TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD STANLEY AND NEUTRAL POLITICS.
LORD STANLEY, presiding in the Statistical and Economical Section of the British Association at Bir- mingham, should have been in his element, though like other beings in their element he has had some reason to find fault with his element, and obeyed the call of reason by doing so. Yet surely if Lord Stanley believes in anything, he believes in neutral politics, such as an economical and statistical section of the British Association can mature by masterly discussions. He has always indeed had the reputation with both sides of the House of being a Radical in disguise,—a wolf in sheep's clothing, say the Conservatives,.—a sheep in wolf's clothing, say the followers of Mr. Bright. But to those who have studied his able speeches carefully, who have watched his almost ostentatious affection for the dull parts of politics, how studiously he turned the cold shoulder to Italy, and, long since the success of Cavour's policy, half-predicted her breakup, how prudently he avoided for four long years any declara- tion of opinion on the American war, simply hazarding an impression as to the vast superiority in the power of the North, and balancing it as soon as uttered by a sneer at the impolicy of the conquest, how on the Danish question he had nothing to say except that any English Ministry who should have gone to war for Denmark would be lunatic, how early he devoted himself to the technicalities of colonial politics, how zealously he attacked the problem of the Indian Government, how sincerely he hates the slave• trade squadron, how glad he would be to get rid of the West African settlements alto- gether, how his feeling for competitive examinations is almost a tender sentiment, and his interest in the patent question nearly a hobby,—to those who have studied these things with any care, and who have noted his attitude of peculiar reserve on the Reform question, it will be evident that he is really as far from being a Radical as he is from being a Tory or a Whig. If Lord Stanley has a central political feeling at all, it is probably a sort of contempt for politics proper,—a ten- dency to think with Mr. Herbert Spencer that altogether too much importance is attributed to Government, and the more you snub Government and clip it of its grander functions, the better. Mr. Bright and his followers feel a grudge against aris- tocratic government, but Lord Stanley feels a grudge against all government, would like to see it less important in every respect, and entirely subject, where it cannot be spared, to a well expressed public opinion. Hence his indifference to all the great political movements of the last feiv years which have brought out the noble features of national unity and life in Italy and in America. Even on one of his special subjects —education, he steadily discourages the visible tendency to centralized action, and exhorts public meetings, whenever he has a good opportunity, to beware of leaning on the Govern- ment. From the same notion probably springs his contempt for party politics. He holds that administrative government is a necessary but common-place duty, which should be much the same in tone whether conducted by Conservatives or Liberals, a monotonous routine of dull actions, about as dig- nified as the routine of the various departments of the Post- Office, if properly conducted, but needing sharp eyes to see that it does not pretend to do what is beyond its province from any undue notion of the attributes of government.
Now this state of feeling is, we maintain, really quite as far from the Radical as from the Conservative state of mind. When Lord Stanley observes a strong political passion, whether against tradition or against innovation, he is repelled at once. What he objects to is warm political feeling. If he can get hold of a subject connected with obvious utilities, and full of difficult technicalities, he sees, or thinks he sees, a claim on his attention, addresses himself to it at once, and most likely masters it, for his mind is strong and his industry considerable. But questions tinged with party feeling, and not admitting of any distinct utilitarian criterion, he is apt to regard as undeserving of any sober masculine attention. Now Radicalism implies a certain disposition to wrest power from the higher class and confide it to the people as a right. Conservatism implies the opposite tendency. Lord Stanley, who would usually set- tle the dispute if he could by extinguishing the power altogether and not confiding it at all, can scarcely be said to belong properly to either class. He is rather an anti-politician than a politician,—that is, in favour of reducing the deliberative dis- cussions of Parliament as near as may be to those proper for the Statistical and Economical Section of the British Associa- tion. Perhaps this peculiarity of Lord Stanley's is explicable- by reference to the opposite constitution of Lord Derby's poli- tical character. Mr. Bagehot has said, with a dash of his usual cheerful cynicism, that most sons say to themselves with respect to their worthy parents, " Whatever I become in later life, I. won't be like that." Now Lord Derby undoubtedly is much. fonder of the sentiments, the feelings, the traditions, even the passions, which give interest to politics, than he is of the dull scientific basis of facts. Lord Derby's speeches, abound in what. we may call the juices—the richer elements of politics, while. Lord Stanley has devoted himself to making the dry bones live. In part we ascribe the latter's political Bantingism, his. wish to reduce English politics to their wiriest and sparest form, to reaction from his father's chivalric Prince Rupertism.. There are many men who become extravagantly short and dry in manner whenever they hear any one else indulging in. impulsive feeling. Lord Stanley has felt that recoil, we think, from sentimental Conservatism, but more from the sentiment than the Conservatism, so that he is just as well prepared to' throw cold water on the bright dreams of democracy, as on the fond memories of Conservatism.
This is indeed the one cloud over Lord Stanley's brilliant political prospects, that he has scarcely strong enough political feeling to hold together a following at all. If he has any sympathies it is only with the logic of events,' and not with the people who make events. It is not so much a power as a weakness to be able to stand quite aloof from such great. movements as have gone on in Italy and America and not even betray a leaning. His own maxim, " There is nothing. which succeeds like success," is not, in him, a time-serving. policy, but the natural expression of his best moral and poli- tical convictions. He cannot sympathize with either side till it. gives omens of success, and then he gives in his adhesion, not. because it is the side from which he can derive the most advantage, but because success is with him a moral virtue, which wins him to it without any interested feeling whatever. The die is cast for the successful cause, and! after that it would be as sensible to sympathise with an extinct species, an ornithorhyncus or a dodo, or with a. comet that has gone to pieces, or with a nebula that never managed to congeal into a world, as with a cause that is' shown to have wanted the principle of life. This is true scientific politics perhaps, but it is not the sort of politics that will sway men. Lord Stanley might have some chance of being Minister in a Parliament composed like the Statistical and Economical Section of the British Association, but in a Parliament of politicians, composed of "such beings as we are, in such a world as the present," he will need to descend from his high ground of indifference to everything but the testi- mony of facts. Neutrals in war generally suffer at the hands- et' both sides, and exercise influence over neither. Neutrals in politics are in much the same position, and Lord Stanley, if he is to rise to a place worthy of his ability, would do well, to allow his political feelings, if he has any, a somewhat readier expression.
Previous page
