SIR CHARLES RUSSELL AMONG THE PROPHETS. A FTER all, there is
something in education and ex- perience of affairs. Sir Charles Russell is not as Mr. Theodore Dodd. At the meeting of the London Liberal and Radical Union last Monday, the Attorney- General appeared in a new character,—that of a teller of unpalatable truths. It is as well, perhaps, that Sir Charles has discovered that it is unbecoming in a member of the Government to be President of an Association the object of which is to put pressure on Ministers, for had he wished to retain his office, we can hardly imagine that he would have been allowed to do so. He is found to be un- sound on three questions of immediate importance,—the appointment of Magistrates, the ownership of land, and the distribution of Government time. With such a record against him, how could he go on taking the chair at Radical meetings ? The orthodox Radical doctrine about the appointment of Magistrates is that they should be chosen for the soundness of their political faith; Sir Charles Russell will not hear of this. The orthodox Radical doctrine about land is that its cultivation should be reserved for the unem- ployed of London, and that inability to find work of any other kind is the best recommendation for an agricultural labourer ; Sir Charles Russell thinks this nonsense. The orthodox Radical doctrine about Government business is that any number of Bills can be got through in the same Session if the Government are but determined to push them forward ; Sir Charles Russell knows the House of Commons, and he is consequently quite able to enlighten the ignorance of those who think that where legislation is concerned, to ask is to have, We notice that in one of his speeches he declared that it "made him angry to hear these carping criticisms on the part of Liberals on the most vigorous and. popular Government of modern times." We confess that we like Sir Charles Russell best when he is in a passion. But for this he would probably have remembered that the cue of the present Government is less to lead than to follow ; and that, however impracticable a demand may be, if it comes from the right quarter, it must be received with at least a show of acquiescence.
There is something amazingly elastic about the Radical conception of a fag-end. Nobody, we suppose, would deny that we have now • reached this interesting point in the Session of 1893, and we should have thought that nobody would have denied that it will be as much as the Govern- ment can do—possibly more than they can do—to pass the Local Government Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill before the Christmas holidays. But to the gigantic sweep of Mr. J. D. Gilbert's mind the notion of wasting six weeks on such trifles as these appears preposterous. A Registration and a Betterment and a Death-duties Bill should at once be added to the list ; and the Government should devise means of rating men according to ability, and not according to rental. "In fact," said Sir Charles Russell, "you want the Government to do in a fraction of a Session work which would be enough for two or three Sessions." The Union were not at all dismayed by this objection. They passed the resolution in the teeth of Sir Charles Russell's opposition, and have left recorded in their minutes their estimate of a fair six weeks' work. By the side of this heroic indifference to considerations of time and possibility, Sir Charles Russell's severe common- sense must have seemed terribly uninteresting. Work for two or three Sessions ! How little the Attorney-General can know what work really means.
From legislation the Union turned to administration, and here, too, they had a grave charge to bring against the Government. . The General Committee have told the Departments what to do ; and they have not done it. Possibly, the Attorney-General would have borne this censure of other departments with more indifference ; but the General Committee went so far as to touch the legal ark, and actually to censure Lord Herschel!. Sir Charles Russell is not the man to see another lawyer unjustly blamed ; and he treated the Union to an excellent explana- tion of the points which ought to determine the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of Magistrates. It must have startled the members to hear such a worn-out doctrine as the superiority of personal fitness to party claims preached at the National Liberal Club. But Sir Charles Russell preached it frankly and even vehemently. "Poli- tical considerations do not constitute a claim to the Magis- tracy." A man may be a good Radical without being a good Judge. And then Sir Charles cruelly reminded the meeting of some "awkward things" which have happened in connec- tion with political recommendations. Two good Radicals have been pressed upon Lord Herschel!, one of whom has been convicted of an indictable offence, and another of using unjust weights and measures. Whether the Union think that these failings ought to disqualify a man for acting as a Judge is not clear ; but at all events, Sir Charles Russell does. His description of the Lord Chancellor's duty in the matter is all that can be desired. He "must act conscientiously, and on the best information he can obtain." It is not enough that he should take a list from some Radical club, and write "J. P." after every name contained in it. He must consider the character and the qualifications of each man whom he appoints, and consult persons whose local knowledge enables them to give him information on these heads,—even though they should happen to be Lords-Lieutenant. To the London Liberal and Radical Union the Attorney- General's words must have seemed blasphemy. They implied that a local Radical caucus can do wrong ; that it can recommend men who do not deserve to be recom- mended; that it does not know what is needed to make a good Magistrate ; or to what quarters the Lord Chan- cellor should apply for the information which it is incap- able of giving him. Sir Richard Webster himself could have said nothing different. And then, last and perhaps worst of all, came Sir Charles Russell's cold, heartless scepticism as to the ability of the London unemployed to make capable agri- cultural labourers. Mr. Theodore Dodd has unearthed an Act of William IV., which enables the Guardians to hire land for the employment of men who are out of work, with no limitation of one acre, as in the Act of 1887, and with a direction to pay "fair and reasonable" wages. In this Act, Mr. Dodd sees the salvation of the London un- employed. Town and country are to co-operate in the solution of this great question. The country Guardians are to find the land, and the London Guardians are to find the labour. In the neighbourhood of the Docks, for example, there are some five thousand men out of work. Those who have tried to find them work have come to the conclusion that the majority of them are either unable or unwilling to work. They either cannot do it when it is given them, or they are sincerely anxious that it should not be given them. London has many pleasanter employments than commonplace industry, and to these they prefer to turn their attention. No doubt there are men among the London unemployed who are of a very different order,— men who are really willing to take work if it is found for them, and able to do it when they have taken it. But then, as Sir Charles Russell says, they are watchmakers or masons or tailors ; they know nothing about land, and in many cases their training has wholly unfitted them for agricultural labour. Perhaps Mr. Dodd thinks that sitting cross-legged on a tailor's bench is the best possible pre- paration for following the plough, or that hands accus- tomed to move about among the works of a watch will be quite at home in hedging and ditching. Or, it may be, he frankly holds that, provided a fair and reasonable wage— say, twice the rate current on the farms about—is punctually paid, it matters nothing at all whether any work is done in return for it. Sir Charles Russell has labelled with equal brevity and truth the kind of utter- ances of which Mr. Dodd is a representative purveyor,— " A great deal of nonsense is talked on this subject." It is indeed ; and perhaps, when the Radical Attorney- General says so, there is some chance that he will be believed.
Previous page
