Darlington & Richmond Herald. — 1874-03-07 (Darlington, Durham, England)

THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT  AND PEACE.  [CONTRIBUTED.]  The London Herald of Peace remarks : "What shall we say of the in-coming Governmerit? Nothing, we trust, that is not perfectly just, fair, and candid. We have already, on more than one occasion, paid our tribute of respect to the loaders of the Conservative party for their wise and patriotic forbearance pending the settlement of the American question. There is no doubt that there were, more than once, critical moments in the history of that question when, if they had chosen to make it the ground of party warfare, they might have very seriously embarrassed the Government, and perhaps wrecked the arbitration altogether. Bet, in the face of considerable pressure from the more fanatical section of their own followers, they abstained from any such tactics, itnd their conduct in that respect merits grateful appreciation from the friends of Peace. We have also learnt, with unqualified satisfaction, that Lord D'ARBY is to direct the foreign. policy of the new Government. We have formerly stated in this periodical that when. he served before in that (Ake he made, in our judgment, one of the best Foreign Secretaries that this cone try ever had, and had introduced into the conduct of the Foreign Office, if not a new policy, a new spit it, which was not the less dignified because it was considerate and conciliatory to others. We do not retract a word of this. In so far as he is concerned —and we think he his hardly the man to allow his own judgment to be overruled by others, —we have a pretty confident expectation that there will be no departure from the principles of peace and non-intervention which statesmen of both parties have of late years seemed to recognise as those which should guide the foreign relations of this country. It is true that some of , the newspapers of the party talk a considerable , amount of 'bunkum' about a spirited foreign , I policy,' but we attach no great importance to the utterances of these unauthorised scribes.  Up to the present time nothing very distinct has been said on this subject by any of the leaders of the party, unless we except the following sentences from a speech delivered by Mr GATLIORNE HARDY, at 'Maidstone, just before his accession to office :—‘ He would tell the Government that the people of England, valuing peace as they did—the Conservatives valuing peace as much as any party in the country— did not wish to obtain peace by the sacrifice of honour. They did not want to crouch and humble themselves to obtain peace, but would obtain it with the manly dignity which became a great country,' &c. Mr GATHORNE HARDY 10 a gentleman for whom we cherish very sincere respect, both for his abilities and his character. He is quite capable of saying something on the question of our foreign policy better than to repeat this hackneyed and stupid antithesis between peace and honour; as though there was anything particularly honourable for a Christian nation in plunging into that system of wholesale and mutual murder, which men call by the euphemism of war! Mr HARDY on this Occasion was speaking rather from the exigencies of rhetoric than from deliberate purpose. He was referring to the cry of his political oppo. nents of" Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform," and it was necessary for him to say something smart and epigrammatic on each of these points, and, in the stress of extempore speaki jug, nothing readier occurred to him than this poor platitude about peace and hor.our. At the same time it cannot be denied that, while the leaders of the Conservative party have for many years pursued an essentially moderate and pacific policy, there is something in the spirit which pervades the rank and file of that party calculated to breed uneasiness. It is to be observed that they are always in favour of large military establishments, which are in themselves great provocatives of war. They are wont, moreover, from habit or tradition, or perhaps mere love of tall-talk, to indulge pretty largely in that swaggering, pseudo-heroic language, which costs so little to the orator, but which is calculated to breed suspicion and jealousy in other nations, and lead to consequences that may cost very dear to the people. It is also unhappily too true that many of them are disposed to look with very little favour upon any efforts that may be made to provide some means more rational and humane for settling international disputes than by an appeal to the sword."