Silt Jon . TREL1WNY IS CASSANDRA. D IFFIDENCE is a great misfortune.
How many men fail in life not from any want of ability or industry, but because they never—not even in the moment of action— can quite throw off the dread that they may possibly be in the wrong. How many men succeed by virtue of no other re- markable talent than that of being e. ridiculous without being disconcerted and of suffering defeat with an air of triumph. The world, says the homely wisdom of the proverb, takes you pretty much at your own valuation, and this being so the only wonder is why more men do not succeed. Nature, however, always has her compensations, and though mankind never give their confidence to those who have no confidence in themselves, they are often unjustly, nay, cruelly suspicious of those who have plenty. In what age, in what country, have they not killed their prophets and stoned them that were sent unto them ? Why at this moment is the Liberal party led by a statesman whom it is not unfair to call a Con- servative, and by Ministers of whom the majority are only Whigs ? Because the party has no confidence in the states- manship of its more advanced members. Here is Sir John Trelawny, for instance, holding the soundest opinions,—dis- liking wars and yet prepared to give the good cause on the Continent a helping hand wherever it can be done cheaply,— always on the right side in all questions in which freedom of thought on religion is involved,—and above all a supporter of the ballot of twenty-one years' standing,---and yet we never recollect to have heard him even named for a Cabinet office. As Sir John very feelingly observes apropos of the appoint- ment of young men like the Marquis of Hartington to Under- secretaryships, "These men begin where other men end, and a man may be working all his life to occupy the same posi- tion, and just as be becomes really eligible on account of his fitness it is too late." Perhaps, however, Sir John is after all no fair example of the blindness of mankind to merit. Since he only claims real eligibility for those who have worked twenty-one years there is probably, nay certainly, some lurking self-mistrust in the man which does not appear on the surface. At all events one quite understands that Sir John must find this "rather a melancholy reflection," and regard it as a proof that "there is something not alto- gether satisfactory in the working of our institutions as re- gards the admission to office." The only difficulty is how to remedy it. If indeed the House of Commons would listen to Sir John,—but they will not ! In vain does he cry, "Strike, but hear me !" they do not do either, but go to dinner. Here is this New Zealand business. Sir John had not only the public information accessible to others, but also "good private information" on the subject, and he "went out of his way over and over again to advise both Ministers and Parliament to be aware what they were about there because danger was ahead." And yet such is the blindness of the human mind and its ignorance of the future that all his warnings were thrown away, and at least on one occasion he "was unfortu- nately unable to keep the House together." This is certainly the height of obstinacy. There is so far as we know, no reason for thinking that Cassandra even was ever counted out. The Trojans had the politeness to listen to her even if they did not take her advice. It is a consolation, how- ever, to know that the edification which the House rejects is not altogether lost. Just as a man who fails in making himself popular in society is driven to develop the more carefully the family affections, so the indiffer- ence of Westminster serves to cement the bonds which unite the member to his constituents—Trelawny to Tavistock. How can Sir John doubt that "extra-Parliamentary utter- ances are good in themselves?" What other compensation could fate give us for that unfortunate inability to keep the House together ? And not only do we thus get the benefit of that advice which we should otherwise lose, but we get it at full length. In the Session the daily papers are fastidious, and might—such is the infatuation of men—cut the prophet short in the report. Now there is no danger, and Sir John has his three columns and a half, and might have two or three more, if he liked. Then again, if the House were to be better disposed to keep together perhaps he himself would have less taste for public speaking in the recess, and might prefer partridge-shooting or exploring the summits of the Alps. So that if the public service suffers Tavistock gains, and Sir John, Antmuslike, renews his strength in the bosom of his constituents. Certaiuly everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Whatever comfort we may derive from this view of the subject, it is nevertheless true that there can be no effect without an adequate cause. Sir John is a baronet of ancient family, good property, industrious habits, sound opinions, and free from any of those extravagant views which stand in the way of so many men. He is not averse to all war like Mr. Bright, nor friendly to "a foreigner whose name we are well acquainted with" like Mr. Stansfeld. How is it that after working for twenty-one years he has not got the ear of the House, but still labours under that "unfortunate inability ?" Some indication of the reason of this strange phenomenon may, we think, be found even in this very speech. In the first place people do not like mystery, and Sir John is so very mysterious. To this hour he has never revealed how he was going to have stopped the New Zealand war and saved us from the twopence in the pound income-tax. Now we do not pretend to see through that mystery, but we can see through some of Sir John's dark allusions, and do not see the good of them. The cloud which covers Mr. Stansfeld's connection with " a foreigner whose name, &c.," is really not impenetrable. Why, too, should not Sir John " mention the name" of "a learned gentleman recently defeated in this county," and why is there dark speech about " the father of that candidate ?" All men know that Mr. Coleridge the other day did not get in for Exeter, and the ex-judge his father is not likely to be at all squeamish about the appearance of his name in the papers.
