THE DUTY OF THE OPPOSITION AT THE PRESENT CRISIS.
THE scenes in the House yesterday week and on Thursday last, show how discontented the Radicals are with the extreme reserve and even timidity of their chiefs. To some extent we sympathise in that feeling. Difficult as the crisis is, and cordially as we admit Mr. Forster's plea that anything like unreasonable and factions opposition to the Government at a moment of great public difficulty and danger, would tend to stimulate instead of to subdue the warlike impulses of the English people, we do not think that the Opposition leaders, when they have maturely deliberated on the policy to be adopted, and committed themselves to that policy, ought to flinch from recording their vote in accordance with their expressed convictions. It is not a dignified, it is not quite a manly course, to withdraw, on no reason really affecting in the least the issue before the House, _ from a position they have deliberately taken up. Nor do wa agree that there is anything more moderating, anything more likely to allay the anger of the war party, in such abstention than there is in putting their convictions on record in sober, moderate, and considerate language, and then supporting them by their votes. Such a speech as Mr. Gladstone made yesterday week could not by any possibility give the country the impres- sion that he was disposed to offer a factious opposition to the Government, even though he supported it, as he actually did, by his vote. The appearance of violence, the use of anything like inflammatory language, the exchange of taunts with the Government, are unquestionably most undesirable at times like these. There should be no manner of excuse, still less justification, given for the prevalence of any impression in the country that the Government are not being treated with due consideration by their political opponents. All Govern- ments at times make grave errors, and at a crisis so serious as this even a Government which is deemed to have made the gravest errors should be treated with respectful forbear- ance, and with as much consideration as is consistent with political duty. But then we deny that there is any such consideration or deference shown in flinching from the vote which is the fitting and practical record of the opinions expressed. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Stansfeld showed every bit as much consideration for the Government on Friday week as Lord Hartington and Mr. Forster and Mr. Goschen. They supported their expressed convictions by their vote, it is true ; and in so doing, they only took the course which is in every respect the most convenient ; for on questions so grave as these it is destructive of the weight of your moral influence if you say one thing, and then will not fit the deed to the word. But nothing which any of these three said was of a nature to lend the slightest colour to the charge of factious or even bitter opposition. The tone used was respectful, forbearing, and moderate. The vote given was given for reasons perfectly consistent with that for- bearing and moderate spirit. It is by angry modes of opposi- tion, not by firmness, that animosities are roused and passions kindled. We venture. to say that Mr. Gladstone's words on Friday week were calculated to do more to throw oil on the troubled waters,—in spite of his vote,—than Lord Hartington's words and abstention from the divi- sions combined. It is not deserting your convictions, but expressing them with a becoming sense of the difficulties and anxieties of the Government, which is calculated to keep down irritation, and to prevent any artificial stimulus to the war-passion. Indeed, we go further, and say that if the con- viction which induces opposition, is not deep enough to keep the Liberals faithful to their own policy, it is more likely to rouse angry recriminations than it would be where it is deep enough to make those who express it stick to their purpose. We think it might well be said of Mr. Forster and Lord Hartington that they ought never to have been parties to the motion which Mr. Forster brought forward, since they did not deem it of sufficient importance to hold by it under the critical circumstances of last week. It is those only whose convictions are so deep that they could not but record their vote, who could not be accused of factiousness in having supported it. Earnest opposition which perseveres to the last in its protest, but avoids all inflammatory language, and expresses freely, wherever it is possible, the respect which all. evidence of the good intentions of the Government naturally inspires, will earn far more kindly consideration from the Govern- ment, than an opposition hastily taken up, and lightly aban- doned on the first threatening of critical events. We cannot, then, exonerate the Opposition leaders from blame for the course they took on Thursday and Friday week. We think they might have been quite as prudent and much more firm. We think they might have expressed quite as much or more respect and consideration for the Government, and very much more respect and consideration for their own followers, if they had held firm to their resolution, while showing in every manner open to them their resolve not to offer irritating or pertinacious opposition to the will of the majority. It is the duty of an Opposition at such a crisis to press firmly, but very soberly and moderately, its own view of the true policy to be adopted on the country, and to give its convictions all the gravity and earnestness of practical votes, but to repress as far as possible all ex- citing and irritating party language, and to accept defeat tvithout anything of the obstinate or defiant spirit that might inflame the victors. But that difficult duty is not discharged by flinching from conviction. On the con- trary, the impression is given that there must have been party feeling in bringing forward at all what is so little insisted on as to be easily thrown aside. On the other hand, we find no fault with the Leaders of Opposition for doing all in their power to discourage and suppress such outbreaks as that of Mr. Edward Jenkins on Thursday night. With a great deal that Mr. Jenkins said—excepting always his extraordinary apology for the savage policy of Russia in Poland—we very much agree. But it was not said in a manner and at a moment that was at all oppor- tune for the purpose he had in view. It was far from desirable, in the interest of the cause he had at heart, to complain of the Government for not considering sufficiently the dignity of the Czar. It was far from desirable, and we do not think it was even true, to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of disin- genuousness in relation to the orders given to our Admiral for the passage of the Dardanelles. The order to keep" open the water-way " was intelligible enough, and was perfectly under- stood by the people of this country. And even if Mr. Jenkins's defence of Russian conduct in Poland had been as sound as it seems to us utterly the reverse, nothing could have been more foolish at such a time as this than to apologise for it ; for nothing would produce a stronger feeling in this country that the Radicals wish to Rus- sianise the South-East of Europe, than such an apology as this for the worst of Russian acts. Such speeches as that of Mr. Edward Jenkins are more likely to inflame the ignorant war feeling in England than a hundred such speeches as Sir Robert Peel's. Every one can see that Sir Robert Peel makes the war party ridiculous, while Mr. Edward Jenkins,—with much in his speech that is sound and true,— by the violence, undiscriminatingness, and imprudence of his advocacy of Russia, makes the Peace party odious. Such speeches are, no doubt, the greatest dangers of the Liberals at the present crisis. For the Liberals are indeed falsely supposed to be acting an unpatriotic part,—whereas their policy is the purest and truest patriotism,—and such speeches as these confirm the ignorant portion of the British nation in their prejudices. We hold, then, that while the leaders of Opposition ought to be more manly and less vacillating, vehement Radicals ought to set a guard on their tongue such as they have never set before. Let them leave all in- temperate speech to Mr. Cowen and the heated partisans of Turkey. But we shall not complain if, on the other hand, t key make their leaders feel that it is neither manly, nor temperate, nor the way to gain confidence from their followers, to make strong speeches in favour of a decided course one day, and then to shrink from it the next.
Previous page
