The Sun.
London, England, 1870-02-01 00:00:00

LONDON, TU2SDAY, FEB. 1, 1870.

.1T seems pretty clear that we have to thank QS
newly-enfranchised electors for a decided change,
not to say reform, in the style of political
speeches. Our parliamentary lights, great and
small, have evidently come to the conclu-
sion that the diction which delighted the ten-
pounder won't do for the householder. The former
liked a little learning, and, provided he got it, was
not at all particular in the matter of perspicuity. A
highly Latinised construction, abundance of historical
and mythological allusions, and reasoning on abstract
generalities, were served up in the speeches of yore.
But this style of speaking is not common now.
Judging from the recent discourses of Ministers and
ex-Ministers, it would appear that a strong Saxon
idiom, with a good flavouring of homely metaphor,
has been tried, and found to be the right
thing for the new constituencies. Compared
with the effusions we used to read in the
palmy times of '52 and '57, the addresses of to-day are
singularly plain and straightforward. And though this
new style possesses for the orator the disadvantage of
more speedily revealing how little he has to say, it
is so obviously a gain to the listener that one good
work of infinite value may be fairly set down to the
credit of the last Reform Act. Less satisfactory is
the liking for personal interchanges of shots, which is
becoming more and more manifest amongst speakers of
a high order. Probably this, too, is a concession to
the householder deity. Like the member of a
religious sect wto "paid for doctrine, and would hey
doctrine, hot and strong," the newly enfranchised
find a little pot and kettle business much more agree-
able entertainment than arguments about leases
or reciprocity. Formerly this sort of work was
tolerably well done by stars of the CHARLEY magni-
tude. Now it is being taken up by the leading men
on both sides; it largely predominated in Sir
JOHN COLERIDGE'S last speech, and was not
altogether wanting in the address of Sir STAFFORD
NORTHCOTE to the Exeter Conservative Union.
The latter's talk about the " eloquent crowing" and
"gingerly " speaking of the Exeter representative,
and the heavy engagements and probable bankruptcy
of the Liberal party, might very well have been dis-
pensed with.. It reads all the more objec-
tionable because we are accustomed to sounder
instruction from the late Secretary for India. Few
politicians, as a rule, deal so fairly as Sir STAFFORD
NORTHCOTE. He discusses principles, not persons,
and employs arguments, not recrimination. His
demolition of the mischievous reciprocity agitation
was equally a benefit to both parties, for though his
disclaimer was somewhat tardy, it was thorough,
and has effectually done its work. So large a per.
tentage of mere political banter from such a high-class
statesman is disappointing.
There are, however, better things in Sir STAFFORD
NORTIIC OTE 'S speech to the Exeter working men. He
made the best of the Abyssinian financial difficulty.
The expedition was glorious, if it was costly, and
it has too often happened that our money has been
spent without any glory in return. Sir STAFFORD
"would very willingly refer the question to any foreign
arbitration to learn what foreigners thought of Eng-
land after the close of the Crimean war, and what
they thought of it after the close of the Abys-
sinian war." Decidedly the verdict would
be in favour of the Conservative Government.
We had better reasons for going to Abyssinia than
we had for going to the Crimea. We triumphed over
THEODORE, improved our position in the East, and
secured the respect of Europe ; whereas it would be
difficult to say whom the Crimean war profited,
unless it were the Emperor NAPOLEON. But the
Conservative Indian Secretary must not forget that
people object to pay very extravagantly for even a
good thing. No one denied that the Expedition was
highly successful; the only question is, could not the
same success have been attained with less waste ?
It is not merely a slight excess of real over
estimated cost that is deplored. The difference is to
be counted by millions. Nor is it difficult to hit the
blot in the general management of the war. As Sir
STAFFORD NORTHCOTE has on a previous occasion
confessed, everything was left to the authorities at
Bombay. So far as expenditure was concerned, they
controlled the Expedition, and the supervision which
it was the duty of the Home Government to exercise
was entirely suspended. "Spend what you like,
only succeed," was the general order issued
from this country. The Bombay authorities
spent without stint, but the inefficiency of
the land transport when the troops started
on their march sufficiently proves that, even
with unlimited cash, one of the most important
branches of the expedition was left to be organised
by GeneraLNAriEn, on the spot. The Conservative
Governm( nit triumphed, but the nation cannot afgard
to pay an3;price even for victory.
Sir STAFFORD'S remarks on the dockyard question
are also poticeable. He deprecated the vulgar out-