TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. GOSCHEN IN LIVERPOOL.
IT has been objected to Mr. Goschen's eloquent speech on Tuesday, that it did not contain anything showing what the Government policy would really be, or showing why it should
be thus and not otherwise ; that it was a speech in the air, and did not contribute anything towards the solution of the very difficult problem before the country. We are quite willing to admit this, and to maintain that it was Mr. Goschen's duty and purpose to put heart into a resistance to revolution, and not to sketch out a new policy, which, indeed, he leaves to his opponents. The very striking language in which he referred to the taunts of the Radicals on the subject of local govern- ment in Ireland, perfectly represents the character of his speech
in this respect. "We are asked," he says,"‘What do you intend to do with segard to local government in Ireland Welk, whn asks us the question We are asked the question by the met who say that no Bill for local government could possibly be acceptable to the Irish people. . . Then why do they ask us to produce one ? They know that they would not support it. . . I will tell you what that reminds me of. It is as if, having set fire to a house, they ask you what idea you had got for adjusting repairs in the house. They set the house on fire, they try to add to the blaze, and while they are adding to the blaze, they say, 'What is your plan for repairs?' Why, if we were to bring any planks for repairs, we should simply be tossing so many planks on the fire in order to make it burn more brightly. Let them help us to extinguish the fire, and then we will join them in some plan for better local govern- ment. What we have now first to do, is to see that the law shall be maintained." Now, that is, as we think, a com- plete and admirable answer to the taunt that the speech contains no Irish policy. It had no business to contain a definitive Irish policy. While the revolutionary party is doing everything in its power to render a definitive Irish policy impracticable, it is childish to bring forward what will only add to the confusion. And as for such remedial agrarian measures as are still possible, they fall to Sir Michael Beach's province, and not to Mr. Goschen's. Mr. Goschen has joined a Government of which the avowed object is to resist the revolution in Ireland. All that the country wanted to know from him concerning Ireland was that he and his colleagues would resist that revolution manfully, that there was no tremor in their hearts, that their object is to govern Ireland as fairly and benevolently as they can without giving place to those who wish to turn everything upside down and to render any re'gime like the present absolutely impossible. Anything like a definitive policy for Ireland cannot be deter- mined on in the midst of such a hurly-burly as the National League, with their "Plan of Campaign," have contrived to create. Doubtless the Government will come to Parliament prepared with some mitigations of the present situation. Sir Michael Beach has shown the most hearty desire to mitigate the evils of the situation. We hope he may propose to put an end altogether to evictions in winter, and will show his desire to increase the number of peasant owners of land, and to stimulate other industries,—so soon as the value of land ceases to vary so frightfully as it now does from year to year, and when the National League are so far paralysed as to permit healthy industries to show their heads. But we believe that Mr. Goschen was quite right in leaving it to the Irish Secretary to suggest and explain all such alleviations of the present situation in Ireland as measures of this kind may propose. Mr. Goschen speaks not as an Irish Minister, but as a Minister representing the whole United Kingdom. And for such a Minister at the present moment there is but one thing to say about Ireland,—that the authority of the law must be maintained and restored ; that nothing can prosper in Ireland till that authority is restored and better maintained ; but that, bad as the state of things is, it might be worse, and would be much worse if the government of the country were handed over to the men who have initiated this policy of plunder which they call the "Plan of Campaign." What Mr. Goschen had to do was to convince the country that the Government are collected and calm, and not in the least afraid of the results of the struggle in which they are about to engage. And in that, we think, he completely succeeded. What he said as to the complete failure of the Land Act of 1881 showed that he fully appreciates the serious character of the situation. That failure is due, no doubt, in many respects, to extrinsic causes which have affected the agriculture of Eng- land as much as they have affected the agriculture of Ireland. But had those causes not existed, it is clear enough that the organisers of the "Plan of Campaign" would have thrown the apple of discord into the country all the same. Indeed, they have been careful to attack both bad landlords and good,—bad landlords in order to have a cue which they can defend before the country, and good landlords because it is they who really undermine the influence of the National League. The first thing which Ireland needs is freedom from the oppression of that National League. Of all remedial measures, that would be the essential condition. Mr. Goschen's first object was to make the country understand that it is not governed by an Administration in a twitter, but by one of nerve and force. In that he has, we venture to say, succeeded.
He showed his courage also by his admirable remarks upon the duties of the office on which he has just entered. It will
scandalise weak men to find him saying that the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is not merely to check waste,— though that is one of his first duties,—but to find means
for doing everything which the Government deem essential to the safety and honour of the country. The common conception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the cheeseparing functionary of the Government, receives a rude blow from this
frank admission of Mr. Goschen's that he looks upon it as his duty first to provide what is essential, and next
to refuse what is not essential, for the safety and welfare of the nation. Yet we believe that he is not only absolutely right in his view of the office, but that this view of the office, far from tending to extravagance, may in the end tend to much more effective economy than the cheeseparing view of it. If the heads of other departments of the State are but satisfied that the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, instead of looking upon them as natural enemies, will do all in his power to meet their legitimate demands so far as those demands are clearly within the general objects of the Administration, they will be a great deal more earnest and energetic in controlling the extravagance of subordinates than they will be if they look upon the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer not as a hearty colleague, but as the officer appointed to tax their bills. We believe that a great deal is to be done by more cordial co-operation between the Treasury and the great spending departments,—co-operation at once calculated to make all our services efficient, and to secure what is implied in efficiency, the rigid suppression of waste. We folly expect that CIE Stanhope and Lord George Hamilton will be found far readier to co-operate with Mr. Goschen in suppressing waste, now that they see Mr. Goschen's determination to secure England against impotence in time of peril, than Mr. W. H. Smith and Lord George Hamilton were to co- operate with Lord Randolph Churchill, when they looked upon his demands as made in the interest chiefly of a popular Budget, and not in the interest of national safety. There is such a thing in Chancellors of the Exchequer as a tendency to over-act the part of a frugal controller of the public expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Minister first, and a controller afterwards. It is quite right that he should look upon it as his first duty to find means for doing what the country ought to do, and as his second duty to refuse to find means for any useless, or needless, or extra- vagant expenditure. The second duty will be performed all the better for the prominence which Mr. Goschen gives to the first.
What Mr. Goschen said on foreign policy will give the greatest satisfaction to those Liberal Unionists who, knowing his large command of the subject, do not feel quite as much confidence in the foreign policy of Lord Salisbury as they would in the foreign policy of Mr. Goschen. He refuted the persistent rumour that the Government had ever intended to take up the cause of Alexander of Battenberg, when Prince of Bulgaria, as a cause for which England was bound to incur the risk of war. "It is entirely false to assert," he said, "that the Government of this country has for one moment been inclined to risk the peace of Europe for the sake of a particular dynasty or a particular man." That will be a very welcome assurance to many Liberal Unionists who have been somewhat disturbed by the persistent gossip concerning Lord Randolph Churchill's differences with the Government. Prudent strength is the character which we wish to see given to our foreign policy, and Mr. Goschen's speech is an assurance that the foreign policy of this country will be both strong and prudent. On every point on which he has spoken, he has left the country more at ease than it was before he addressed it.
Previous page
