Page images

sentimental ideal about Indian affairs held forth by those whose sole acquaintance with India has been derived from the map and the newspaper. Mr Trotter's views are, of course, intelligent, and, we are sure, conscientious, but we must conclude that he has lost touch of Anglo-Indian feeling; and when he can assail the Indian Government or a Viceroy on any point that is unpopular in this country, he does not spare his censure. His judgments are often incomplete, so as to mislead. We quite agree with his estimate of the misconduct of the first Afghan war, but its results were not without value. But for the impression our avenging army made upon the Afghans, there is every probability that they would have swooped down on India when the Mutiny broke out, and rendered our position altogether untenable. can we aggree with Captain Trotter in many of his views regarding the economics of Indian administration. He is all in favour of the ryot, and pronounces a very unmerited condemnation of Lord Cornwallis's Permanent Settlement, which, more than any other measure of civil polity, tended to give the British a firm foothold on India; and he warmly approves of the concessions which the Government has subsequently forced the zemindars to make -- concessions which may be compared, in a mild way, to those forced upon landlords by Mr Gladstone's Rent Bill. In the same way the Talukdari settlement of Oudh, effected by Lord Canning and Sir Charles Wingfield, comes in for an undue amount of


severe criticism, while Sir John Lawrence's measures in favour of the cultivators are praised at some expense to the faith of the pledges of the Indian Government. We yield to none in our admiration of Sir John Lawrence, nor can his services to India be easily overrated; but these services were performed before he took his seat on the Viceregal gaddi. His career as Governor-General failed to realise the expectations which had been based upon his past; and, with the previous case of Sir Charles Metcalfe, went far to establish an argument that the Indian Civil Service is not the best training-school for the guidance of the Supreme Government.

We are not going to deal in detail with the more recent chapters in Captain Trotter's History, for we fear we should be compelled to differ from him at every other point where he forms a judgment. We would rather give testimony to the value of his work as a record of facts clearly and graphically told; and where the reader will be obliged to vary from his conclusions, he will not fail to do justice to the generous and liberal spirit which animates the writer. A pretty close test of Mr Trotter's two volumes satisfies us that he has left almost nothing out which deserves to find a place in history. Does he omit the Bombay riots of 1874? or, like Mr Justice Stareleigh, have we not got them "in our notes"? But no event that has had any bearing on Indian policy or affairs has been overlooked in Captain Trotter's interesting volumes.


liamentary duties with more inflexible honesty and uprightness, and yet with a courtesy and kindly appreciation of opponents which well maintained the best traditions of English public life. The ripe experience, the cultivated mind, the refined tastes, and the genial temper of Sir Stafford Northcote, all combined to enhance his value to those with whom he was associated, and no one ever passed away from among us more truly respected and more sincerely regretted by the general voice of his contemporaries. It is not our purpose to refer more particularly to the circumstances which invest

THE recess, although of short duration, has been pregnant with important events. Lord Salisbury's Government meets Parliament deprived of two of its most distinguished and influential members, at a moment when that loss can ill be endured. According to the common opinion of men, the Earl of Iddesleigh and Lord Randolph Churchill were held to represent the two different schools of Conservatism which acknowledge the leadership of Lord Salisbury. That both should quit the Government immediately before the reassembling of Parliament would, under ordinary circumstances, have struck a severe blow at the Administra- ed the decease of this lamented tion thus weakened at a critical moment; and it is only on account of the innate and inherent strength of the foundation upon which it rests, that the blow will probably be found to have fallen with comparatively little effect. The subject cannot be mentioned, nor the events of the moment discussed, without allusion, in the first instance, to the loss which the country as well as the Government has sustained by the death of the elder of the two statesmen to whose resignation we have called attention.

statesman with a peculiar and melancholy interest, nor to say a word which could possibly cause pain or appear to impute blame to others. We cannot, however, avoid the remark that, in our judgment, no Conservative Cabinet would have been complete without the man who had so ably and faithfully led the party in the House of Commons in dark and dangerous days; and that, had his life been spared, we are confident that we should ere long have seen him once more side by side with Lord Salisbury, assisting the Government with his matured and proved ability.

