Lord Kimberley in his speech in the Lords on Tuesday
showed good sense and patriotism. If he could not entirely resist the temptation to revert to the past, he laid far more stress on what the Government ought to do for the future in regard to naval and military preparations. Lord Salisbury's reply—we say it with deep regret—was entirely unworthy of the occasion and of the office he holds. The country, as we have said elsewhere, expected from him not excuses for the past, but firm resolves for the future. He should have refused at this moment to say any- thing in regard to the genesis of the war, but should have solely spoken of the nation's resolve to see the war through at whatever cost, and should have told us how he intended to make success a certainty. Instead, he tried to lay the blame of our troubles, first on the smallness of our Secret Service Fund, then on the working of the British Constitution, and then on the Treasury. But if these things prevent us from waging war properly, why has Lord Salisbury refrained from telling the people of this country that they must mend them ? Such impotent complaints might be excused in a journalist who is without power, but not in a Prime Minister. If Lord Salisbury had at any time during the last fifteen years told the country that he wanted more secret service money and less Treasury control, the country would have satisfied him without demur. Only in the very last sentences of his speech, in which he asked for united efforts to retrieve our losses, did Lord Salisbury show any adequate appreciation of the situation. But again, Lord Salisbury has only to ask and to have. If he were to ask for a quarter of a million men to-morrow the country would vote them without a murmur.
