The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JAN. 3, 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6506, 3 January 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JAN. 3, 1882.

Conservatism assumes to ho the party of law and order. Its support is supposed to he identical with that of morality, and indeed, according to some of jts modern champions, with that of freedom also. Yet Conservatives are at best an illogical race. Perhaps they only share this trait in common with tho rest of humanity: perhaps their peculiar theories render the inconsistency of their practice even more glaring than that of their Liberal brethren. Certain it is that tho party tactics of Conservation all the world over arc not distinguished for a nice morality. With its leaders the rule of expediency is not that of honour. On the contrary, they, from the late Lord Beaoonsfield downwards—even unto the Honorable John Hall —-have been wont to reverse this adage with an openness bordering on the cynical. As an example of this, we may cite tho interchange of coquetries that has been observable between .the English Tories and the extreme Irish party. Openly, of course, these two respectable bodies of men denounce each other strongly enough. Shooting and extermination are not bad enough for the Tories: imprisonment is too mild for the followers of Parnell. But should an election, he in question, it is not found that these passages of compliment interfere with much mutual aid and comfort. Both are delighted to combine for the overthrow of the hated Liberal; nor do the Conservatives decline to take by the hand (politically speaking) the men whom (politically speaking) they profess to regard as something worse than parricides. The latest instance of this has been given during the candidature of Sir Samuel Wilson for Londonderry. Sir Samuel Wilson belongs to that class, the Australian absentee squatters, who are more Tory than the Tories themselves. Added to this he is by birth an Ulster Protestant, and so one of a race whose antipathies for the Irish Celt are to the feelings in the same direction of an English native, as wine is to milk. On the grounds, then, of race, of religion, of property, of conviction, Sir Samuel Wilson, of all men, might he expected to regaird the Land League and its agents with abhorrence. The time has gone by when the real motives of the League were cloaked with such fair show of moderation that the Ulster farmer might reasonably ho asked to look upon it without positive disfavour. Even if this had net been so Sir Samuel Wilson is not an Ulster farmer, but an Australian shepherd king. Yet this hard-headed personage allied himself with the agents of the League, got from them all the aid he could, and, we are happy to recall, lost his election by an overwhelming majority. If this were a solitary example of an unholy alliance, we should be inclined to put it down to the accident of this particular candidate having been a citizen in two countries, having abandoned both in turn as his interests dictated, and consequently having to he regarded rather as a political soldier of fortune than as an ardent patriot of any party. But the Londonderry election is not a solitary example, and we are therefore compelled to see in it another flaw in the shining armour of Conservative morality.

What makes the matter worse is that the Liberal conduct towards the Home Rulers, was, during the years in which Lord Beaconsfield’s Government held office, of so markedly different a character. A few promises, a little parliamentary flirtation, and Lord Hartington might have enlisted under his banner the whole following of Messrs Butt and Shaw. He did not do so, nor did his party ask him to do so, and all, whenever the occasion called, stood loyally by Sir Stafford Northcofce in the Irish troubles of the House of Commons. To look for gratitude in politico is possibly foolish enough, but, at any rate, this does not make ingratitude less nnpleasing. Sir Samuel Wilson’s failure at Londonderry gives, therefore, other reasons for rejoicing, besides the fact of its showing that the Ulster men are satisfied with the Land Act.