Chapter V: The Marriage (8)

Plausible in the extreme, and ever seeking to conciliate or overreach his audience by all the arts of rhetoric and casuistry, Mr Gladstone changes his arguments and mode of dealing with the House almost every year, as may best suit his plans. Financial principles he has none—save the great one which he conceals. All arguments are fair, he thinks—all professions of opinion justifiable, in order that he may carry his point, and lead the House step by step unwittingly towards his goal. We need not allude to the rhetorical craft by which, in 1860, when he wished to gain the assent of the House to an increase of the income-tax, he maintained that there was a deficit of twelve millions; whereas, in the following year, when the balance was worse by 2½ millions, but when he eagerly desired to obtain the abolition of the paper-duties, he boldly represented that there was a surplus. At one time he represents that the proper way to proceed with a Budget is by a multiplicity of separate bills; at another time (when it suits his purpose better) in the form of a single bill. But his disregard of financial principles, or rather his alternate adoption and repudiation of principles the most opposite, is a still more glaring offence. In the case of the French Treaty, he was wholly in favour of Reciprocity; in the case of the Paper-duties, he represented that it was right for us to abolish them without any attempt at obtaining reciprocity, and although some countries actually prohibited the export of the raw material of the manufacture! He reduced the duty on French wines on the ground that the reduction would benefit the morals of the working-classes, by enabling them to drink light wines instead of strong spirits; he now justifies his proposed reduction of the duty on tobacco on the very opposite principle—to wit, that a Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing whatever to do with the morals or wellbeing of the people. His dogma for the hour is, that his only duty is to make the taxes as profitable as possible. We have shown that it is very doubtful if his present proposal will have that effect; but, in any case, how would his new dogma accord with his policy in the last two years in wholly abolishing the duties on paper and other commodities? He is the most dangerous Minister that has ever been intrusted with the management of the British finances. He has not only involved the country in an accumulation of deficits, but he has had the art to persuade Parliament to do this with its eyes open; while at the same time he leads it onward, with its eyes carefully bandaged, towards the goal of democratic finance—which of late years has become the cynosure of his policy, and which he knows would at once become unattainable if his real purpose were avowed.

Now that we are to have a surplus—in consequence of the Ministry at length adopting the views of the Opposition—the first duty which devolves upon the House of Commons is to retrieve the financial mistakes of the past, and to rid us of its burdens. What the Conservative leaders advocated last session was not reduction of taxation, but retrenchment of expenditure. The Government had incurred a deficit of £7,500,000 in two years, and the first thing to be thought of was, to reduce the expenditure, in order that the deficit might be cleared off. Let Mr Gladstone do this—let him clear off the serious deficits in his previous years of office; and then—but not till then—ought he to propound new reductions of the revenue. But such a businesslike proceeding would not make a sensation budget; it would not surround the Ministry with that bright gleam of popularity which is to retrieve their position, and carry them through another session of barrenness and humiliation. In all probability Mr Gladstone’s proposal is to ignore the past deficits, and devote the whole of his prospective surplus to the reduction of taxation. By a reduction of taxes the country is to be bribed into forgetfulness of the past, and rendered placable to the appeal for respite on the part of a falling Ministry. It is not to be expected that Mr Gladstone will confine his favours to tobacco: he must support his great remission of duty on this luxury by minor reductions on articles of more usefulness. While striking four shillings a-pound off tobacco, he will strike a few pence or farthings off the price of tea and sugar. In fact, he will probably, in his usual way, give a trifling sop all round, in order that he may be allowed to carry his great point in the reduction of the duties on tobacco. The House will do much better to abolish, or greatly reduce, the duties on hops and beer. Surely it is intolerable that foreign luxuries, like tobacco and French wines, should receive the favours of the Legislature, while the produce of our own soil and industry, constituting a healthy element of the national food, should be subjected to heavy taxation. This is a matter which affects urban constituencies as well as the agricultural interest. Put it to the vote in any town or county in the land, whether they will have five shillings a-pound struck off the duty on tobacco, or get the fiscal burdens removed from beer, and there cannot be a doubt that the whole suffrages would be given in favour of beer, and against tobacco. Therefore if Mr Gladstone—as is most likely—be resolved once more to play an _ad captandum_ game, we trust the House of Commons will be on the alert to see that any possible reductions of taxation are effected on articles which enter largely into the food of the people, and not wasted—with what ulterior object, we need not repeat—upon an enormous remission on the duties on tobacco and cigars. But it still more behoves the House to see that Mr Gladstone’s previous deficits are cleared off. Mr Gladstone must put the finances in the condition in which they were when he took office. We do not presume he will venture to continue his practice of forestalling the revenue payments; but he has to refund the two millions which he abstracted from the balances in the Exchequer in the two years subsequent to March 1860, and he has also to pay off about half a million sterling which has been added to the National Debt during his present term of office. Let him do these things first; and then we will see how much he has to spare for promoting the introduction of cigars for the million! Let us clear off our past deficits, before, under the leadership of this financial sophist, we plunge into others that we know not of.

