SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S SQUEEZABILITY.
/1110RIES and Liberals alike begin to doubt whether the new Leader of the House of Commons is strong enough for that place. Sir Stafford Northcote has, as yet, had nothing like serious opposition to contend with. The Liberal party, disorganised, divided about the Eastern Question, and dis- heartened by the absence of resolute leadership, has never ventured: to provoke a test-division, and has never raised a debate upon which the fate of a Ministry or even of an indi- vidual Minister could possibly depend. Its Members have contented themselves, upon the great question of the day, with querulous interpellations, with accidental speeches, and with criticisms so obviously half-hearted that they excited neither interest nor attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had no giant to fight, and the superior strength of the Oppo- sition in intellectual power, official experience, and faculty of debate has had no opportunity of making itself felt. Nor has he been embarrassed by any personal antagonism. Nobody dislikes Sir Stafford Northcote,—he bores nobody, and he has none of that faculty for exciting personal resentments which in some men amounts to a kind of perverse genius. The disposition of his opponents is not to press him unreason- ably, and he may fairly be said to be popular through- out the House. Nevertheless, he is not succeeding in his new post as Leader, and the reason is sufficiently obvious. He does not lead, but only follows. Whether from want of nerve, or mere good-nature, or uncertainty as to his own con- victions, he makes a practice of letting the House, and especi- ally his own party in the House, have its own way until his power of controlling the debates is becoming dangerously limited, and it is impossible to guess upon any given occasion • what the Government may do. It is as difficult to predict what will come of a motion as to guess what Cardinal a Con- clave may make Pope. Upon the Colonial Marriages Bill the G-overnment was so careless that the measure—which is in some respects a test-question with the Tory party—in spite of a strong speech from the Attorney-General, was carried against them, in a House not including half its Members. When Mr. • Read proposed his radical reform of county organisation, the Government, though intimating distrust of his ideas, and issuing a Whip against him, still accepted his policy, and though the responsible Minister of the Department • denounced the measure as "Home-rule for the counties," declared that "it meant business," and would bring in a Bill based upon Mr. Clare Bead's view of the necessities of reform. When Mr. Yorke proposed a Royal Commis- sion to inquire into the usages of the Stock Exchange, Mr. Stanhope and Sir Stafford Northcote both opposed it, in speeches which, if they meant anything, meant that the Government deemed the proposal highly inexpedient ; yet after making them, -sulkily and with obvious reluctance conceded the Commission. And now Sir Stafford Northcote, while strenuously resisting a grant of public money demanded in the name of public justice allows the House to decide with- out a division that it shall be made. This case is rendered by circumstances peculiarly bad. Lord Dundonald, the boldeet and most successful of English sailors who have risen since Trafalgar, was accused in 1814 of misapplication of public infor- mation, found guilty by a prejudiced Judge and a pliant jury, and sentenced to a fine of £1,000 and to stand in the pillory, the latter a spiteful aggravation of his sentence which was remitted by the Crown. He was, however, summarily dis- missed the Service. So certain were the people of his innocence, that the fine was paid by penny subscriptions from 2,400,000 persons ; and eighteen years after, the sentence was annulled, amid universal approval, and the unhappy Admiral restored to all his honours and his position in the Service, as if no such charge had ever been made against him. His back-pay, however, to which, as an innocent man admitted to have been wrongfully dismissed, he was entitled, as well as to his rank, was still withheld, the Government alleging that to grant back-pay to a dismissed officer for the period during which he had been out of employ was a dangerous precedent. That, though not a reason in this case —for it never can be dangerous, in the long-run, to do justice —was, in its way, a strong official argument, for a man might be justly dismissed for dangerous opinions—as for example, about a succession to the Throne—which subsequently be- came triumphant, and on Tuesday it was strongly re- peated by Sir Stafford Northcote. He acknowledged fully the injustice done to Lord Dundonald, he grew eloquent over the sense of filial duty which had inspired his heirs, but he absolutely refused the claim to the back- pay, as establishing an inconvenient and even dangerous precedent :—" It would be a grave inconvenience to set aside the principle of not applying money in the nature of pay to an officer not in the Service ; and there would be some incon- venience even in reopening, after so long a time, a case of that kind, on the ground that the services of an eminent person who died a considerable number of years ago had not been adequately rewarded. It might be perfectly true that the services of Lord Dundonald had not been adequately rewarded. He was far from saying they had been. But, on the other hand, there might be many cases in which persons might put forward claims of their ancestors for services rendered thirty, fifty, or even a greater number of years ago, and might plead that precedent as a reason for doing so." The Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly opposed to the form of the motion, which was for a Committee of Inquiry, because it was dangerous to allow Committees to recommend grants of money, and because the Committee might turn out to be a Committee of Inquiry, held after an interval of more than sixty years, into the conduct of the Judge, Lord Ellenborough, who had tried the case.