Sir Stafford Northcote (for so we love still to call him) had been for many years before the Of Lord Randolph Churchill's public. He had held high office, resignation we feel bound to speak and had led the Opposition in with reserve, seeing that at the the House of Commons in troub- time of writing we are not in poslous times. Yet, despite his occu- session of the whole case, nor of pancy of positions which brought the reasons which led to so unexhim constantly into conflict with pected an event. There can be no other men, no man ever lived who doubt of the courage and ability made fewer enemies-no states- of Lord Randolph, of the immense man ever imported less of personal value of his services to the Conacerbity into political warfare- servative and Unionist cause, and no politician ever discharged par- of the large share he can fairly


claim in the successes of the general election. Lord Randolph has done more than any one else to popularise the Tory party," and to disabuse men's minds of the idea that it is the "party of reaction," from whom no progress is to be expect ed. He has obtained an influence with the masses" which is possessed by hardly any other public man of the day, and is regarded by many men as the link between the Constitutional" and the "Liberal" party-the pioneer to lead the former forward to a point at which the moderate and rational portion of the latter may be able to join and unite with them against the revolutionary programme of some of those who aspire to lead them. The departure from the Government of such a man cannot but be counted as a loss, and we must not for a moment forget that his was the sharpest sword that was waved aloft in the recent electoral contests—his the keenest lance that was couched against our Separatist foes. We must, however, confess to a feeling of regret that Lord Randolph has not felt it his duty, at the present crisis, to postpone every other political desire or ambition to the one great necessity of preserving unimpaired the strength and unity of the Government which was formed for the main object of resisting the disunion of the empire. However honest, able, and eminent, Lord Randolph was still one of the youngest of the Cabinet; and it appears to us that there is no subject, of however great importance, the consideration of which might not have been postponed, and every possible difference of opinion laid aside for the moment, until the power of the Separatist party had been completely shattered, and their policy abandoned. We say this in all respect to Lord

Randolph, and in the full belief that he has acted from the highest and most conscientious motives; but there are moments when sacrifices of individual feeling must be made in the interests of the public, and real sacrifices sometimes betoken a more real and unselfish patriotism than even that forfeiture of position and power to which Lord Randolph has submitted, sooner than abandon or postpone for the moment his personal convictions.

The loss of Lord Randolph Churchill has not been entirely without its compensations, especially as we are convinced that his independent support will still be rendered to the constitutional Government. Mr Goschen, who has long been Conservative in his opinions, and as such has encountered the full force of Radical denunciation and abuse, has joined the Conservative Cabinet as a "Liberal Unionist," and thus conferred upon the Government the double advantage of his own personal weight and ability, and the assurance which his action affords the country that the tie between the Liberal and Conservative Unionists is as firm and unbroken as ever. Whilst congratulating the Government upon Mr Goschen's accession to its ranks, we cannot but offer our congratulations to that gentleman himself upon his extrication from a painfully false position. The number of so-called Liberals has of late years not been few who have con-. stantly condemned in private the measures for which party exigencies compelled them to give their votes, and to support by their public actions; the truth being palpable to unprejudiced observers, that for some time past there has been an assimilation and approximation between moderate men of both po

litical parties which has rendered the old party watchwords and combinations practically absurd and obsolete. If Mr Goschen has not voted for measures which he condemned, he has done that which in the eyes of thick-and-thin partisans is actually worse; for, sitting on one side of the House, he has spoken strongly against the measures and policy of those who were the accepted leaders of that side. In truth, the logical mind, the strong common-sense, the reasonable Liberalism of Mr Goschen, have all tended to show him the illogical and unreasonable position of those latter-day Liberals who have gradually discarded the former and vital principles of the old Liberal party. Mr Goschen may rely upon it that, for a man of his keen intellectual powers and unquestioned ability, there is far more scope in the " Tory" than in the "Radical" party: the one he may hope to "Liberalise," because circumstances and the lessons taught by time have caused them to become a progressive party; the latter he can never moderate, because it is immoderate, and because of the revolutionary spirits who influence and guide that "advanced" section of their supporters, upon whom they depend for success at the polls, and who year by year more absolutely control their policy as a party. The right place for Mr Goschen-and not only for Mr Goschen, but for Lord Hartington and his followers-is in the ranks of the party now led by Lord Salisbury, by their union with which they would form and consolidate one strong and irresistible party upon a national and constitutional basis. The necessity for such a party must appear more obvious than ever to those who consider the position of the country at the present moment.

