THE TWO MEMBERS FOR BIRMINGHAM.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in the lively speech which he made at Hackney yesterday week, charged the Spectator with "preaching at him" for proclaiming to the new consti- tuencies that property ought to pay a " ransom " for its moral shortcomings in previous times. No doubt we did ; and we rather think that Mr. Chamberlain was not altogether the worse for the sermon. It did not convert him. It did not cure him of his taste for inflaming the imagination of the recently enfranchised classes, instead of palling them together and trying to inspire them, as we desire to see their leaders inspiring them with a new and deep sense of political duty. But how often does the best of sermons really convert any one? Mr. Chamberlain, we fear, is not likely soon to cure himself of the habit of addressing himself to the desires of the people rather than to their sense of duty. Still, we do think that we have not altogether preached at him in vain. His speech of June 3rd was, as we noticed at the time, a speech of a very different character from those inflammatory harangues for which we had condemned him. And if we cannot say quite as much for the very entertaining speech last week at Hackney, perhaps it may only be that the effect of our sermon is a little on the wane, and that it needs to be repeated and enforced. Now, preachers are most successful when they put before those who need their sermons the light of a great example. And we should like, therefore, to enforce on Mr. Chamberlain the impressive example of the great colleague for whom Mr. Chamberlain spoke with a sympathy that did him credit in Tuesday night's debate. Mr. Bright has been spoken of by one of those who were smarting under his eloquent scorn as "an old, feeble, and somewhat broken man." Well, we can only say that there are few men in England, even though they may be young, strong, and in the full flush of their powers, whose attitude on any political subject is likely to command more hearty admiration and sympathy than Mr. Bright's recent attitude on the Irish question. Nor, indeed, on any subject is this attitude of his new. He has never hesitated to rebuke popular cries, when he thinks their spirit bad, with as much trenchancy of censure as he has launched against even the most unpopular of aristocratic abuses. He stood like a rock against the anger of the people when in 1853 and 1854 he denounced the Crimean War. And he stands now like a rock against the fury of the Parnellites when they attack him for condemning their sympathy with criminals, knowing that all he says is i justified by the own language,—even by the very language in which they come "whining to Parliament" for protection. We will say this of Mr. Bright, that if he casts, as he has often cast, very sweeping censures upon the conduct of a privileged class, he is not less willing to cast sweeping censures on the conduct of a great popular movement. He has stood up against England as he now stands up against Ireland,—nay, he formerly stood up for Ireland against England, just as he now stands up for England against • Ireland. He cares not a jot how numerous may be his opponents so long as he is fully confident in the rectitude of his own judgment and the depth of his own conviction.
Well, we should like to see a little of the same spirit in Mr. Chamberlain. We should like to have seen him join in the invitation to Lord Spencer—as many Liberals who could not actually attend did join in it—and to have found him speaking in defence of Lord Spencer, before he had discovered that his own default, far from increasing his popularity, would rather injure it. We should have liked to have had him in his place when Mr. Parnell yesterday fortnight brought his indictment against Lord Spencer, and to have then heard from his lips a defence like that of the Hackney speech. We should like to see him emulating Mr. Bright in speaking out his mind frankly, even when he thinks it possible that it may injure his popularity as well as when he thinks that it will add to his popularity. We should like to see him warn- ing the new electors of the difficulty and dangers of their new responsibilities, as well as of the rights which they may enforce and of the "ransom" which they may exact. We should like to see him emulating Mr. Bright's power of defying popular opinion a little more, and to find him stimulating the hope of "favours to come" a little less. Mr. Chamberlain's talents are great. What he wants in order to fill the place in the heart of England which Mr. Bright fills, is that comparative indifference to popularity which is, after all, the secret of the only enduring popularity. He told an admirable story the other day at Hackney to enforce his distrust of the Tories, if by chance they should get a majority at the General Election,—a story of the wife of a drunkard, who enticed her husband home by pet names in one of his drunken fits; but on being complimented on her kindness to him, replied, " Whisht I don't say anything. I have got to call him pet names to get him home • but wait till he drops in the hall, and be round then." Well, no one will be at all inclined to charge Mr. Chamberlain with any disposition to turn on the popular party, if once it places him in power. His "pet names" will become, in that case, perhaps even more endearing still, and his pet measures also. But we should like to have the full confidence in his case that we all have in Mr. Bright's case, that, if he thought the people wrong, he would oppose them as blithely as he new pleads for them. We should like to feel sure that he does not talk of the ransom of property and hold out prospects of the Utopias which popular local government boards may create, that he does not denounce all economists who doubt the wisdom of teaching the electors to give their vote with one hand and to take alms with the other, chiefly because this course ingratiates him with the electorate, but rather because he thinks it bare justice. And we shall hardly ever feel sure of this till we have seen Mr. Chamberlain denouncing some popular movement, as we have so often seen Mr. Bright denouncing one, and telling the electors, as Mr. Bright has told them, when he sees them doing what he thinks unrighteous and injurious to their character as free men, that he will resist them with all the might, and a little even of the passion, with which he has assailed the privileges of rank, the selfishness of wealth, and the reckless ambition of power. There is some- thing truly magnificent in Mr. Bright's indifference to the anger of large masses of people when he thinks their course wrong. Cannot Mr. Chamberlain earn for us something of the same reverence by telling unpopular truths and enforcing at times unwelcome responsibilities ?
Previous page
