LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.
TORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL'S cleverness has led to 4 a completely false estimate of his prospects as a political leader. What men have never sufficiently noticed is the remarkable want of sanity in his political judgments and modes of action. Because the world has learnt to speak lightly of Mr. Disraeli's early escapades, of the "Runnymede Letters," the "Revolutionary Epic," and the rest, men have supposed that Lord Randolph Churchill was destined to a career not unlike Mr. Disraeli's. But in forming this judgment, the great mistake was made of comparing escapades due to deliberate purpose,—the wish to draw attention to an unknown writer as a political power,—to escapades resulting from a real inebriety of judgment. Mr. Disraeli knew very well what he was about when he wrote the "Runnymede Letters." He knew that he was then nobody, and that if ever he were to become somebody, it would be by the display of his characteristic quality, audacity. He knew how easily the public memory allows itself to forget errors which are not repeated ; and he knew that if by committing errors of a very audacious kind, he could attract attention to himself, he had quite ability and wisdom enough to wipe out all remembrance of them so soon as he had got his foot fairly on the ladder which leads to the highest positions in political life. Lord Randolph Churchill's errors have not seldom been errors of a very different kind. They have frequently been not errors deliberately committed to draw attention to himself, but errors arising from a real deficiency in the power of selfcontrol. Indeed, his position was from the first far too good to make it at all necessary that he should have copied Mr. Disraeli's early escapades for any ambitious purpose. Our own reading of his violence has always been that it proceeded, not from any calculated motive, but from the genuine temper of his passing mood. No doubt this is, in some respects, a less unfavourable view of it than to regard it as conscious and calculated exaggeration for a personal end. But, on the other hand, it is a less hopeful view of it for Lord Randolph Churchill's prospects as a statesman. Directly Mr. Disraeli had reached the position he desired, he dropped the language of simulated hot-headedness once and for ever. According to our view, Lord Randolph Churchill has never needed, even on Mr. Disraeli's theory of his own career, to attract attention to himself by intrinsically unreasonable and extravagant displays of political ferocity. And most assuredly he has long passed the point at which such displays could have been of any possible use to him. Yet, as we have seen this week in his letter to Thursday's Times concerning Lord Granville, he has surpassed what we once ventured to term "the political epilepsy" of his earliest speeches. That indecent as well as contemptible bit of raving will show the country better than any criticism by others, how incapable of any vestige of political sanity Lord Randolph Churchill can sometimes show himself.
For, in the first place Lord Randolph Churchill ought to have been gratified, rather than enraged, by Lord Granville's speech. It was a speech which recognised officially his rising reputation, and did full justice —perhaps more than justice,—to the ability of the speech of lefty 4th, on which it was a criticism. Lord Granville, no doubt, accused the author of that speech of many inaccuracies, of some gross blunders ; but Mr. Disraeli, who was as often guilty of inaccuracies, and even of gross ,blunders, as Lord Randolph Churchill, never appeared to be in the least irritated by the exposure of those inaccuracies. And if Lord Randolph Churchill had possessed one-fourth part of Mr. Disraeli's self-control and sang froid, he would either have calmly ignored Lord Granville's accusations, or have replied with the calmness of self-possession to Lord Granville's speech. Instead of taking either course, he breaks out into rage that is almost inarticulate, calls Lord Granville "this unhappy man," accuses him of wholly objecting to "fair and honourable courses," and of desiring to enjoy "complete immunity in making his foolish and ignorant charges," describes him as "sneaking down to the House of Lords, and making there without notice a variety of deliberate misrepresentations, deliberate misquotations, and false assertions ;" and, in short, to sum up in a single sentence, produces the most ill-bred and furious letter ever penned, so far as we can remember, by a politician of position and, as the world hitherto supposed, of the brightest promise. Moreover, when Lord Randolph Churchill comes to the proof of his savage accusations, he does not give any kind of evidence for a single one of them. The two most formidable are these :—Lord Randolph Churchill had declared that Lord Granville in 1870 referred the frontier of Afghanistan to General Kaufmann as arbitrator. Lord Granville denied this point blank. Lord Randolph Churchill angrily renews the charge, and produces as evidence,—what ? Why, simply this,—that Lord Granville, when told by the English Ambassador in Russia (Sir A. Buchanan) that his own suggestion as to the boundary of Afghanistan had been referred by the Russian Government to General Kaufmann for his opinion, simply waited a year or two to hear what the Russian Government, after hearing that opinion, would say. What possible bearing has that on the accusation made It no more shows that Lord Granville in tended to defer to General Kaufmann's view, if it were adverse to that of the English Government, than it showed that Russia intended to accept Lord Granville's view, if General Kaufmann's proved to be opposed to it. Lord Randolph Churchill cannot have the faintest notion what evidence means, if he thinks that he has given even the faintest trace of evidence that his accusation was not utterly and absurdly baseless. Then there is the more serious charge that Lord Granville, having formerly declared that the boundary between the dependencies of Herat and the provinces claimed by Russia was perfectly well known and well defined, now tells the House of Lords that it is very ill defined. But here again Lord Randolph does not know what he is talking about. He produces very good evidence that in 1872 Lord Granville declared the boundary between the dependencies of Herat and the Persian Province of Khorassan to be perfectly well known and well defined. But he brings absolutely no vestige of evidence to show that Lord Granville has ever declared the boundary between the dependencies of Herat and the Russian or Turcoman province, to be perfectly well known and well defined. Yet, on the strength of the two statements being identical, Lord Randolph Churchill discharges the most dishonouring epithets at Lord Granville,—epithets which will unquestionably return to pierce himself.
In our view, this letter of Lord Randolph Churchill's disposes finally of all the claims of that very clever person to leadership of any kind. You must have sanity in a leader. Cleverness is desirable, but sanity is necessary. With sanity of mind you can get along even without cleverness, but with cleverness you cannot get along without sanity. Indeed, the cleverer the man who shows no sobriety and sanity, the more dangerous are the counsels of that man. Lord Randolph Churchill will probably always retain a great power of mischief. But a great power of mischief is not an adequate credential for any leader, least of all for the trusted leader of the Conservative Party.
Previous page
