THE DEBATING OF THE WEEK.
BUT one point of any great importance has been brought out by the debates of the week, but that point has been brought out very clearly. If is that both the party leaders, in the Lower House at least,—both the Prime Minister and the Marquis of Hartington,—intend to copy Lord Pgraerston's policy, by trying as much as possible to gratify the preposses- sions of the party opposed to them, as well as of the party which follows their lead. Lord Hartington's "but yester- day week was not a bad one. It was very sensible, and not so heavy as was expected. Even the part of his speech which was least successful in the House, because it was not and could not be delivered with the ease and skill
appropriate to satire, reads well enough in the complete re- port,—we refer to the part in which Lord Harlington con- trasted what any one who had been "unfortunate enough" to be debarred from all sources of political information except the speeches of Conservative Members and the articles in Conservative newspapers would have been likely to ex- pect as the policy of a victorious Conservative Govern- ment, with the very sober policy,—the policy of complete continuity with that of the bitterly denounced Liberal Government to which they succeed, —announced in the Speech from the Throne. This respectable speech is Lord Hartington's sole contribution to the debating of the week,—we do not include, of course, any reference to the debate of last night,—and it appears to indicate clearly, that so far as his own bias goes the Commons will be led by an even more Conservative goes, than the Lords. It is true that Lord Harlington carefully and almost punctiliously followed the lines of Lord Granville's speech, so as to show the most minute pre-arrangement. He made the same remarks on the blunder of recognising Marshal Serrano's Government, and the hesitation of the Ministry as to recognising the Government of King Alphonso ; he made the same general criticism as to the merits of Lord North- brook in grappling with the famine ; he made the same comment on the absence of any policy in relation to the reform of the system of local taxation ; and he made the same pro- mise to give a candid consideration to all Government measures, and to abstain from everything like factious opposition. But the chief difference between the two speeches consisted in tone, and unquestionably the tone of Lord Harlington was more Conservative than the tone of Lord Granville. Lord Hartington, but not Lord Granville, declared that the mea- sures promised by the Government were, in his opinion, "of a wise, salutary, and beneficent character." Moreover, while welcoming the intention of the Government to do some- thing with the view of improving the position of the tenant- farmers, Lord Hartington spontaneously remarked that "it might be doubtful if there were room for great change in these respects," which was a very broad hint to the Conserva- tive Government not to make the measure for the relief of tenant-farmers too liberal, if they desired to obtain the official approval of the head of Her Majesty's Opposition. Now there was nothing of this kind in Lord Granville's speech. And when a leader of Opposition repeats twice that the proposals of the Conservatives are wise and temperate, and in referring to the only reform of great importance which is likely to be in any degree a party question, gives the head of the Government a strong hint that he as leader of Opposition deprecates any- thing like a serious change, we may fairly say, we think, that he intends to lead the Liberals in a somewhat emphatically Conservative spirit. By way of compensation Lord Harlington evidently, and probably wisely, intends to leave his rather errant flock very much to their own devices as he inti- mated clearly enough in his Lewes speech. He left the discus- sion on the delay of the writ for Stroud to Sir William Har- court's management, without a word. of criticism on the speech of Sir Wilfrid Lawson. And again, in Monday's rather mis- cellaneous debate on the various topics of the address, Lord Hartington vouchsafed no guidance to his party in relation even to the Irish topics raised. He intends to be Conserva- tive-Liberal himself. But, at present at least, he will leave his followers to their own devices without hindrance or criticism.
