BEACONSFIELD'S PRESCIENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 6030, 10 July 1882, Page 4

BEACONSFIELD'S PRESCIENCE.

Our contemporary the ‘ Daily Times ’ assumes to be profound on Homo affairs, and endeavors on every occasion to contrast what the editor seems to imagine the superiority of the late Lord Beaeonsfield’s administration lo that of Mr Gladstone. This is a cafe game to play, as to disprove his conclusions would render necessary the full length publication of the debates'in the House of Commons, which, in our opinion, fully bear out, so far as the Irish policy is concerned, Mr Gladstone’s denial of any compact with Mr Parnell. With regard to the results of the policy of the two rival Ministers the following letter, published in the ‘Daily News’ under date May 17, gives a concise and truthful summing up ; and there cannot be a doubt that the present Egyptian complications have arisen indirectly from the late Lord Beacon,-field’s unwise foreign policy The Tories ore, now scattering Lord Beaconsfield’s letter to the Duke ot Marlborough broadcast over the country as a proof of their late chief’s prescience, by way of contrast to Die blindness of his successors in office. It is a somewhat suicidal manoeuvre, as a few facts will show. When Lord Bcaconsfisld became Premier in 1874, ho pronounced the condition in which the affairs of the Empire were handed over to him by Ids predecessor to be eminently satisfactory. Lot me quote his words“ At the present moment the condition of the country in regard to our foreign relations is most satisfactory. There is no State whatever with which our relations are not most cordial,” So much as to foreign relations. What about Home affairs ? Again I quote Lord Beaconsfield; —“I may bo allowed, I hope, to congratulate you on the general condition of the country. I believe that, taking a large ami general view of it, the condition of England has seldom been more prosperous and more contented,” It is evident from the context that by “England” ho meant the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. But the colonies? “Well, then,” continued Lord Beaconsfield, “if the general condition of England is so satisfactory, if we look abroad to Her Majesty’s foreign possessions and her colonial Empire I see nothing to counterbalance the satisfaction we feel at Home.” Such was the condition in which Mr Gladstone's previous Government handed over the British Empire to the Tory party, Lord Beaconsfield himself being witness. In what condition did the Tory party hand back their trust after six years of uncontrolled rule ? Lord Beaconsfield’s letter to the Duke of Marlborough supplies the answer, “Barely in tills country,” says that letter, “has there been an occasion more critical. The power of England and the peace of Europe will largely depend on the verdict. of the country.” And one of Lord Benconsfield’s colleagues (Lord Sandon) explained this danger more particularly. In a speech at Liverpool, ho said: “ Your enemies have enormous armies, ami are trying to injure you in all directions.” This was the result of six years of Lord Beaconsfield’s “spirited foreign policy.” How about domestic affairs, which Lord Beaconsfield had pronounced, on taking office in 1874, to have been in a condit.on “seldom more prosperous and more contented ? ’ Bead the Marlborough letter of March, LK.-.0, wL .<• Lord Beaconsfield pronounces Irf.la.nd to bn in a Hito “scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and famine, ’ _ And {hi;-, is 'he Gtfcci, iorsoolli. whuh tho Tories are t-o v parading in proof of Lord Bcaconsfluld’s t-.igacmus statesmanship ! Is it posable to conco ve a more nvore condemnation or his p: iky and administration ? But more remains to be said. Mr Gladstone’s Government had not been Jong in office when they found Leland in a state which Mr Gladstone pronounced to bo “ within a measurable distance of civil war,” and they proposed to appease the passions of an excited and .amisliod population by a measure which they believed would have been adequate to its purpose. Hoy/ did the Tory party act on that occasion ? “This Bill,” said Lord Cairns in the House of Lords,

“ is brought in on the plea of a great emergency, which is not known to exist.” In tho same debate Lord Beaconefleld said (August S, 1880): “ Wo are told by an authority which cannot well bo exceeded that this measure. , , . is brought forward in consequence of the fear which tho Government have that, if not passed, wo shall have perhaps to encounter civil war in Ireland.” Did Lord Beaconsficld believe in this danger ? On the contrary, he declared: “Wo have no evi denco of this desperate state of things. Now, then, we have Lord I’eaconsfleld and Lord Cairns declaring on the 3rd August, 1880, that there was no great emergency then in Ireland, although the Government declared the contrary. And now what becomes of the Marlborough letter of tho previous March? Did Lord Beaconsfield believe in tho danger ha then described in such portentous language ? If he did not. tho less said about his prescience the belter. If he did, what was his remedy ? He hj ft office without any preparation to meet the danger, and ho persuaded tho House of Lords to reject the measure which the Government of the day had proposed in view of the emergency; and this he did on tho plea that there was no evidence of dungor. If you are to believe in the sincerity and prescience of tho Marlborough letter, then it .seems to mo that his rejection of tiie (I uvcimnont’s solemn warning four months later deserved impeachment.