TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD SALISBURY EDUCATING HIS PARTY.
NO one would have supposed that Lord Salisbury, who spent so much honest Conservative invective on Mr. Disraeli's policy in 1867, would within twenty years become a humble imitator of it. Yet it is indisputable that his speech at Manchester last Saturday opens a new era for Tory demo- cracy in this country. If Lord Salisbury did not intend in that speech to commit himself to the policy of giving to every electoral district a weight in Parliament precisely proportioned to the population it contains, he went so far towards it that we cannot understand how he can withdraw from it again. He invited Lancashire to return to Toryism, on the express ground that Lancashire ought to have sixty-three members instead of thirty-three, and that if the Franchise Bill passed without a Redistribution Bill, Lancashire would have this great griev- ance that her population would be most inadequately repre- sented by thirty-three Members. He invited London to declare war against Mr. Chamberlain on the express ground that Mr. Gladstone is not prepared to represent London so fully as its population would justify, and that. according to his own reckoning, Middlesex, instead of having only sixteen mem- bers, ought at once to be given no less than fifty-four. Now, statements of this kind in the mouth of a political leader are not mere words. They will be quoted against him time after time, if he is not prepared to stand by them ; and we can hardly believe that Lord Salisbury can have uttered them unless he were prepared to stand by them. They come to this, that Lord Salisbury is in favour, if not of equal electoral districts, at least of apportioning representation strictly to population all over the kingdom ; and how Sir Stafford Northcote, who has given his approval to Mr. Gladstone's general prin- ciples, as contained in his sketch of Redistribution— although Mr. Gladstone expressly disclaimed any idea of measuring representation strictly by the standard of population in the forthcoming measure—will manage to co-operate with a colleague who has gone so far beyond him, it is quite out of our power to guess. So far as we can judge, Lord Randolph Churchill's reconciliation has been pur- chased by this democratic declaration of his leader ; and what we have to look to in the future is the determination of Lord Salisbury and Lord Randolph Churchill to educate their party to give up the moderate traditions of the only Conservative amongst them, Sir Stafford Northcote. Well, we can only say that while the true Liberals are sure enough to be faithful to Mr. Gladstone in the great controversy now before the public, yet if that controversy be once settled in the popular sense, and if, after that, the Tory leaders attempt to outbid Mr. Gladstone's Govern- ment on the subject of equalising representation with population, it will be simply impossible for a great host of Liberals who really hold with Lord Salisbury that some such principle as this is the true one and the only one that can land us satisfac- torily in a system of principle at all, to refuse to do what Mr. Dillwyn and the Tea-room Radicals did in 1867, namely, co- operate with the Tories to extend the scope of the Redistribu- tion proposed. Lord Salisbury may make quite sure that if he is prepared to stand by his own words, there will be plenty of the Liberal Party who cannot but ally themselves with him on a question of this sort, and who will be glad enough to join hands with the Conservatives for the purpose of basing Redistribution on some definite principle which it will not be easy again to disturb. For our own parts, we are in no position to deny that it would be far more satisfactory to us to see representation based on population,—always on condition, of course, that there was no such jugglery with the fair rights of minorities as any election of large groups of Members, all of one party, by the bare majority of a single constituency would imply,—than to see it based on nothing but the chapter of accidents. But we warn Lord Salisbury that if he holds to his present line of action, he cannot stop short of the principle of equal electoral districts, and that if he is going to plead for electoral districts represented in propor- tion to their population, which will come in the end to equal electoral districts, he will leave the half of his own party behind him, and be compelled to rely on Radical votes for his victory, if he can attain a victory at all. It will be an impressive fact should the Redistribution campaign of the Tories result in the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain and in an alliance between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Salisbury on the politics of Redistribution. Yet that is what the omens of the present moment appear to