LORD SALISBURY AT THE

CONSTITUTIONAL

CLUB.

At a dinner given in his honour at the Constitutional Club on December 16th, Lord Salisbury, referring to the subject of the leadership of the Radical Party, said :—

RADICAL DISORCANISATION.

66

"I would only ask you not to imagine that "what seems to be the present confusion over "the border is necessarily permanent. We "stand somewhat in the position that the English Govern"ment stands in often to divided groups of tribes which "threaten them from the other side of the border. These groups seem to be utterly divided among themselves, to "have no common leader, perhaps no common object; but "if on the Afghan or the Egyptian border opportunities "shall occur, and they shall see some chance of carrying out a holy war or securing much desired loot they may at once, in one moment, be gathered together by the prestige and the force of some leader that may arise among them. "And so it is with the enemies we are confronting. At any moment a Madhi or a Mad Mullah may arise, and they "will bear down upon you to carry out the Jehad and to carry away the loot. I therefore entreat you, notwith"standing these flattering symptoms, to remain in your "ranks and to keep your powder dry. There may be plenty for you to do much sooner than you expect." Turning to the question of the House of Lords, he said:"It seems to me to be a very commonly HOUSE OF LORDS. "received doctrine among our opponents that "the House of Lords is to be swept away. I do not know "how it is to be done, because the prospect of the House of "Lords itself lending any assistance to that operation is remote. But I call your attention to it rather to draw the "moral. The action of the House of Lords has uniformly "been to delay for the judgment of the country matters on "which it thought the House of Commons and the country 66 were not agreed. That is what has been established by "the practice of many years, and when our opponents wish to abolish the House of Lords, the inevitable inference is "that they desire to pass, before the country should have "time to intervene, something upon which the House of Commons and the country are not one; and you should "consider how very near we have been to that predicament. They tell us that the House of Lords interferes with the

"judgments of the House of Commons, but what are the judgments of the House of Commons with which the "House of Lords has interfered? I am speaking of the "first-class of questions. It is curious that twice in our "recent history-and by that I mean in the last two "centuries-twice on great occasions the House of Lords "intervened to veto the action of the House of Commons, "and to insist that the country should be consulted. The "first occasion was the celebrated Fox's India Bill, of which "the object was to place the whole patronage of India in "such hands that the House of Commons might be success"fully and safely manipulated for the future. That

66

promising plan was negatived by the House of Lords, and "was rejected indignantly by the country. One hundred "and ten years passed away, and a Radical Government were found forwarding a Bill by which 80 members of "Parliament, practically divorced from all responsibility to "their constituents, would be at the command of the "Minister of the day, and would, under such terms as it was "in his power to offer, be a certain element in every division "that the Minister who created them might desire. Again "that was sent up to the House of Lords; again the con"venient arrangement was negatived; and again the country "indignantly endorsed the decision of the House of Lords." After a reference to the controversy on ritualistic practices in the Church, he proceeeded to speak of foreign affairs, and continued:

They

"The truth is that upon this question the critics RADICAL" of the day are as unreasonable as Pharoah. CRITICISM. (6 say you must take the people into your confidence. "It never seems to occur to them that if you take the people into your confidence you take everybody else. "I have always preferred greater reticence, and perhaps "have been a good deal censured for doing so, but my "colleagues have not always taken the same view. They "have attempted, by however small a degree, to lift the veil against which so much objection is taken; but what is "the result? They are immediately denounced for "indiscreet and provocative language.

TWO MORALS.

"I should like from the foreign affairs of the past year to draw a couple of morals, and to improve upon them, as the preacher would say. In the first 'place, we have all heard of the enormous strength which

"has been given to the Government by the unanimity of
"the people that are supporting them. . . . . But turn that
"doctrine round. If it is true that the unanimity of the
people gave us an enormous strength when it was thought
by certain persons that we might have to go to war, it is
"equally true that if that unanimity is absent it is very
"difficult for the Government to treat any question as one
on which they will go to war. I have often heard
exhortations to deal in a drastic manner with this or that
"difficulty. They are questions not of any very great public
"interest. You cannot excite public feeling upon them at
"all. Is it not true that, if a Minister were to threaten
war-and, of course, if he threatens, he must be
"prepared to carry it out-on these comparatively trivial
"subjects, he is liable to be left in the position of finding that
"he has threatened that which he cannot do, and that
"popular opinion is not prepared to carry it out? That
"may be no hurt to the Minister; he may retire
"and nothing may come of it to him; but it is a
"tremendous blow to the prestige of your country.
"The other point I would wish to draw from our year's
experience is to urge on our critics-I have done it
"before-that they should consider our foreign work
altogether. They should not consider this one case, or
"this other case or this third case, but what has been the
"result when the whole issue is hung together. When the
"account books are totted up and the balance ascertained,
"then form your judgment; but do not form your judgment
“on individual passing items. It may be quite true that
"there are some matters on which you do right to go to war
"and yet the extreme step was not taken, but you must be
sure before you take that action that there were no other
possible or immediate complications within view which
"made it necessary to economise the force that was at the
disposal of the Government. These things are matters of
"calculation. You have a certain amount of strength, very
great strength, but peculiar strength, because it is mainly
"naval, but still very great strength. But this strength
may not be equal to more than a certain effort, and
"if you know that that effort is impending it is not wise
preliminarily to waste your strength on a matter of
"secondary importance. The whole question has to be
"considered together."

Times, December 17th, 1898.