The past month has furnished a most singular proof of the want of sagacity which has characterised the commercial policy of the Whigs since 1847. On coming into office at that time, their only thought was, how to rival Sir R. Peel in his highly popular reforms of the tariff. Unable to equal him in administrative sagacity, they simply travestied his policy by carrying it to excess. They abolished or reduced customs-duties, and totally relinquished the Navigation Laws, without a thought of how the country would fare in its future commercial relations with other countries. Again and again they were warned that they were rashly and foolishly relinquishing a valuable vantage-ground without even attempting to obtain those advantages for our commerce which other countries would be willing to cede in return. What has been the consequence? The ‘Magazine’ has so often in former years predicted what would be the result, that we need not now go over the old ground. Fortunately the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has told the tale of Ministerial failure so well, that his speech on Feb. 17, in answer to Mr Fitzgerald, completely substantiates the correctness of our old predictions. We print it here as furnishing ample matter for reflection to politicians on both sides of the House:—

“When the hon. member for Rochdale went to Paris to negotiate the
French treaty, the first thing he was asked was, What had he to offer?
If he had gone to Paris with his hands empty, it was not probable that
he would have succeeded in obtaining the concessions which the French
Government made to him. Fortunately, however, the hon. gentleman had
much to offer. There were heavy duties on wine and other articles of
French produce and manufactures, and in consideration of a reduction
in those duties the French Government consented to various changes in
their tariff which had proved very beneficial not only to this country
but to France. It was necessary to bear in mind that in our domestic
legislation we differed from France. We at once gave the whole world
the benefit of the concessions which had been made to our ally.
France, on the other hand, withheld from others the privileges she had
conceded to us, and thus retained in her hands the means of bargaining
with other Powers for mutual commercial concessions. When one nation
sought any favour from another nation, there were various grounds on
which the request might be based. An appeal might be made to the
generosity of the other Power, but it was doubtful whether that would
have much effect; or an appeal might be made to a treaty which gave
the applicant the privileges of the most favoured nation, and a claim
advanced for certain privileges which had been granted to another
State. Therefore it was, above all things, desirable that when one had
no concessions to offer in return for the advantages sought, some
other Power, which possessed the means of bargaining, should commence
the negotiations. That was the reason why France had been allowed to
precede us in the present instance, and every concession which was
made to her gave us a right to claim the same. If we had taken the
initiative, the Italian Government would very naturally have said,
‘You have nothing to give us in exchange for what we give you, and if
we freely concede your demands we shall be placed in a bad position in
making terms with France.’ So far from Her Majesty’s Government not
having endeavoured to make treaties of commerce with other nations,
the fact was that there was scarcely a Power in Europe with whom
negotiations had not been opened during the last year or two. The
Belgian Government were asked to make a treaty of commerce with us, as
they had done with France; and it was pointed out to them that it
would be an unfriendly act, having entered into a treaty with France,
to refuse to negotiate one with England. They replied by asking what
we could give to them in return, and they suggested that if they gave
to us what they had given to France, we [having nothing of our own to
offer them] should consent to capitalise the Scheldt dues. Now, the
capitalisation of the Scheldt dues had nothing whatever to do with a
treaty of commerce, and our Government [_nota bene_, having nothing to
bargain with!] at once refused to admit the principle of purchasing a
treaty. [And yet, in the very year previous, they had “purchased” the
treaty with France!]... The House was aware that last year the French
Government were negotiating a treaty with Prussia and the Zollverein.
As soon as that fact became known, our Government applied to Prussia
and the Zollverein to make with us a similar treaty of commerce. The
reply was precisely the same we received from Belgium—that
negotiations could not be entered into with us until those in progress
with France were concluded. France, it was said in effect, can give us
an equivalent. You can give us none.”

During the present month the conflict of parties in the Legislature will be suspended as far as the business of the country will allow. The nation and its representatives will have little taste for polemical discussion during the month that is to witness the joyous event of the marriage of the heir-apparent to the throne. The country will be in jubilee, and London will be absorbed in the fêtes and royal ceremonial attendant upon the nuptials. The good wishes of all flow out to the young Prince and his Danish bride. The hopes of the nation centre in him. The hearty greetings of the people await him on this happy occasion. He has proved himself worthy of the esteem which he so fully enjoys. Since the days of the Black Prince, no heir to the throne has given so many happy auguries of his future. Unlike the peerless son of Edward III., we trust that he will be spared “long to reign over us,” after the evil hour for us when his royal mother shall exchange her earthly crown for a better one. Before the royal pageantries and popular illuminations begin, and the acclamations of the first nation in the world arise to greet him and his beautiful bride, we tender them our sympathies, our congratulations, and our best wishes for their happiness. The union promises to be a happy one for the royal pair. It is a present happiness, and we trust it will be a lasting comfort, to our beloved Queen. It is the first gleam of returning sunshine to her heart after the darkness of sorrow and bereavement which so suddenly settled down upon her fifteen months ago. We know no drawback upon the general joy. Even in a political point of view this alliance is fortunate, and desirable above any other that could be formed. The country is thrice happy to know that this is a union of hearts as well as of hands, and that the bride-elect possesses in an eminent degree those advantages of person, charms of manner, and piety and amiability of character, which captivate affection and secure domestic happiness. While as a good princess and queen she will win our hearts, it is an additional pleasure to feel that, as a Scandinavian Princess, she will rivet an old and national alliance, and draw into closer bonds the kindred races of the North.

Though there will be a temporary truce, we fear the conduct of the Government, whether as represented by Mr Gladstone or by Lord Russell, will not be such as the Conservative Opposition can approve. Even apart from its acts, the position of the Ministry is so unnatural, and its reputation so tarnished and discredited, that it cannot possibly hope for a much longer respite. Every week its position is becoming more untenable. In vain do its friends endeavour to frame apologies for its defeats and pleas for its existence. In vain does the leading journal at one time claim as a merit for the Premier that he has “no principles;” in vain does it, at another, seek to intimidate electors by declaring that “unprincipled constituencies make unscrupulous Governments.” We should have thought that “unprincipled constituencies” were the very ones to support a Premier with no “principles.” However, as the subsequent election at Totnes showed, the threat was no idle word: and Government influence and the most tyrannical pressure were employed to coerce the free action of that constituency. But this course also has failed. At Totnes the Government simply escaped defeat: Liberals were returned as Liberals had been before. But at Devonport, another pocket borough of the Ministry, the Government was defeated, and for the first time for several elections a Conservative headed the poll. Ministerial tyranny had been carried too far. It succeeded in the first instance, but would not be brooked in the second. The “unscrupulous Government” has received a check in the corrupt exercise of its powers which it can never forget. It was at once a triumph for Conservatism and for the principle of freedom of election. We do not wonder that Mr Ferrand, when he took his seat in the House, should be received with hearty acclamations from the Conservatives, who crowded the Opposition benches to do him honour. The Conservative party is now stronger by eleven votes—counting twenty-two on a division—since June 1859, when the united Whigs and Radicals succeeded in overthrowing Lord Derby’s Government by a majority of only thirteen.

It is amusing to see the subterfuges by which the Whigs seek to conceal their discomfiture. Feeling themselves going downhill very fast, disintegrating, expiring, they cry out that “there are no parties nowadays.” Some of them even go the length of saying that there are “no principles;” the correctness of which statement we shall not dispute as regards themselves. They should know best; and, indeed, as all their old principles are dead and gone, dismissed into the limbo of vanities, we do not see how they can have any left. It is certainly suspicious that the Whigs should have innocently discovered that the age of party is past, at the very time that the Tory party has regained its old ascendancy in the Legislature. Plain people will not be at a loss to assign a reason. The Whigs as a party are extinct, and, like Chesterfield and Tyrawley, “they don’t wish it to be known.” The only thing that can keep the Whigs alive in the imagination of the public, is to show that party is dead. Happily the country has only to look at the Opposition side of the House to see that the Tory party is alive, and exuberant in strength and hope. It is fortunate for the interests of the State that they are so. The main attack upon the bulwarks of the Constitution has been decisively repulsed—the legions of “Reform” have been scattered in such hopeless rout that their leaders have thrown away their standards and disavow their cause. But the fight still goes on against another front of the Constitution, which, until lately, was but ill defended. This combat, so interesting and important, is itself a test of party; and seldom have the organisation and discipline of party been more strikingly displayed than in this keen warfare. Party dead! No, truly. “An opinion has been industriously promulgated of late,” justly observes a contemporary,[12] “that party distinctions have ceased in public life, and that there are no contested principles between the two great political connections of the State. Yet simultaneous with the propagation of this doctrine has been the most systematic and successful assault in Parliament upon the Church of England that it has encountered since 1640.” Repulsed from the political front of the Constitution, the waves of combat still dash furiously against our religious institutions. It is time that the Conservatives should overthrow the enemies of the Constitution in this quarter also by a decisive victory. It will be their crowning triumph. In truth there is no other beyond it. When they have terminated this combat, the Conservative triumph is complete in the Legislature, as it already is in the country. The Church is part and parcel of the British Constitution; and very heartily do we approve of our ecclesiastical contemporary’s exhortations to Churchmen to look after their special interests. The Church is a party question, like any other; and in the intense competition of a constitutional country, the Church must organise its press, like the other institutions of the land.

