SIR W. HARCOURT'S THIRD SPEECH.
TITrIIERE is more connection than may at first be thought HERE the second and third of Sir William Harcourt's speeches at Oxford. The party to which he belongs and the city which he represents are both going to be all that parties and cities should be. Oxford will by-and-by have the most .magnificent drains and the purest water that can be found any- -where, only, for the present, the drains have no outfall, and the water comes from a source about which it is best to say as little as possible. The Liberal party will by-and-by "reap the hopes of the future," as it has "garnered in the glories of the past," ;but it must not presume to ask its leaders for a programme, and it must treat with deserved contempt the debasing thought of office. Just as the citizens of Oxford must be content for the next twelve months or so to watch the earthworks which are being thrown up in every street, and dream, as they hold their noses, of the sanitary heaven that awaits them, so the members of the Liberar party must resign themselves to inaction, until that blissful but distant day when Lord Hartington shall have discovered a reform that is prac- ticable and a change that is ripe. There is not a word to be said against all this. It is quite true, and very much to the purpose, only it seems to jar a little with the heroic ring of -other parts of Sir William Harcourt's third speech. He com- pares, for example, the true policy of the Liberal party to the strategy by which Fabius saved Rome. But the Roman Gene- ral had not only a great tactician to contend against, he had also a great object to fight for. What is it that Sir William Harcourt wishes the Liberal party to fight for ? If he had told his constituents the plain truth, he would have said that, putting office aside, there is nothing to fight for at present,— nothing, that is to say, which the Liberal party at once cares to have and sees a chance of obtaining. But this is not at all the impression left by his speech. He seems rather to see Lord Hartington measuring the possibilities of victory on this aide and on that, and judging the point of the attack and the moment of the assault. Sir William Harcourt may be more in Lord Hart- ington's secrets than we are, but if the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is to be judged by his own utter- ances, he is meditating neither attack nor assault. He has done his duty as a political critic, and he will, no doubt, be prepared to do similar duty next Session, but that is all. Indeed, Sir William Harcourt seems to have remembered this before the close of his speech, since Lord Hartington, who, at 4he beginning, was compared to Fabius, preparing to plant the *ogles of Rome upon the citadel of the invader, is reproduced later on in a much more modest capacity, and is cheered by the reminder that "they also serve who only stand and wait." Sir William Harcourt seems to have had opposite theories of what a speech to a Liberal Association should be dancing before his political vision. At one moment his tone is full of encourage- ment. The Liberal party is an impending cloud hanging on the mountain, and sure one day to descend in sudden storm. At another time it is playing a humbler part, and contributing its useful, but scarcely noticed, mite to the treasury of Minis- terial legislation. It strikes out an obnoxious clause from the En dowed Schools Bill, it adds some explanatory clauses to the labour Bills. The latter portrait is, at all events, the most true to life. It was under the influence of the more exalted view of the future that Sir William Harcourt undertook to maintain that the Liberal party is no more divided now than it has been in times past. Absolutely, perhaps, this is true. As regards certain questions, the division between Whigs and Radicals was certainly quite as great in the first years of the Re- formed Parliament as it is in 1876. But the success of a political party is very little affected by the number of ques- tions on which its members disagree, provided that there re- main after these have been deducted a siifficient number of questions on which they can agree. It is the absence of this condition that makes the future of the Liberal party so blank. When Mr. Gladstone took office, the Radicals and the Moderate Liberals held respectively the same views of the subjects dis- cussed at the Manchester Conference the other day that they hold now. But there were a number of questions of great and pressing importance on which they held identical views, and so long as these remained undisposed of there was no need to consider what was to be done afterwards. Sir William Harcourt pro- tests against the notion that the Liberal party is to turn out from its ranks every politician who is not prepared to vote for the disestablishment of the Church of England, and he asks very pertinently whether that is a question which would receive the general support of the nation, or unite the Liberal party. But the fact remains that there is a considerable section of the Liberal party to whom disestablishment is peculiarly dear, and the relations of this section with the bulk of the party are likely to be much less harmonious, now that there is no Irish Otturch to be disestablished. In 1868 there was not even an apparent sacrifice of principle in leaving the Church of England alone, because those who thought the English and Irish cases totally different, and those who thought them identical, were agreed as to how the Irish case should be treated. So again with the Land question. It may be true that six years ago the extreme and the moderate Liberals were as much at issue as they are now upon the extent to which liberty of contract between landlord and tenant in England should be restricted by legislation. But this difference