People never have put much confidence in those wise counsellors who are always shaking their heads, and hinting mysteriously what they could have said if they had only been consulted. Then, again, Sir John's opinions seem to us to be a good deal better than his logic. It would be a good thing "if the suffrage question could be definitively and for ever put on an equitable footing," and the way the question has been and is shirked is not creditable to the Liberal statesmen.
But what can we say of a reasoner who argues that the suffrage ought to be extended because a member of Parlia- ment is said to be responsible to the whole of the public ? As a matter of fact he is not. I man can only be re- sponsible to those who can take away his office, be it what it may. A member is bound to consult the interests of the public rather than his constituency, but it is his con- stituents who must judge whether he does or not. They may of course fail to do their duty just as he may fail to do his. But the question of the extension of the suffrage depends on this :—who will be the best judges whether members consult the interests of the public,—the whole of the public, or only that part of it which has some little property ? Without con- cealing from ourselves the difficulty of collecting the opinion of the whole public so that the poorest class shall not obscure the wishes of all the rest, we should answer the abstract ques- tion just as Sir John does. But this reason for his faith is simply a fallacy contained in the misuse of the word respon- sibility. Again, Sir John cannot think it was wise to edge on the Poles " without being resolved to assist them in case of difficulty." This is straightforward enough. But then Sir John will not admit that in no case whatever should we interfere in foreign affairs by diplomacy alone, and he cites Lord Russell's interference in Italy. "If Lord Russell had said nothing it is very doubtful whether Italy would ever have been the free country it now is." But does Sir John mean to say that he was prepared to assist the Italians "in case of difficulty ?" His position seems to be that we ought to interfere whenever talk will get us our own way, but not when fighting will be wanted. But who is to know beforehand whether remon- strances alone will be attended to ? A Cassandra or a Sir John Trelawny might perhaps, but who besides ? And then he actually cites Mr. Mill of all men in the world! But really Mr. Mill is never illogical. Whether that great thinker would have had us go to war for Poland or Denmark we do not know, but he is perfectly consistent in his advocacy of interference. Interfere always, he says,—at least bear witness in favour of justice and good faith. Even where you cannot secure the observance of these great principles it is your most sacred duty to testify on their behalf. Your pro- test keeps the sacred fire alive, and at a happier time it will rekindle the desecrated altars. Mr. Mill would think that our not being prepared to assist Poland in ease of difficulty was no reason whatever why we should not remonstrate with her oppressors.
The fact is the member for Tavistock is one of a class who are peculiar to the Liberal party. If a man has good sense he can arrive generally at sound conclusions. The prejudices of education, the sophistry of self-interest, the passions and weaknesses of human nature mislead our judgments. It may take great ability to comprehend the currency question, but the man whose mind is unwarped forms his opinions on ordi- nary questions pretty correctly. Now it is very difficult for those who are of this happy temper of mind to see the world come round gradually to their opinions without estimating themselves more highly than the mere fact of their holding sound opinions justifies. Of course Liberals are often Liberals because their fathers were and because it is their interest to be, but the class of men we allude to are people not neces- sarily very clever but who think for themselves. A
Conservative party ex vi termini does not foster such men, but a Liberal party does, and their number is unquestion-
ably one of its weaknesses considered simply as a party.
This sort of men is not content to stay for ever in the rank and file, and indeed is very recalcitrant under the
discipline of the whips. On the other hand let us not forget that if they are in one sense the weakness of the party they are in a better sense its strength. It is their sturdy self-reliance, their disinterested convictions, their honourable persistence, their fairness of mind, which consti- tute in its best sense the Liberal tone of thought, and give it its permanent and ineradicable hold upon the national mind. We wish there were more Sir John Trelawnys in the House, or at least more people who vote like him. We confess to doubting whether his speeches are equally serviceable to the cause, and rather wish he would take the hint the House gives him when he experiences that "unfortunate inability."
Previous page