There is a good time coming sure enough, and the cause of its coming is easily understood. The Conservative party are superior alike in sincerity and in statesmanlike ability to the party which has so long prided itself in the advocacy of organic changes. Moreover, they represent the normal feeling of Englishmen. Conservatism is the distinguishing feature of the British character. The public of this country has no love for those theoretic ideals of government, those paper-constitutions, which have so often fascinated and brought misery upon other nations. The reign of Innovation is ever short-lived with us; and the supremacy of the party who represent that principle must be equally transitory. The Whig party, who became champions of innovation in order to regain the power which they had lost, now find that their old vantage-ground has slipped from under them. They have had their day as rough-hewers of the Constitution, and now give place again to the more masterly artists who know how to chisel the marble while preserving the lineaments of the noble design. This natural decline of the Reform party has been rendered more inevitable by the very efforts they have made to maintain themselves in power. Everything portends the speedy ascendancy of the Conservative party in Parliament; and the leaders of the party are the very men to lend to such a cause the lustre of personal renown. Derby, Malmesbury, Disraeli, Bulwer Lytton, Pakington, Walpole, Stanley, Cairns, Whiteside, are names of which any party and any cause might be proud. They have the advantage of years, too, on their side; for, compared with their rivals, they are all in the vigour of life, and in the prime of states-manhood. The tide of public opinion has long been rising in their favour, and they have not long to wait. They are strong, and therefore are calm; they are patriotic, and will not imitate the factious tactics of their rivals. But their final success is at hand; and their triumph will be all the more glorious, inasmuch as it promises to partake less of the character of a party-victory, than of an ovation offered to them by the whole enlightened classes of the community.

_Printed by William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh._

-----

Footnote 1:

‘La Vie de Village en Angleterre; ou, Souvenirs d’un Exile.’ Paris:
Didier. 1862.

Footnote 2:

‘Vie Moderne en Angleterre.’ Par Hector Malot.

Footnote 3:

‘Studies in Roman Law; with Comparative Views of the Laws of France,
England, and Scotland.’ By Lord Mackenzie, one of the Judges of the
Court of Session in Scotland. W. Blackwood & Sons. 1862.

Footnote 4:

I should add that, since writing the above, one day my eye was
attracted by the unusual number of people (there were nine) reading
one of the royal decrees just promulgated and placarded on the wall:
it concerned the uniform of subordinate officials.

Footnote 5:

The ‘Chiacchiera’ of 3d January.

Footnote 6:

‘Relations Politiques de la France et de l’Espagne avec l’Ecosse au
xvi^e Siècle—Papiers d’état, Pièces, et Documents inedits ou peu
connus, tirés des Bibliothêques et des Archives de France. Publiés par
Alexandre Teulet, Archiviste aux Archives de l’Empire.’ Nouvelle
edition, 5 vols. Paris: Renouard. Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate.

‘Les Ecossais en France—Les Français en Ecosse.’ Par Francisque
Michel, Correspondant de l’Institut de France, &c. &c. 2 vols. London:
Trübner & Co.

Footnote 7:

See the cessation of church-building in Scotland brought out in a
well-known article in the ‘Quarterly Review’ for July 1849, on the
Churches and Abbeys of Scotland, understood to be from the pen of Mr
Joseph Robertson.

Footnote 8:

See the article on ‘Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of
Scotland,’ in the Magazine for August 1850.

Footnote 9:

Article, ‘The French on Queen Mary,’ Magazine for November 1859.

Footnote 10:

‘The Invasion of the Crimea: Its Origin, and an Account of its
Progress down to the Death of Lord Raglan.’ By Alexander William
Kinglake. 2d Edition. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and
London.

Footnote 11:

The ‘Daily News.’

Footnote 12:

‘Church and State Review,’ art. ‘Practical Politics.’

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page Changed from Changed to

279 were not long absent. Whey they were not long absent. When they

320 a _cause celèbre_ now depending. a _cause célèbre_ now depending.
We We

372 the _coup d’êtat_. The claims of the _coup d’état_. The claims of
St St

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. ● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to individual characters (like 2^d).