On the other hand, Mr. Disraeli has been even more anxious to mark his intention to govern so as to obtain the general support and approval of the moderate Members of the Opposi- tion. Nothing could be more marked than his contemptuous repudiation on the first night of the Session of the extravagant condemnations of the late Government to which his own friends and his supporters in the Press had,—not un- frequently in obedience to distinct enough hints from him- self,—given expression. Lord Harlington had, said Mr. Disraeli, called attention to "the contrast afforded between the measures brought forward by the Conservative Government and the speeches made, I know not where and the articles written, which t never read, by what he calls the Conservative party. This is a most ingenious course, which I have noticed among many honourable gentlemen opposite,—and the noble lord has assumed the habit as if he had been born to it,—of seeking the most violent speeches made by the most un- influential persons in the most obscure places, and the most absurd newspaper articles appearing in the dullest and most uninfiuential newspapers, and saying these are the
opinions of the great Conservative party." If Lord Harlington had had the privilege of a reply he might have pointed, we think, to speeches and letters of Mr. Disraeli himself, and of many of his most influential colleagues in both Houses, like Mr. Ward Hunt, Lord Salisbury, and plenty of such unofficial Tories as the Marquis of Bath, to justify his allegations ; and assuredly papers not more obscure and uninfluential than the Standard and the Pall Mall have amply justified the picture drawn by Lord Hartington. But the justice of the repudiation is of no importance. What is important is that Mr. Disraeli having got all that was possible out of the vituperation which assailed and ultimately overthrew Mr. Gladstone's Government, is now most anxious to bury the records of it as fast as he can, and to ignore altogether the logical relation between what he and his party said while they were in Opposition, and what they are to do when they are in power. In one part of his speech Mr. Disraeli almost expressly declared his intention to dishonour the long bill which was drawn by Lord Sandon last Session on the Session now commencing, in relation to the reactionary provisions for Endowed Schools. The new Commission, he said, —the remodelled Charity Commission,—" is acting with very considerable satisfaction to the country," though, of course, Mr. Disraeli did not add, which is nevertheless true, that it is care- fully following the precedents set by its much reviled predeces- sor. It is certainly desirable, said Mr. Disraeli, that Parliament should take advantage of the experience of this Commission before "we return to the subject." No doubt ; and it so, they will never again return to the subject of last year's reaction- ary steps. In fact, what Mr. Disraeli said amounted virtually to an admission of the blunder made last Session, and an avowal of intention to proceed very much in the lines of his predecessors in relation to secondary education. But if this was sufficiently remarkable, still more remarkable was the further admission which he made in Monday night's debate on the Address, in replying to Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice's question as to the mode in which the Government intended to deal with the Re- port of the Commission of Inquiry into the finances of the
great English Universities. What Mr. Disraeli said was equivalent to an apology for not being at once prepared to deal with the subject, and a most emphatic pledge that it should be dealt with. When the Report of the Commis- sion appeared, the Colleges were all, said Mr. Disraeli, in vacation, and the authorities did not reassemble for some time. "Since then an opportunity of forming and obtaining opinions has, no doubt, been afforded, but the noble lord must feel that there has scarcely been time for any Government to come to a mature conclusion upon a subject which is of a compli- cated nature. I can, however, assure the noble lord that it is our opinion that no Government can exist which for a moment maintains that the consideration of University reform, and consequently legislation of some kind, will not form part of its duty." A stronger profession of reforming principles has pro- bably never proceeded, in our day, from a Conservative Prime Minister. It is clear, then, that, whether on the subject of the secondary or of the higher education, the Conservative policy is distinctly Liberal in bias, and will be as Liberal-Con- servative as possible. No doubt, in the debate on the Writ for Stroud, Mr. Disraeli took very high ground in relation to the value of following precedents. He was very severe on the "gay wisdom "of Sir Wilfrid Lawson for talking of precedents as "musty," and he made great Conservative capital out of that rash baronet's careless hit. He told the House, in his grandest strain, that at times of high-wrought political passions, "when some things were done and some things certainly were proposed which those who had any connection with them may look back upon with regret," the House saved itself from catastrophe and anarchy by adhering to precedents. But this is just the sort of Con- servative generalisation which gratifies his own party, and which can do no harm of any kind, as it is almost always possible to appeal to precedents on both sides. Thus it is clear that the ruling wish of Mr. Disraeli is to govern in a spirit as near to that of the Liberal party as possible, though with that air of deference to the tendencies of the past which Whigs love as much as Tories.
To sum up the situation in a single sentence, we have now got a leader of Opposition who is anxious to criti- cise the Tory Government in a spirit at least as Con- servative as its own, and a Tory Government which is equally anxious to introduce legislative reforms in a spirit at least as Liberal as that of the Leader of Opposi- tion. The only immediate danger is that the two foci of the Parliamentary ellipse may approach each other till they almost coincide—till we begin to be doubtful
which is the Conservative and which the Liberal leader in the House.
Previous page