So far as foreign affairs are concerned, prudent and patriotic men of every party will rejoice to see the seals of the Foreign Office in the firm grasp and strong hands of Lord Salisbury. No statesman who has of late years occupied the position of Foreign Secretary has inspired more general confidence; and the influence of Great Britain in continental Europe is tenfold that which was formerly the case during the days of the old 1880 Gladstone Government, now happily passed away. It is impossible to view the affairs of the Continent without uneasiness; and circumstances beyond our control may cause the occurrence of events likely to result in grave complications, and to require the greatest amount of nerve and prudence at the British Foreign Office. such be the case, the country will feel greater reliance upon Lord Salisbury than upon any other of our statesmen; and we cannot but congratulate ourselves upon his resumption of the office for which he is so well fitted, and which he has already filled with so much credit to himself and advantage to his country.


But whatever may be the interest attaching to foreign affairs in the coming session, it is abundantly evident that the same question which engrossed the attention of Parliament and the country in 1886 will again force itself forward in 1887, and will require the best efforts of our statesmen for its solution. The state of Ireland has, indeed, occupied the time and tried the patience of the British Parliament for the last six years in a remarkable manner. Be it remembered that this monopoly of parliamentary attention by Ireland has been coincident with the reopening of the land question by Mr Gladstone in 1880-81, and

his continued legislative attempts thereupon. As soon as it became known that the agitation of the Irish Land League had induced that impressionable statesman to revise his own Act of 1870 (by which he had hoped "to close and seal up the subject for ever "), new hopes were kindled in the breast of every Irish tenant who was dissatisfied with his position, and of every National Leaguer who had been taught that the soil of Ireland really belonged to those fictitious beings who are called the "children of Ireland," as distinguished from those "rack-renting" landlords who have inherited or bought it according to the legitimate practice of ordinary law. A new impetus was given to agitation, and the idea became firmly engrafted upon the Irish mind, that the rattle of slugs along the roads," or, in other words, wellsustained and unscrupulous opposition to the law, would frighten a Gladstonian Government into concession to any demands upon which the Nationalist" leaders might insist. We are but too well acquainted with the history of these six years, nor is it our duty to recapitulate the events which led to the wondrous change of front in Mr Gladstone at the close of the year 1885. The statesman who had always avowed his adherence to the example and policy of Sir Robert Peel, repudiated the teaching of that great leader; the Prime Minister who had passed stronger measures of coercion than any of his predecessors, suddenly condemned as iniquitous the coercion which he himself had practised; the head of a Cabinet by whose action many hundreds of Irishmen had been imprisoned for their Home Rule opinions, avowed himself a Home-Ruler, and not only so, but with a perversity of in

genuity which would be ludicrous if the matter were less grave, endeavoured to prove that even when he was imprisoning HomeRulers he had never said a word or held an opinion against Home Rule. Then followed the wondrous strife which we have witnessed within the bosom of the Liberal party. Besides the consistent Home Rulers, those whose politics were personal, and whose political belief was Gladstoneworship, as well as those to whom office was their creed, and whose only hope of office was in Gladstone, followed their chief with ready alacrity, and discovered that the Parnellite "juice" in which they were about to "stew," was nourishing and invigorating to their political frame. Nobler spirits, however, and men who cherished the old and fundamental Liberal principle as to the right of private judgment, dared to think for themselves, and to separate from the leader who had thus stepped aside from the old paths of constitutional Liberalism. Against these men was poured forth the full vial of that leader's wrath, and his utmost exertions were used to ensure their political extinction. If they now surviveand their parliamentary strength has been scarcely diminished-it is because they have found upon the Tory side, and among the Tory party, a frank recognition of their honourable consistency, and earnest and honest desire to co-operate with them in the maintenance of that great principle which at present binds together Tory and Liberal Unionist in a bond so strong as to overshadow and exclude all minor points of difference. If, however, such a bond is to be made as strong and enduring as all true patriots must desire, it is very necessary that we should at


« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »