TOPICS OF TAE, DAY.
THE TORY PREMIERSHIP.
AS Lord Derby has declined to gratify the Times by dying, it is still possible, of course, that he may retain for a period his place as nominal Prime Minister. But it is hardly likely that one who, before this dangerous illness, was well known to be eager for retirement, will attempt to resume his official duties at the very beginning of a parliamentary cam- paign. Lord Derby has scarcely, since his resumption of office, been anything more than the personal centre of union between the different statesmen of his Cabinet, and the.lassi- tude which follows critical and dangerous illness at an age not many months short of seventy, is not likely to increase his ability to discharge the duties of a Premier. What we anticipated therefore last week, before the dangerous character of his illness was known, is now far more nearly certain. A new Conservative Premier must be found ; and it is in the highest degree for the public interest that the new Premier should be made to feel the burden of responsibility properly in- volved in the office far more keenly than has been possible of late years, when three aged Premiers in succession have rested, rather on their prestige than on their capacity, in that position. Lord Russell, in his new pamphlet on Ireland, has asserted that the most important legislative change which, in his opinion, a Prime Minister could have to carry,—the abolition of the Protestant monopoly in Ireland,—must be carried by a man who is not enfeebled by age, and who sits in the House of Commons,—and the generous and admirable words in which such a one is described are pointed at Mr. Gladstone. This has been strained, perhaps beyond the author's meaning,— though certainly not beyond what he ought to have meant,— into a resignation of the leadership of the Liberal party in Mr. Gladstone's favour. The principle laid down is as good for the Tories as for the Liberals. The most responsible duty by far which the Government has now to perform is its duty in Ireland, and whether that duty be a work of sheer repres- sion or a work of semi-revolution, it ought to be undertaken by a minister armed with the fullest powers of the State, and weighted by the fullest sense of responsibility which we can contrive to impose on him,—a minister both vigorous enough for the work, and standing in that direct relation to the Commons, by virtue of which alone the work can be personally achieved. In other words, the new Tory Prime Minister ought not to be a " figure-head " minister, like the Duke of Richmond, to whom Mr. Disraeli is supposed to incline as the only possible successor of Lord Derby,—perhaps partly by way of indicating his own disincli- nation to serve under Lord Stanley. Nor should it be Lord Stanley himself, who would necessarily go to the Peers if he were to accept the office, as he could not supplant Mr. Dis- raeli, even if he were competent to replace him. It should be no other than Mr. Disraeli.
We are the more anxious to urge the importance of thus rivetting the full sense of responsibility on the next Tory Prime Minister, because Mr. Disraeli is evidently intending to play again this session that dangerously tentative and humble policy of appealing to the House to tell him what it wishes, which he played last session, and which his position behind Lord Derby, as the real, but not the nominal chief, so unfortunately favours. His mode of dealing with the Scotch Reform Bill on Monday is not, perhaps, as regards the par- ticular measure, of the highest moment. If the Bill be passed in a defective and mischievous form, it will probably be mended very soon after the meeting of the new Parliament.
But the danger is not in the consequences to the individual measure, but in the symptoms of a fixed intention of Mr. Disraeli to diminish the Ministerial responsibility for the measures he proposes to a minimum, and make them appear at least as measures forced upon him by the House, instead of recommended by him to the House. The Scotch Reform Bill had, he said, only two principles—a very liberal extension of the suffrage, and an increase of the number of Scotch seats. All else was detail, open to alteration in committee, on which the Government, though they had suggested a course, were all but indifferent. If the Scotch Members did not like the excision of all the important burghs out of the counties, and could persuade the House, they might. If they wanted more than seven new seats, and could persuade the House, they might. If they could recommend a scheme by which they could obtain these seats without adding to the total number of the House, and could persuade the House to accept it, they might. Everything was to be absolutely elastic to the wish of the House. He cared for nothing, and had indeed em- bodied one provision which he disliked in deference to the majorities of last session. Only give him a policy, and he would adopt it.
Now, on a matter like the Scotch Reform Bill, this attitude of Mr. Disraeli's is perhaps not so very important. Indeed, it may be said that after the way in which the English Reform. Bill of last session was treated, there would be a want of harmony of feeling about any mood which pretended to pride or inflexibility. To be purely receptive about the English. Reform Bill, and dictatorially creative about the Scotch might. seem eccentric. But there is real danger of this clever and adroit knack of Mr. Disraeli's of fishing for a policy growing into a habit,—and no habit could be more dangerous. Hia position as Lord Derby's Lieutenant greatly favours this easy, what you will' attitude of his. A Prime Minister, with all the powers and responsibilities of a Prime Minister, could not afford to say so easily that his programme was a tablet con- taining a few jotted hints as to the adoption of which he felt- no great interest, and should be most happy to exchange them. for others emanating from the House. With an aged and weak Prime Minister,—sitting, too, in the Peers,—there may be excuses for such a line of action. But with a Primo Minister in his fullest vigour and possessing the ear of the Commons, it would hardly be decent. It is of all things most necessary that the line taken by the Government on Irish policy should be henceforth clear, deliberate, decisive, and taken under a sense of full re- sponsibility. If it be the patient, repressive, do-nothing policy announced by Lord Stanley, let that at least be fully understood by the country, and let it be positively an- nounced and defended as the true policy by the Government,. under a full sense of responsibility. We doubt whether even Mr. Disraeli would, as Prime Minister, venture to assert that the Irish Church ought to be maintained, and that no degree of reasonableness should be conceded to that sense of injustice under which Irishmen still complain. He could scarcely venture, if he occupied the first place in the Government, to evade entirely a declaration of policy about Ireland. And we hold that an authoritative de- claration of this sort from the Government is most needful. It is not fair for the Government to have all the odium of a purely repressive policy, if it entertains seriously any pro- ject for concession to Irish feeling. It is equally unfair to the cause of order in Ireland itself, which would necessarily acquire strength from any policy which would lend new heart to the friends of orderly liberty. Neither, again, is it at all fair to those who, like Lord Russell and Mr. Mill, see, or- think they see, a policy of pacification, not to have the atti- tude of the Government towards such policies fairly defined, that they may take their own line in moving English public opinion for or against it. In one word, the question of the true policy for Ireland is the one great imperial question of the day. By this the Government must ultimately be judged,—must stand or fall, —and it is only right that it should be fully known. A Prime Minister in full vigour, and leading the House of Commons, could not decline to declare his policy on such a point, and to feel the full responsibility of his declaration. Such a, Prime Minister we ought to have. And we hold that it ought to be Mr. Disraeli, because it is he who must really determine the mode in which the Government will act—because it is he who must persuade the House of Commons to adopt, if they do adopt, his own advice,—and because there will therefore be no full and visible responsibility for the nature of that advice, unless he himself is the acknowledged ruler.
Previous page
