worth while to incur any sacrifice ; and that even in relation to the little rectifications of political grievances which he does support, he sees no reason why the Govern- ment should address itself to them in a conscientious and business-like fashion, should push them energetically, and do them well. Indeed, his speech is less the speech of a statesman than of a brilliant journalist, from beginning to end.
Previous page