portend. Yet if Lord Salisbury should some day be able to boast of the victory which he had achieved over Mr. Glad- stone by the help of Mr. Chamberlain, we think that even Mr. Disraeli's achievement in " dishing the Whigs" would fall into the shade. Lord Salisbury flourishing on the support of the Caucus, Lord Salisbury treading honestly in the steps of the Revolutionist of Birmingham, would be a sight to break the hearts of the squirearchy, and to turn the wrath of the Lords against their leader. But can Lord Salisbury really expect the majority of the Peers to remain faithful to him in rejecting the Franchise Bill, after it has dawned fully upon them that their champion has it in his heart to outwit Mr. Gladstone by drawing all the Radicals and Democrats from his opponent's standard to his own ? Lord Salisbury must be a very sanguine man, indeed, if he thinks so. It seems to us that any reasonable Conservative Peer who had heard and pondered Lord Salisbury's Manchester speech would make up his mind at once to vote with Lord Granville, in order that Redistribution might be left in Mr. Gladstone's hands, and not pass into Lord Salisbury's. It may be tempting, no doubt, to heedless Conservatives to think of giving to the population of Middlesex thirty-two Members, looking to the manner in which Middlesex, the county, is at present represented. But even they will remember that the householders of Middlesex will not be exactly identical with the non-urban electors of Middlesex under a £12 franchise; and that if the new system is to be extended to the whole land, the age of privilege will be gone for ever. The wonder felt that Saul should have been among the prophets, will be feeble indeed, compared with the wonder that Lord Salisbury should be among the Democrats!
We very much doubt whether Lord Salisbury has not shown his hand too soon. The effect of this bid on behalf of the Tories for a more scientific basis of representation than Mr. Gladstone had foreshadowed, will not only weaken Lord Salisbury's power in the House of Lords, where he can no longer be regarded as the bulwark against Democracy, but will strengthen the hands of the Liberals who are dissatisfied with the too great moderation of Mr. Gladstone's sketch of Redistribution. HOW is the objection to be answered that Mr. Gladstone's modera- tion, instead of pleasing the Tories, is likely to offend them, since it is the Tories who are demanding a more " logical " measure ? No one supposed that the extreme moderation shadowed forth by Mr. Gladstone was pleasing to all the Liberals ; but what can Sir Henry James plead in favour of that moderation, when he is told that the- first heavy blow struck at it has been struck by the Tory leader ? If moderation does not please the Tories, whom is it to please ? There is the Duke of Argyll, to be sure, who expressed eloquently enough the other day his delight with the perfect moderation of Mr. Gladstone's proposal, and his desire that the Lords should close with it at once. But the Duke of Argyll, though he would have been a powerful ally for Lord Salisbury, can hardly hold his own against Lord Salisbury and the Radicals combined. Moderation will not be the order of the day simply because the Duke of Argyll approves it, if the majority, or even a large minority, of the Tory Party beckon to the majority of the Liberal Party and beg them to co-operate in foiling the plans of Mr. Gladstone and the Duke of Argyll. It seems to us that all Lord Salisbury is likely to effect in the way of educating his party and educating the party of his opponent is this ;—First, he will have done more than Mr. Gladstone could do to render a good many Conservatives in the Peers eager to surrender as soon as they can to a leader who appears to be so much more Conservative than their own leader. In the next place, he will have played into the hands of Mr. Gladstone's most Radical colleague, who will urge with great truth that there is very little use in being moderate when the official friends of moderation only blame you for being moderate, and that it would now be much better to settle the question of Redistribution on principle at once, and have done with it. Why should the Tories be permitted to turn the Liberal flank, when the only reason for encounter- ing such a danger was that it would satisfy the Tories, and prevent them from entering into hostilities ? To this ques- tion we can see no satisfactory reply. So far as we can judge, Lord Salisbury's speech at Manchester will so frighten his own party that Mr. Gladstone will find them very much more pliant in November than they were in July; and will, more- over, strengthen the Radicals in the Cabinet to insist on a much more systematic and final scheme of Redistribution than any which up to Saturday last had been contemplated by even the most Radical amongst them.
Previous page
