THE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP.
THE Conservatives are dispirited, and consequently are picking holes in their Chiefs. We are far from regarding those chiefs as perfect. The Marquis of Salisbury appears to us exactly the man to ruin his party in the House of Lords ; and, in our opinion, the Conservatives would have done much better to stick to the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, who, though certainly not brilliant or inspiring,—perhaps even a little slows—is judicioas and perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, however a great party prefers at times to be led wrong by one who =Ls them fancy themselves heroes, to being led right by one who only reflects their own flatness of heart ; and though we are as sure that Lord Salisbury, if he continues to lead, will injure seriously the prestige of the House of Peers with the country, as we are that Sir Stafford Northcote will never add to the prestige of the House of Commons, we very much doubt whether either leader will be displaced by anything but his own deliberate resolve. At the present moment, indeed, the Conservatives appear to be fretting most at the tameness of Sir Stafford Northcote, and Mr. E. Clarke is said to have declared, in his speech last week at Durham—though we are quite unable to find a full report of that speech—that what the Conservative Party in the Commons need is a new leader, a leader of descent and prestige, who may give them the heart which Sir Stafford Northcote has not got to give. Well, that is a very easy thing to say, though it is a little ungrateful to say it in a Session in which Sir S. Northcote has saved the Conservatives from the disaster into which Lord Salisbury did his best to plunge them ; but if you come to business, and ask Mr. Clarke whom he would recommend for leader in Sir Stafford's place, he would find it exceedingly difficult to specify any one at all likely to do better. It is clear that Mr. Gibson cannot be meant, as he is no repre- sentative of a great family ; and besides, statesmanlike as he is on Irish subjects, he seems to lose his sagacity and strength entirely, directly he finds himself floated outside the whirlpool of Irish grievances. Mr. Gibson reminds us of a pegtop, which is most steadfast when it is struck on all sides at once ; for he is never near his best, except when responding to the in- numerable scourges of Irish discontents. Ask him for a large view of foreign policy, or of any great English political issue, and his judgment breaks down at once. Nor can Mr. Clarke, we think, have intended to point to Lord Randolph Churchill. Lord Randolph is almost as clever a man as ever sat in the House of Commons, perhaps almost as clever as was Mr. Disraeli himself. But he is intrinsically mischievous. He has not Mr. Disraeli's great power of reticence and self-restraint. He has a good deal of the political Puck in him. Imagine the Conservatives in the• House of Commons led by that great deviser of practical jokes, Mr. Theodore Hook, and you imagine something very like the leadership of Lord Randolph Churchill. He would try mere psycho- logical experiments on his party, on the adverse party, on the country, perhaps—who knows ?—on his gracious Sovereign herself. What would Conservatives say, under such a regime? Would not they feel very like the "decent bodies "in a Scotch Presbyterian church when the minister suddenly gave out a light song, in the place of the expected hymn ?
Probably, Mr. Clarke, if he recommended, as he is said to have done, a leader of old family who would put more heart into the party than Sir Stafford Northcote, was thinking of Colonel Stanley, for Colonel Stanley is a pleasant reminder to the Conservatives that the Earldom of Derby is not always to count as an 'accession to the Liberal ranks ; and Colonel Stanley is himself a good departmental chief, with a little less of general rashness and impulsiveness than Sir R. Cross, and a little more of the traditions of a statesman than Mr. W. H. Smith. But there is nothing as yet to show that Colonel Stanley would make even as good a leader as Sir Stafford Northcote. He has shown none of the stamina and lucidity of mind which in such a leader as Lord Hartington, for in- stance, make up for the want of rhetorical skill, and for the liveliness and humour of .a great speaker. All that the IIouse knows of Colonel Stanley is that he made a good Secre- tary at War, and on any military question could take the lead out of the hands of Sir Stafford Northcote with great profit to his party. But that Colonel Stanley possesses any of the higher qualities of a statesman, we have as yet hardly any evidence. Sir Stafford Northcote's instincts, as a Conservative, are almost always right, and what be wants is the self-reliance to assert himself, and resist being dragged through the mud by his discontented followers. He has fair debating powers, and is not without humour. But he is vacillating and timid, and timid vacillation is one of the worst defects a leader can have. Still, as he heartily sympathises with the non-sensational politi- cians of his party, and as non-sensational politicians are the
very backbone of Conservatism, the Tories might easily go farther and fare worse.
At all events, Sir Stafford Northcote is there, and the chronic discontents with the leader which always arise when a party is unsuccessful, never have any practical effect unless they produce that effect first upon him. Mis Disraeli once gave a very vivid account of the discouragements to which a leader is subject through years of reverse, and no doubt, if ever the secret history of his leadership is known to the world, it will be found that he more than once frankly offered to give up his place to any one else,—especially when there was nobody at all in a position to replace him, If Sir Stafford Northcote is not sufficiently disgusted by the cries raised against him to desire retirement for his own sake, there is no power in existence which can turn him out, and we certainly do not expect to see him retire at a time when he must be well aware that he has done much to save his party from the crushing defeat to which Lord Salisbury's folly would have exposed it. The line he took upon the Irish Arrears Bill enabled his followers to say that it was not the Conservatives of the Lower House, but only the Conservative Peers who under- went the humiliation of finding themselves compelled in self- defence to mutiny against the orders of their leader.
The qualities most needed for the leader of the Conservative Party are undoubtedly different from the qualities most needed for the leader of the Liberal party. Genius and daring like Mr. Gladstone's would be thrown away on the Conserva- tives,--would, indeed, startle them into reactionary convulsion fits. It is hard enough to find even among the Liberals enough of fidelity to furnish rank and file for such a com- mander as ours. On the Conservative side what is needed is profound conviction of the duty of either moving very slowly, or standing still, together with a pride and self-confidence which does not shrink from asserting itself whenever that de- sire to go back which will at times thrill through the Con- servatives, manifests itself in the great body of the Tory party, Sir Stafford Northcote has the first of these requisites for a Tory leader, but not the second. He sincerely prefers very slow motion, with occasional rest, to anything like rtpid ad- vance. But when his followers shriek for a retrograde move- ment, he is daunted, and does not assert his own private con- viction that such a course is inexpedient and ruinous, with sufficient dignity and force. He has been as weak as water about the Bradlaugh question',—about obstruction and procedure,—about finance,—about the Afghan war, —about Fair-trade. On all these matters, he has not made his followers respect his opinions, and feel that they were being led, and not followed. But on the Arrears question of the -present Session, he was not weak as water. For the first time, he took the part which a wise Conservative leader ought to take. And it does seem, there- fore, a singularly inopportune moment to decry his leadership, when all sensible Tories are feeling that had the Duke of Richmond and Gordon,.—who is the true Sir Stafford Northcote of the Upper Ilouse,-led them in the Lords, instead of Lord Salisbury, the depression which now marks the whole tone of the Tory Party would be far less serious than it is.. It is not Sir Stafford Northcote's fault that the war in Ftgypt has gone se well, and has been finished so brilliantly. But it is to his credit that England is not now simmering with wrath against the House of Lords, and Ireland in rebellion against the Govern- ment of the Saxon.
Previous page
