MR. CAVENDISH BENT1NOK AND MR. GORST.
ONE by one, the hopes or fears that have been excited by the Conservative Government are dying away into space. First of all, they were to witch the world with noble adminis- tration. After all, it was said, Governments are meant for something else than to be continually changing laws. They may at times be content to show how to make the best of the laws we have. There was novelty in the thought of Session after Session flowing gently by, with no more than the neces- sary business appearing on the notice-paper ; and if the Queen's Speech last February had promised nothing, and the Queen's Speech last month recorded nothing, we do not know that any one, from Lord Hartington downwards, would have much cared to complain. In place of this dream of pleasant idleness, the Session which has lately ended has been more than usually crowded with work. It is true there has not been much legislation, but there has been abundance of talk about legislation, and in the making of laws it is the talking, not the doing, that takes up time. Still, the defenders of the Conservative Government could afford to confess that their clients had not given Parliament the pro- found rest which it might have expected to enjoy. They might point to the Prime Minister's speeches, when in Oppo- sition, for proof that there was at least one kind of legislation with which he had always desired that his name should be linked. He had more than once pledged himself to come forward as the true social Reformer. The country had proved, as he said it would prove, to be sick of heroic
legislation. It should come to its own Conservative Government to have its drains cleansed and its houses made wholesome. This vision has faded as quickly as the other. The Public Health Acts have been consolidated, and a few useful though not very important amendments have been introduced into the law. But as to any really large measure of sanitary reform, we are just as far from it as when the pre- sent Ministry took office. For a wonder, the Conservative party had a third string to their bow. Great men exercise an influence on their age by the mere fact of their presence in the world. They are reverenced, not only for what they do, but for what they are. The function of the Conservatives was to exhibit the blessedness of dwelling together in unity. The mere contemplation of so united a family must soothe and cheer minds which had long been pained by the sad spedacle of Liberal dissensions. The Conservative Govern- ment might not have been proof against the temptation to legislate on too ambitious a scale ; they might have recoiled
before unforeseen difficulties in the way of sanitary reform. But whether they were showing themselves to be only mortal in their desire to gain the reputation of Parliamentary activity, or were learning that social legislation is more, not less, difficult than other kinds of Parliamentary activity, they would at all events learn and repeat their lesson with one mind and one mouth. The discipline of the party was too admirable to leave any doubt upon this head. They might stand stationary or move in the wrong direction, but at least they would move altogether, if they moved at all.
This third fancy seems to be as baseless as either of the others. Mr. Cavendish Bentinck and Mr.. Gorst have lately been making Conservative speeches. Mr. Cavendish Bentinck is a member of the Government, and Mr. Gorst has, for some years past, been so intimately associated with the machinery of the Conservative party that he speaks with scarcely less. authority. The whole of Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's speech at Whitehaven on Tuesday, and the most import- ant part of Mr. Gorses speech at Greenholme on Saturday, dealt with the same subject,—the recent legislation about merchant shipping. It is a matter which eminently demands. cautious treatment at the hands of Conservative speakers, and the first element of cautious treatment is avoidance of evident contradictions. This is how Mr. Gorst and Mr. Cavendish Bentinck made good their claim to their respective places in the happy Conservative family. Mr. Gorst began by regretting that the question had assumed " a bitter and, to some extent, a personal. character." In proof of this statement he instanced the "strong language " used by Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, and said with great truth that if the Secretary to the Board of Trade is to call the facts and figures brought forward by Mr. Plimsoll and his friends " scandalous fabrications," it is impossible that the controversy can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Gorst then went on to explain why the Merchant Shipping Bill of last Session was not passed. His theory of the- matter is that the Bill, as originally introduced, was a. Board of Trade Bill. Being a Board of Trade Bill, it did not represent the wishes and feelings of ' the- people. Later in the Session, the Government discovered this, and as there was not time to modify the Bill in the sense they wished, they were obliged, against their will, to withdraw it. This is a very intelligible theory of the closing events of the Session, and it only needed the confirming testimony of Mr. Cavendish Bentinck to make us accept it as the authorised version. Perhaps the. Secretary to the Board of Trade was• not too well pleased with Mr. Gorst's ingenuous reproof in the matter of strong language, and his irritation may possibly have coloured his views of Parliamentary history. At all events, he did not hesitate to give Mr. Gorst's narrative "the most un- qualified contradiction." So far from the Bill, as originally intro- duced, being a Board of Trade Bill, it was really too popular a Bill. It contained some very stringent provisions as to the liability of shipowners, provisions which were found on exami- nation to be absolutely unworkable, and so had to be dropped out of the Bill. Thus, according to one Conservative speaker, the break-down of the Merchant Shipping Bill was owing to the Bill being unduly favourable to the sailor, according to another,. it was owing to its being unduly favourable to the shipowner.
These rival explanations have this point in common,. that they completely account for the fate of the Bill. On either supposition, the Government found themselves late in the Session in charge of a Bill which they dis- liked and disapproved. They saw that it wanted a great deal of alteration, and they knew that there was not time enough to alter 'it before the day of prorogation. Un- fortunately, however, the point on which the narratives differ is one of infinitesimal importance, as compared with the point on which they disagree. What we want to know is, why the Government had come to dislike their own offspring ? Was it because it yielded too much to the sailor, or because it yielded too much to the shipowner Either theory is intelligible, either theory may be made to square with the conduct of the Govern- ment, but only one of them can be true. It is of great moment to
which is true, because if this were ascertained, we should be able to forecast the drift of the merchant-shipping legisla- tion of next year. If Mr. Gorst is right, the lives of seamen will receive some efficient permanent protection. If Mr.. Cavendish Bentinck is right, the great object of the Govern- ment will be not to "handicap the British merchant." When the precise meaning of this phrase is inquired into, it turns out to be as follows :—At present there is a certain amount of what Mr. Cavendish Bentinck calls preventable loss of life,— loss of life, that is, which would not take place if certain ship- owners chose to spend the money which is required to make their ships seaworthy. A thoughtless popular sentiment would compel them to spend this money. The result would be that they would no longer think it worth their while to remain in business, and so much of the carrying trade of Great Britain would pass into the hands of foreigners. 'Don't,' cries Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, 'be so unjust to your own merchants as to deprive them of the right to send sailors to the bottom. This wish to favour foreigners at the expense of Englishmen is cosmopolitanism run mad. A certain number of sailors will anyhow be drowned from pre- ventable causes. Why should we rob these gallant fellows of the consolation of thinking that at all events it is their own dear countrymen that profit by their deaths ?' Is this to be the spirit in which the Unseaworthy Ships Act is to be administered during the Recess ? Is this the doctrine which the Merchant Shipping Bill of next Session will embody ? We 'Cannot pretend to answer these questions, because the evidence on which the answer should be founded is absolutely con- flicting. But we submit that the public is justified in making these inquiries. We should have been quite satisfied with Mr. Gorst's narrative if it had stood by itself, but unfortunately it does not stand by itself. It is contradicted by a man who, on this subject, may be supposed to speak with a certain amount of authority. We are willing to make large allowances for the enthusiasm generated by the consciousness that he was speak- ing in the presence of none but shipowners. But then a Government which keeps silence after a gushing subordinate has thus committed himself is in some sort partaker of his views. In that case, what becomes of Mr. Gorst's theory ? We do not dispute the right of the Conservative party to take whichever statement they please,—we only insist that they are bound to take either one or the other.
Previous page
