MR. GRANT DUFF.
WE are not amongst the warmest admirers of Geist,—and Mr. Grant Duff's reviews of English politics have always seemed to us deficient in ethical feeling, and a little even in respect for the positive and constructive side of the duties of the State. His dictum a few months ago that Mem- bers are not sent to Parliament " to be professors of ethics," but "to look to the political interests of the country," struck us as a very supererogatory warning against an illusion to which no man who has the faintest knowledge of Parliament could possibly be subject,—for certainly the last idea of an English House of Commons is to pay much respect to abstract moral principle. His grudging loyalty to Mr. Glad- stone arises doubtless from the same kind of secret repul- sion towards a statesman in whom not Geist, but Pflicht (duty), is the ruling principle. But with all these short comings in relation to our domestic affairs, Mr. Grant Duff seems to us scarcely estimated at his true worth in the country,—which is due no doubt in some measure to the false impression of crotchety independence produced by some of his speeches. The Daily News the other day charged him with being independent of party. The fact is, we believe, that a surer Liberal vote is not to be found in Mr. George Glyn's list. If there is any criticism to be passed on Mr. Grant Duff's political conduct, it is rather that having an intellect so thoroughly independent of party, he has never- theless felt party ties so strong as to vote with the Liberals on every question on which they take a party vote at all, without reference to his own clearer insight. If we remember rightly, even Lord Palmerston's Conspiracy Bill, even Lord Westbury's eccentric views of his duty in relation to the Patent-Office scandal and the Clerkship of the House of Lords, did not deter Mr. Grant Duff from taking his regular place in the party phalanx. No one certainly can blame him for insubordi- nation to party ties ;—rather, perhaps, might a candid friend expostulate with him that, after having preached to others on some of these topics, he himself should be a castaway. It might, we think, be fairly urged that a silent member has the right to vote with his party without relation to his individual opinion, but that one who delivers his testimony so freely as Mr. Grant Duff would better serve the political cause he adopts and the political morality of the day, by letting his votes vary rather more according to his declared opinions. Anyhow, it is a ludicrously false representation of the fact to saddle Mr. Grant Duff with the responsibilities of a practical independence of party ties. What Mr. Grant Duff really does represent, is that discursive sort of political intellect which knows so well its own complete emancipation from English prejudice, that it is afraid to act on any individual opinion which would separate him from his party, lest the occasions of difference should become too many, and his weight in the House be frittered away in con- sequence. Just as among conformists those who believe least are the most submissive of all, lest, perchance, if they look at distinctions at all, they should break away altogether,—Mr. Grant Duff's intellectual independence is of the kind which makes him cling to party without trying to discriminate between the rights of each individual case, lest he should become, almost without knowing it, wholly insulated. This is no doubt better in itself than political insulation,—which means comparative uselessness. And it does, at all events, hold out some prospect that Mr. Grant Duff's peculiar intel- lectual position might be utilized by his party in future years, in a way that would be impossible if he had not voted thus steadily by means of his will, rather than by virtue of his opinions. For Mr. Grant Duff's defects, as we hold them, might, we think, be turned to considerable account, if he could be pressed into the service of the Liberal Government in relation to foreign affairs. It seems to us that great as are Mr. Layard's qualifications, especially in respect to Asiatic affairs, he has been proved to have some great de- fects as a Liberal Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which the House of Commons are a little disposed to resent. His parliamentary manner is needlessly irritating ; his knowledge of Oriental topics is too apt to make him an advocate instead of a judge ; and much as he gives to the Foreign Office in the way of knowledge, he is unquestionably deficient in European catholicity of intellect. Of course, this is not a practical ques- tion just at present ; but it is worth while to point out, while Mr. Grant Duff's brilliant review of the condition of Europe is still fresh in the memory of politicians, that he does possess certain intellectual qualities which would undoubtedly be of the greatest service to any Government in this Department, to which no other man in the Liberal party can pretend. Geist is clearly not the quality by which to rule England ; but we need nothing more than Geist to enlarge our relations with the Continent, and help us Englishmen,—insular as we still are,—to understand better the true meaning and root of the various political agencies at work on the Continent of Europe. Great as are Mr. Grant Duff's defects, we must concede him a more Continental type of mind than is elsewhere to be found in English politics. His reviews of European affairs repre- sent in tone, and in their cultivated German basis of thought, something more like the late Prince Consort's type of states- manship than anything else we have recently seen in England. Mr. Grant Duff is an earnest Prussianiier, without being an admirer of Count Bismarck,—and had the Prince Consort lived to see the recent struggle, that is, we suspect, the exact political attitude which he would have assumed. We do not mean that we should like to see our foreign affairs conducted by a man of this type,—but we should very much like to see them greatly influenced by a man of this type. Our recent Liberal foreign ministers have been, if we may so speak, either languid and unmeaning, as under Lord Clarendon, or too John Bullish,—too much given up to one-ideaed or two-ideaed policies, like Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell. Lord Palmerston for one long period stuck to the idea of the French alliance, and at an earlier time allowed his dread of French supremacy in Syria, to run riot with his mind. Lord Russell got the happy- inspiration of promoting the unity of Italy, and the unhappy inspiration of threatening Germany without meaning what he said. But neither of these statesmen seemed to have any wide or large European insights. They were possessed with their British ideas, and their Under Secretaries, except Mr. Layard, were apt to be cyphers. Mr. Layard is far from a cypher, but he is not much interested in European politics,—Italian ex- cepted,—and is a little too much like a bull in a china shop where he is. Mr. Grant Duff's knowledge of the different- States of Europe is probably wider than that of any other Member of the Lower House. His German sympathies give him the key to the immediate future of Europe, for there is almost certainly no European nation which will influence the future so powerfully as Germany. He has a real pleasure, moreover, in exposing the onesidedness of English popular estimates of foreign movements,—a pleasure which he must try to tone down if he is. to have the influence he might have, for a successful apothecary should conceal the pleasure it gives him to administer unpalatable drugs to his patients,—but still a medicinal instinct which has wholesome results for us. The man who can write as follows, and can justify it by so much able exposition of the actual condition of Russian politics, is obviously one who might render the greatest possible services to the character of our Foreign Office :- " I am one of those who, cherishing no illusions about Russia, feeling as much as any one can do how great a mis- fortune it is to Europe that the larger eastern portion of it should be so far behind the west, should be, indeed, in many respects, as has been said, a middle thing between Asia and Europe,'—believe that there are enormous elements of good in her people, and that the policy of the West should be, not to play into the hands of that party in Russia which wishes to keep her isolated, but in every way to increase its relations with and its influence upon her. Very different is our duty now from what it was when the power of Nicholas was hang- ing like a black cloud all over Germany ; when the influence of the Czar on the minds of the German Tories was so great, that they were little better than the skirmishers in advance of his armies,—so much so, that I remember hearing a great Berlin savant reply, in the spring of 1854, to the question, Do you read the Kreu: Zeitung ? '= No, I don't under- stand Russian enough.' All is changed since then, and Liberal opinions would have already made greater progress in Russia, if England and France had been as well informed as they were generous and enthusiastic in 1863."
And as much as Mr. Grant Duff can teach us about Russia, he can teach us about almost every other country between London and Constantinople. Will not Liberals be wise in utilizing Geist, rather than simply rebelling against it ?
Previous page