was really a matter of no moment, so long as they were agreed that this liberty should be restricted in Ireland. Those who wanted to pass the Irish Land Bill and then stop short did not concern themselves about the ulterior views of their allies. They had made up their minds that, come what might, a given change must be effected in the position of Irish tenant-farmers, and they accepted the co-operation of the advocates of tenant-right in England as one of the dangers which had to be risked in pursuit of their end. The advocates of tenant-right in England did not deny that the need for legislation was greater in Ireland than in their own country, and so long as the allies had their hands full of work which they could do in common, there was no need to look on into the future. But the situation becomes altogether changed when the work that can be done in common has all been disposed of, and the points on which the Liberal party are asked to take common action are no longer points preliminary and introductory to those upon which they disagree, but the very points upon which they disagree. It is the old story of the man who wants to go to Windsor and the man who wants to go to Hounslow, with the addition of a most serious difference. So long as both wanted to get a stage forward, there was no obstacle to their using the same coach. Hounslow was still in ad- vance of them, and they had no call to think about the second part of the journey. But now that the coach has reached Hounslow, how can they possibly travel together any further, when one is as bent as ever upon getting to Windsor, and the other wants, at most, to go the length of the inn- yard? Sir William Harcourt has ample reason for saying that ever since he can recollect anything of politics, the Liberal party "has been composed of sections, some of which enter- tain views on some subjects which are not shared by the rest." But has he ever known it composed entirely of sections none of whose views are shared by the rest ? Because that seems to be very much the condition of the Liberal party at present. Those who agree with Sir William Harcourt say that they look forward to a return to power, on the ground that it will give them an opportunity to show how well they have profited by adversity, that "true touchstone of an English gentleman," and how ranch better qualified they are than the Conservatives to adniiniater the affairs of England. The Radicals, without whom Sir William Harcourt's friends cannot at present return to power, are perfectly plain-spoken upon this point. They say frankly that if it is only a matter of administration, they had rather of the twe be administered by a Conservative Government than by a Liberal Government. ! The Conservatives do the same things, only they do them more politely and with fewer blunders. if there is to be a change of Government, it must be for wholly different purposes, and as none of these purposes will be served by putting moderate Liberals in office they, the Radicals, prefer to bide their time. In this sense, ;he differences between the several sections of the Liberal party are far more serious than they have ever been. They are all naked and open. There is no longer a rag of common purpose left., out of which to weave even a temporary agreement. We beg Sir William Harcourt's pardon. He mentioned two such rags on Monday, and both had for the moment escaped our notice. The old historical party, he says, which has fought and conquered together so many times, has yet a field remaining to it on which valour maybe displayed and glory won. Liberals can still "co-operate in measures for the removal of the grievances of the Dissenters, and the extension of the principles of religious equality." They have "still the Burials Bill and Clerical Fellowships to deal with," and are not these " things, and things of present and practical importance, upon which, as of old, we can all unite ?" This is the fig-leaf which Sir William Harcourt presents to the Liberal party, as a sufficient covering for that "nakedness in the matter of formula3" under which it is at present suffering. Alas! we fear it will be snatched from his kindly hand, and be lost in the general mass of Conservative clothing. It may prove only too true that these are questions upon which we can all unite. Sir William Harcourt may, in the end, find that his " all " must be stretched to take in all parties' and not merely all sections of one party. As re- gards the Burials Bill, at any rate, one of two things is almost sure to happen. It may be that the Dissenters will be found not to feel so strongly upon the question as they are supposed to feel. In that case, the Burials Bill will no longer answer Sir William Harcourt's definition. It will not be a thing of present and practical importance. It may be that the feeling of the Dissenters has not been exaggerated, and then we suspect that the question will be settled by the existing Government, instead of being left to serve as a plank over which their opponents may walk to office. There is nothing in the present aspect of the controversy that at all suggests the idea of resistance to the death. So far as appears, it is mainly a clerical question, and the Conservative laity are not the least likely to care to see the Conservative Government displaced, in order to keep the clergy in exclusive possession of the churchyards for a year or two longer. As regards Clerical Fellowships, the improbability of their ever serving the pur- pose which Sir William Harcourt assigns to them is still slighter. Is he quite sure that the Conservatives intend to leave the reform of the Universities to their adversaries, and that when next a Liberal Government comes into office, it may not find that in this respect its work has been fore- stalled
Previous page
