Wellington Independent TUESDAY, 7th APRIL, 1874.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXIX, Issue 4072, 7 April 1874, Page 2

Wellington Independent TUESDAY, 7th APRIL, 1874.

Whether the policy of Mr Gladstone, ia advising her Majesty to dissolve Parliament after summonses convening it had been issued was what is termed an after-thought will remain a moot point with politicians. Even if it were, the fault is such a grave one that his rivals will not care to charge him with it unless they obtain much more direct evidence than he is likely to afford them. In the allusions they made to it they felt constrained to speak hypothetically. For there remains the possibility that when convening Parliament he might have arrived at the conclusion that although a general election was advisable, "if it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." But the act had a look of trickery about it that we are sure he, were he placed as the Conservatives, would have most eloquently and indignantly denounced. It gave him the advantage of being first in the field, with plans matured for carrying on the battle. On the Conservatives itfell with all the suddenness of a bomb-shell. If they, as their leaders, after defeating the Government, naively confessed last session, had no particular policy to go to the country with, then they could scarcely be in a better position if immediately afterwards they should be sent before their constituents without a moment's warning. The pursuance of such a policy can scarcely be dissociated from the idea of what we are accustomed to term smart practice. Whatever differences of opinion may arise as to the manner and incidence of the dissolution, the result has justified it. Mr Gladstone said that comraon report and the elections that had taken place testified to a Conservative re-action, and he desired, to ascertain the strength of this in the fairest possible manner by a general election: and it showed that his calculations had not been inaccurate. The Conservatives, from being iv a minority, became a majority, and Mr Gladstone resigned. Mr Disraeli, notwithstanding his celebrated "plundering and blundering" letter of last year — one generally admitted to have been prompted by an error of judgment — was sent for. This fact goes to show that a great statesman may commit a blunder with impunity when the time has arrived for him to come to the fore. Not since in writing, nor to the electors of Buckinghamshire during the election, did he explain what the plundering and blundering, placed in such close relation, was intended to apply to. The result of the elections was made almost to turn upon a personal issue. The question before the .country was whether Mr Gladstone or Mr Disraeli should be Premier, whether there should be Conservative or Liberal rule. Mr Disraeli preferred to clothe the idea in the following language. The attention of the country, said he, would be directed to " the attributes of a Constitutional Monarchy — whether the aristocratic principles should be recognised in our Constitution — whether the Commons of England shall continue an Estate of the Realm, or degenerate into an indiscriminate multitude — whether a National Church shall be maintained — the functions of Corporations, the sanctity of endowments, the tenure of landed property — • all those institutions and principles which have made this country free and famous and conspicuous for its union of order with liberty." Mr Gladstone, foreseeing that the Conservatives would make a strong appeal to the country respecting their own foreign policy and that of the Liberals, whilst detailing much that the Liberal party had been able to accomplish during the past few years, warned the electors not to be led away fro. 'a the contemplation of important changes at home to the contemplation of what he chose to term " comparatively unimportant foreign " affairs. It is obvious that the Liberal leaders were better warranted in asking from the electors a vote of confidence on account of past achievements than the Conservatives. What these latter might have done had they enjoyed the opportunity, we cannot say; but they have not been in power. When Mr Gladstone last assumed office, the confidence of the country was much more extensively .reposed in him than in his rival. His Irish Church and Land policy, [although it may not (

have been productive of much good, is generally admitted to have been necessary, and adapted to the genius of the time. The contrary is the case with some radical ideas that he is known to entertain respecting Church and Land in England. Whilst Mr Disraeli has acquired considerable notoriety for being able to educate his party to any liberal scheme of reform he may deem neces*sary, it is believed that Mr Gladstone can educate himself to any wild idea in an incredibly short space of time. In the opinion of the bulk of Englishmen, whilst he might be permitted to make experiments in Ireland, where things were so bad he could scarcely do much harm, he was becoming unsafe and not to be trusted in the guidance of affairs in England. Heading his address to the Greenwich electors, we should infer that ha had discovered this fact. " The transfer, the descent, and the occupation of land" were promised consideration, and nothing more. There was to be no nailing of colors to the mast-head, save in respect to the abolition of the Income Tax, which was probably " a sprat thrown out to catch a whale." No one has argued more ingeniously both for the abolition and retention of the tax than Mr Gladstone. Mr Disraeli, addressing the electors at Aylesbury on January 31st, was able to make several apparent points in reference to the foreign policy of the late Government. This, he contended, had resulted in costly wars, ignominious treaties, and the payment of hushmoney for blunders or insults committed. The Crimean was the costly war. If, said he, notice had been given that war would follow the crossing of the Pruth by the Eussians, there would have been no war. Possibly and probably not just then ; but at some not very distant period we may be assured. Theignominious treaty referred to was the highhanded abrogation by Russia of the Black Sea clauses in the Treaty of Paris. We doubt whether the Conservatives would have advised war for the maintenance of the inviolability of that Treaty. The payment to America was hush-money doubtless, but we are not prepared to say that even Lord Derby does nol think it is better paid. The foreign policy of the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot, however, be judged by reference to these matters singly. The question is whether the policy of the late Cabinet did not tend to a. feeling that England might be insulted at will, inasmuch as she would not turn if trodden upon. Mr Disraeli was justified in referring with some complacency to the appointments of Lords Napier and Mayo, though these were somewhat unpopular at the time. But he could refer to no Conservative act that was not in existence when Mr Gladstone was last preferred to him. Partly by virtue of the law which produces change, and partly in consequence of political indiscretion, mistaken judgment, and ultra radical sympathies, Mr Gladstone has now retired in favor of Mr Disraeli.