THE SCATTER-BRAINED TORIES.
THE mischievous effect of Mr. Disraeli's brilliant career on the unscrupulous section of the Conservative Party has been long predicted, without any notable fulfilment of the
prediction ; but it is evident that in the rise of what is called the Fourth Party, and the mode in which that• party conducts itself, we have at last got what we had begun to hope that we might yet escape. Lord Randolph Churchill, at least, is evidently copying the least creditable features of Mr. Disraeli's earlier career, and at the Portsmouth meeting on Thursday burst upon the world full-fledged as a graduate in the school of carefully-calculated personalities and irre-
sponsible denunciation. It was there that Lord Randolph Churchill declared that the responsibility for all that had happened in Ireland, and the blood of the victims who had been murdered, lay on Mr. Forster's head, and on his alone," and we are not at all sure that in saying this he did not even surpass his brilliant model, when the latter re- viled the Whigs for "seizing the bloody hand of O'Connell," and when he called the Irish agitator " an incendiary," and a traitor." Lord Randolph has either studied Mr. Disraeli's earlier style very successfully, or, what is more probable, has that in his nature which makes the same sort of ostentatiously rabid aggressiveness peculiarly congenial to him. The following, for instance, of Lord Randolph Churchill's is conceived entirely in the Vivian Grey mood,—the mood of him who endeavoured to commit a kind of moral assassination on the reputation of the late Sir Robert Peel :—" The Govern- ment dared not call Parliament together, for fear of the criti- cisms of Lord Beaconsfield and the Tory party. Mr. Forster had proved himself to be more fit for the Bradford Burial Board, than for the position he occupied. He and the Govern- ment were deluding the English people in regard to the present prosecutions, which were shams. Mr. Forster, and his dummy Lord-Lieutenant, and his precious colleagues, were the only parties who were really on their trial,—not before an Irish Jury, but before the English nation. Mr. Parnell and his friends, he ventured to predict, would not be convicted ; but ' Buckshot Forster,' his dummy Lord-Lieutenant, and his precious colleagues, would be convicted by the English people." But when Lord Randolph Churchill adopts that kind of rhetoric, he should remember that Lord Beaconsfield never used it during the successful portion of his career, except when his party were smarting under the desertion,—as they held it,—of Conservative principles by Sir Robert Peel. The bitterness of that desertion reconciled them to a language of furious and scornful invective, which at any other period they would have profoundly disapproved. And Mr. Disraeli never used such language in the House of Commons against his rivals on the other side. He remembered very well that it was only at very exceptional epochs that the Conservatives would tolerate any such virulence in their leaders. We heard no more of the seizing of bloody hands, of treachery and in-
cendiarism, after Mr. Disraeli had once gained the ear of the House of Commons,—as Lord Randolph Churchill has it now, but will hardly, we venture to say, have it long, if he goes on there as he did at Portsmouth on Thursday night. He should remember how carefully Mr. Disraeli calculated his invective ; how soon he exchanged the jagged tomahawk of his wild youth for the rapier of polished society; how early he understood that the sort of words which rushed fresh to his lips must be banished from them, and exchanged for words more suitable to an audience of English gentlemen. Lord Randolph Churchill has, we fear, forgotten all this. His speech at Portsmouth is almost the shriek of a political savage, and will do nobody any harm but himself. The British Conservatives have listened recently, with the respect which they deserve, to such tried Irish statesmen as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Gibson, who speak in the tone and with the full knowledge of responsible official life. And what did Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Gibson say ? They indicated clearly enough their profound sense of the responsibilities of criticism ; they hardly even ventured positively to con- demn the Government for not proposing new coercion in Ireland. Or if Mr. Gibson did condemn them, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, at all events, went so far as to approve em- phatically the endeavour made to do without it, though, of course, he was doubtful of the result. What, then, will the Conservatives, who have heard and appreciated this language, think of the fast young orator who, on the strength of a short stay in Ireland, gets up to charge Mr. Forster with the respon- sibility for all the Irish blood which has recently been shed, to hurl at the Irish Secretary Mr. Parnell's dishonest nick- name, and to call the Cabinet, as if epithets failed, in his refined language, "his precious colleagues ?" They will think, we suspect, that there is not very much difference between the two allies ; that Mr. Parnell, who invented the term and Lord Randolph Churchill, who eagerly avails himself of it, are about equally likely to lead Ireland to prosperity, or give the right sort of impulse to English opinion.
And they will be confirmed in this view, when they observe how Lord Randolph Churchill identifies himself with Mr. Par- nell on the question of Obstruction. This is the language of one who, having been one of the chief Obstructionists, very naturally sympathises very heartily with Obstruction :— " They all remembered how Mr. Gladstone, in an overbearing and despotic manner, had tried to put down Mr. O'Donnell, who, though a Home-ruler, was then in his right, and en- titled to all the privileges of the House of Commons. But the Conservative party had resisted that attempt, not from sympathy with Mr. O'Donnell, but from their con- viction that the attempt might be turned into a tremendous engine for the suppression of the freedom of speech. The Radicals had determined, if they could, to limit freedom of debate, and it was absolutely certain that they would meet Parliament with a proposal for the cloture, or some other out- landish contrivance. The Tory party, therefore, must be reso- Inte in resisting to the last such invidious attempts." Lord Randolph Churchill forgets to say that the sympathy of the Conservatives went almost entirely with Mr. Gladstone in the matter referred to, and that Sir Stafford Northcote incurred the reproof of some of his own most eminent followers for the vacillating line which he adopted. However, it is anything but a misfortune that the House of Commons and the public should know beforehand where Mr. Parnell may count upon the assistance of Lord Randolph Churchill, even while he denounces Mr. Forster as guilty of the blood of the murdered Irish for not putting down Mr. Parnell with a stronger hand.
We regret to see the Conservative party injured by such allies as Lord Randolph Churchill and his friends. It would be impossible for any party to find allies more injurious to the very genius of Conservatism. Literally speaking, Conservatives could hardly do themselves much more mischief by opening their arms to Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon. It is true that in some sense a free-lance like Mr. Disraeli has been of service to them at times, but then Mr. Disraeli was never greater as a free- lance than he was as a political actor. He could always assume the sober Conservative at will, however little of the Conservative, however much of the Mohawk, there was in his heart. But if we really got a " Fourth Party " of Vivian Greys, no such mask will be possible. We shall have a party of savage and vindictive reaction, associating itself with the party of prudent and sober, though tardy progress. And if mischief comes of it, it would be just as reasonable to feel surprise as to be surprised, after you had bound a lighted rocket to a tortoise, that the constitution and habits of the tortoise were
impaired by the results. Lord Randolph Churchill and his friends may make a splash in politics. We rather think they will. But what they will convince the country of soonest will be that they constitute the most dangerous party in Parlia- ment, the Land-Leaguers not excepted ; and that if the Con- servatives do not frankly disavow them, Conservatism will be ruined by their help.
Previous page