So strong was Sir Stafford's opinion on both points, that he went the length of suggesting that if the movers would abandon their present motion, and ask for the sum involved as a grace from the Crown, the Government would take into consideration the propriety of advising Parliament to give it. This was declined, and then Sir Stafford Northcote, though remonstrating to the last, suffered the House virtually to grant the demand he re- sisted, in the very form to which of all others he most strongly demurred,—namely, through a Committee, which must either recommend a grant without reasons, or must retry Lord Dun- donald. No division was taken, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer remained in this dilemma,—either he thought the proposal just and wise, but refused to ask the House to do its duty, or he thought the proposal unwise, yet refused to compel the House by a division to take the responsibility on its own shoulders. He sacrificed his own sense of public duty to his reluctance to allow the Government to be visibly beaten. If at heart; as is most probable, he thought the claim a just one, he lacked the courage to throw aside official conventions, and treat the whole matter as an exceptional instance of failure of justice, which ought to be exceptionally repaired ; or if, as is quite possible, he thought the demand unreasonable, owing to the rules of the Service, he wanted the nerve to face the House when intent upon committing a big blunder. In either case, he derived no strength, no power of direct action, from his own convic- tions, and gave the House none of the aid which it derives from the definite advice and guidance of the responsible leader of its deliberations. He did not acquire the credit which he might have gained by advocating justice irrespective of con- sequences, and he did not protect the tradition of the Admi- ralty, for he cannot allege that he was defeated by a vote which he did not venture to challenge.
The injury done to the House of Commons by this weak- kneed leadership is very great, for it develops to the utmost the great danger of government by public meeting, the absence of sufficient individual responsibility for acts. The one thing required of a Member in doing any business not formal, and especially in agreeing to any unusual course, is that he shall have an opinion strong enough to induce him to vote, and therefore strong enough to compel him to face his constituents' comments. Under the procedure, however, fostered by Sir S. Northcote's inesolution, he need have nothing of the kind, but only a floating idea in his mind, subjected to no test and in- volving no consequences, that he would rather this or that were done. Very likely he has no serious opinion on the matter, still less an opinion strong enough to console him when twitted with having given a vote against his leaders. He has only a fancy, a prepossession, an impression which, if he were brought to the test of a vote, he would reconsider, in the light of his ,chief's determined disapproval. No such reconsideration is, however, allowed him by Sir Stafford Northcote. The Leader of the House accepts the Member's abstinence from cheering or the Whips' report about his sentiments, as a final indication of his opinion, and in the teeth, it may be, of his own strongest conviction, incontinently gives way. The vote is, in fact, taken by secret ballot, and Members are left, as they would be under that system, to act from the vaguest impression rather than from reason, and with the most perfect sense of irresponsibility either to their leaders, their constituents, or the world at large. The Member who knows nothing about the question, but depends on his leader, the member who is adverse to the proposal, but does not want to say so, and the Member who yields to social pressure up to the point of voting, but will not yield his vote, are all paralysed, and Government is made to appear many times as weak as it really is. The discipline of the House is in fact _made to count for nothing in politics, and party, as an element in the daily administration of the country, disappears.
We need not say that we do not regret the actual result of 411e debate. Lord Dundonald was an oppressed man, and long as the time which has elapsed has been, it was the duty of the House, when formally summoned to the task, to remove the last vestige of the oppression. What we do regret is to see the Leader of the House acknowledge an op- pression, yet resist reparation on the ground that it would produce greater; incidental evils, and then allow those evils to occur rather than run any possible risk of a formal defeat, to which nevertheless he informally submitted. That is not government or leadership either, but only the assertion of a right to his own view, and it opens a door to a most vicious and dangerous practice,—that of motions made in collusion with a Government which wishes to have the credit of resisting them, yet nevertheless is secretly desirous to see them carried. We do not want diplomatic finesse in the House of Commons, but an honest and strong guidance, from which both the Majority and the Opposition may gather not only the senti- ments, but the purposes of her Majesty's Government. Such a guidance certainly does not exist now, when Members go down to the House prepared to support their convictions, hear them again proclaimed from the Treasury Bench, and then see them abandoned with a shrug, without having had the opportunity of protesting even by a vote.
Previous page
