LORD SALISBURY AT MANCHESTER.
T4ORD SALISBURY, whatever else he may be, is the recognised head of the Conservative Party, the person in England who, next to Mr. Gladstone, and perhaps Lord Hartington, stands nearest to the official leadership of the British people. When he speaks gravely, therefore, his words ought to be gravely considered; and at Manchester, on Wednes- day and Thursday, be was speaking gravely. Though from the inherent needs of his character, his words were often bitter, and his phrases jeers, he was yet trying with the whole force of his mind to give Englishmen solid reasons why they should put the Liberal Government out of power, and instal a Con- servative Government in its place. We have, therefore, tried to study his reasons, with as little prejudice as human nature will allow, and, at all events, to ascertain what they are as clearly as we 'would if the controversy were purely intellectual ; and, so studied, they are hopelessly unsatis- factory. In foreign politics, Lord Salisbury based his ideas upon two assumptions,--one of them inaccurate, and the other so wild and strange, that as we read it we feel inclined to accuse ourselves of delusion, or the reporters of inaccuracy. Lord Salisbury's first assumption is that in all foreign politics, and, especially in Egyptian politics, the Government is feeble, —feeble in idea, feeble in execution. It has, he says, produced a muddle in Egypt of a disastrous kind by vacillation, hesita- tion, and procrastination. That is as nearly as possible the exact contrary, of -the fact. We admit the muddle as regards Egypt Proper quite as fully as any Tory, and probably with more pain ; but it has not been produced by feebleness, but by a resolute and protracted adherence to a policy based upon a noble and inspiriting dream. Nothing can convince Mr. Gladstone that the Pashas and Fellaheen of Egypt 'can- not govern themselves, • if only they are delivered from external pressure, and set going in the right way, as well as Bulgarians or Servians ; and so believing, he quite righteously insists, in the teeth of obloquy, and secessions, and difficulties before which a weaker man would instantly recede, that they shall have their chance. He will not, as he thinks, extinguish or suspend the life of Egypt, in order that her tomb shall be orderly and well-swept. We hold him wrong, because the true " life " of an Oriental State is often quickened by foreign rule—as that of Judea was for half a century by the Roman domination—and because in Egypt the choice lies, not between self-government and submission, but between a bad foreign despotism, the Turkish, and a good one, the English ; but to• condemn him for feebleness in his policy is to misuse words. Once convinced that his central datum is incorrect, Mr. Gladstone would govern Egypt far more strongly and directly than Lord Salisbury, who only offers to make the attempt if he finds on obtaining power that the despatches in the Foreign Office allow him to do it, and who, though summing-up his policy in the words "govern and restore," explicitly refuses to give the least idea of the method he would adopt. Even if a change of policy in Egypt, which is certain to come sooner or later, were worth such a change in the W. hole direction of British affairs—which we Should absolutely deny—Lord Salisbury does not offer it, except in words which would leave him free Jo go on with any scheme of government he pleased. . He might govern and restore through Nubar Pasha, as the Ministry is trying to do. Outside Egypt, his assumption is that it is both right and practicable for England to bully all the world in order to get some money. He tells Lancashire that her trade is depressed, that the civilised world is building up a wall of tariffs against her ; that he cannot remedy this by bribes, because Free-trade has swept away the duties the repeal of which he might have offered, and that, consequently, un- civilised markets are most important. And then. he draws the conclusion that, to secure these uncivilised markets, we ought to keep all Powers but ourselves from the Congo, to forbid France. to molest Madagascar, and to prevent Russia from securing positions in Central Asia. He says this in the most definite language. In fact, we are to threaten France and Russia with war, lest they levy duties which will give them a commercial advantage on an African river, in an African island, and in the Turcoman Steppe. He would risk the expenditure—say, of fifty millions—to secure a better chance of the profit—say, 20 per cent.—to be derived from a trade of
less than a million a year Is that so sensible, as-a business proposal, that we should overthrow Mr. Gladstone—perhaps the greatest financial genius who ever lived, and certainly the first financier alive—for the sake of Lord Salisbury ?
In Home affairs, the Tory leader offers us just as little. To our great surprise, he does not object to the concession of the franchise to the suburban householder, but only to the agri- cultural labourer, and that only on the ground that the latter does not seek the privilege ; but his general thesis is this :- The Liberals seek to remove evils, such as the low condition of the masses, by remodelling the powers which are to remove them ; while the Tories would remove them by direct effort, through the powers already in existence.. Therefore, as the Tories will work quicker, they ought to be placed in power, that they may seek social improvement through the franchise as it is, through the existing government of London, through, to be brief, the direction of the present directing classes. Well, that is clear, at all events, and we are quite ready to welcome in Tories their new humanitarian tone, late as its development may be ; but our answer is, that, granted the end, the Liberal method is not so much the better as the
indispensable one. If the fettered man is to be made strong, the first condition is to remove his fetters. If anything is proved by modern history, it is that the masses, whatever else they may misunderstand, understand their own needs better than anybody else, and will apply more effective remedies to their own sufferings. The aristocrats never would have thought of the laws for the benefit of the bourgeoisie— for instance, the abolition of the internal Excise—which the Ten-pounders secured almost at once ; and the Ten- pounders resisted the laws for the benefit of the House- holders—for instance, universal and compulsory education— which the Householders carried with irresistible momentum. In this direction, at least, the people can be trusted ; and in setting the people free, in investing all men who care for the privilege with the vote, Liberals conceive that they are taking the direct road to Lord Salisbury's professed end. If they are not, why does not Parliament, as it now is, take the bit in its teeth, and insist on social reform ? Where is, or can be, the power which is resisting it ? As-a matter of fact, the new organise- - tion which Lord Salisbury despises, is the essential condition of the work, so essential, that in contemning it he is contemn- ing an improved boiler for the steam-engine. Take the London Bill, which he thinks a mere instance of meddling, and grant what he assumes, that the rehousing of the poor is the first necessity of London. Is it not absolutely demonstrated that that work cannot be done or seriously begun until there is in London a central representative body, strong enough, popular enough—if you like, tyrannical enough—to bear down the vested interests in bad property ? The need is admitted, the laws are sufficient, public opinion is fairly made up, but nothing can be done for want of a body at the centre with momentum enough to crush out interested resist-
ance. Lord Salisbury hints that "spirited assistance," in other words, a great grant of money, is the thing needful ; but he can hardly have read the evidence. Half the wealth of England would not house the London poor in comfort for one year if the laws were not administered fearlessly, as only a popular Council will compel their administration. If Parlia- ment bought Soho Square to-morrow, and lodged a thousand poor families in those old and splendid rooms without rent, there would, without effective inspection, be for those thousand fami- lies no permanent gain ; and short of a Central Council, nobody will or dare enforce that inspection. Lord Salisbury is offering to drive a cumbrous and worn-out machine at enormous cost. Sir W. Harcourt, without troubling the taxpayer, is offering to multiply indefinitely the power of the machine. And Lord Salisbury tells Lancashire operatives, who know all about machinery, that he ought to supersede Sir William, because his is the directer method. Is not that, as Lancashire would say, just a little owdacious " ?
Previous page
