MR. LABOUCHERE'S THREAT.
LABOITCHERE'S utterances in Parliament have NI R. recently become important. There has been no change perceptible in his political character, and it is still a little difficult to consider him a serious personage in politics ; but that he has become one we entertain no doubt whatever. A Fourth Party of extreme Radicals has organised itself, with Whips and tellers and the rest of the machinery, and whenever it acts with the Irish, controls 150 votes ; while without them, it can always leave Mr. Gladstone to lead a powerless minority. That party recognises Mr. Labouchere as its leader, and it would be nearly impossible, certainly most dangerous, if the country at the next Election gives the Liberals a majority, to keep him out of the Cabinet. Under those circum- stances, it is expedient to attend to what he says, and this all the more because he so often avails himself of his semi-serious character, and his position as the "chartered libertine" of the House, to say out with a certain audacity what his followers only think. His speech, for instance, upon the conduct of public business on Monday was a most important one. The nominal leader of the Liberals, Mr. Gladstone, was all conciliation and statesmanship, thought Mr. Smith's proposal to give the Government precedence was quite reasonable, with the reserve that he wanted a short debate on sugar, and, like all men who have led the House of Commons, declined to impede public business in order to protect those rights of private Members which the private Members so seldom use to any advantageous end. Mr. Gladstone, however, it at once became evident, spoke only for himself and his immediate followers ; for Mr. Labouchere, who always guides a fourth of the host of heaven, and very often half of it, immediately jumped up to protest that, for his part, he should obstruct still. The Government was always "marauding on private Members' time," and if only to punish Mr. Smith's aggressiveness "—fancy a fox complaining of the tur- key's "aggressiveness "!—he should go on speaking on the Estimates as often as he pleased. He intended to force a dissolution, in fact, by impeding business :—" He con- sidered that, however poor a speech delivered on the Esti- mates or any other subject might be, the time was well employed, because even the making of a bad speech pre- vented the Government from bringing forward matters which they considered to be of importance to the country, and upon which they wished to force the decision of a House which had not the confidence of the country." We wish some daily paper would head its columns every day till the next Election with that declaration. Its effect, coming from the leader of the new party, is that all Radicals are left free, in spite of Mr. Gladstone's declaration, to obstruct as much as they please, while their nominal allies, the Liberals, are enabled to take credit to themselves, as Mr. Gladstone habitually and not unjustly does in his country speeches, for "facilitating public business." The responsible leader of Opposition can say, and say with truth, that he treats the Government with the greatest fairness, while another and irresponsible leader, guiding half his party, reduces the House of Commons to a state of paralysis by an incessant flow of words. When it is necessary to conciliate opinion, which never approves of obstruction, Mr. Gladstone offers "every facility" to Mr. Smith; but whenever a Government proposal might attract support, Mr. Labouchere appears, like the mechanical policematr in this week's Punch, to bar the way by a sort of automatic obstruction. In this way the Government neither advances its measures nor retains its grievance, and may be safely taunted at the end of the Session with having done nothing, although it has been so greatly " facilitated " by the Opposition, and though, in particular, the Estimates were on Tuesday "let through" at a speed -which suggests two things. One is, that Mr. Labouchere was not speaking in haste when he uttered the four words which we have italicised in our quotation from his speech ; and the other is, that the discussion of the Estimates, besides being the most useless, is also the most insincere bit of work which the House of Commons attempts. None of all those who talk so loudly of economy care one straw how the taxpayers' money is spent, and they will let millions be voted in silence when they do not want to obstruct, though when they do, they will objurgate for hours about an outlay of twopence-halfpenny. It is not, however, Mr. Labouchere's threat to which we wish to call attention so much as to the reason by which he justifies it. He and his followers are Englishmen, after all, and Englishmen never make much of obstruction for any length of time. They like doing, not interrupting, in their hearts ; and it takes Irishmen, with their genius alike for waiting and for worry, to make of obstruction a formidable weapon. But Mr. Labouchere lays down a principle which strikes at the very life of Parliamentary institutions. Nobody, he affirms, is bound to let Parlia- ment do its business if he thinks or fancies that since the Election the electors have changed their minds. In other words, nobody is bound to allow Parliament to act if he does not like its action, for he is sure in that case to believe that "the country" is of his opinion. There is an "idol of one's opinion," of which Bacon never heard, from which scarcely any man in politics is entirely free. If he is a second-rate man, he is cocksure that the People are with him ; and if he is a first-rate man, he thinks, though he is not sure, that "the evidence all points in that direction," and dilates on local phenomena. At this very moment, Mr. Gladstone, it is evident, believes with his whole heart that the country is with him ; and we do not doubt that Mr. Balfour believes exactly the contrary. Neither has any sufficient evidence to go upon, for the country is entirely content, business being profitable, and Consols being really 106, after the reduction of interest has been allowed for ; and while some elections have resulted in GLa,dstonian victories, the general drift of opinion has been so marked as to weld the Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists into a compact mass. Does Mr. Labouchere fancy that all Liberal Unionists are deliberately unseating themselves for the sake of their convictions ? If so, he no doubt does them an honour for which he is entitled to their thanks ; but he will find himself in error. The ballot keeps its secret well, and the man who prophesies results is only guessing ; yet it is on this guess that Mr. Labouchere relies in defending a policy of obstruction. If he is right, any ardent and unreasoning group, say the Socialists or the Teetotalers, or the advocates of woman's suffrage, or the anti-vaccination men, may legitimately at any moment stop the State machine. They always believe that the country is with them, and why have not they, as well as the advocates of Home-rule, the right to demand an appeal to the people whenever they think they would succeed:? There are always by-elections ; ky-elections usually go against Government, because the electors think one seat will not signify ; and as that proves that the country is with them, they have a right to paralyse progress. Mr. Labouchere's principle is a principle which, if adopted, could produce nothing but anarchy, or the use of the Referendum once a month ; yet it is the principle on which his party is compelled to take its stand. Without it they must respect the decision of the electors, who have sent up a heavy Unionist majority ; and that they are resolved never to do. For them, the voice of the people is only the voice of God when it grants their prayers, and a Parliamentary decision only to be respected when it is on their side. They will find, we fancy, that the majority will rule, whether they like it or not, and that as the decay of government by deference always ends in the establishment of government by force, so in proving that government by debate is im- possible, they are preparing the way for government by votes. That, we will do them the justice to point out, is not their interest. The Tories are not exactly the stupid party Mr. Mill denounced ; but it is not they who will lose most by the paralysis of debate, the extinction of eloquence, and the dying away of interest in the discussions of the House. If poor speeches are so beneficial, as Mr.
Labouchere says, what is the value of deliberation ?—and if deliberation is to die, what is the instrument through which he hopes to induce a stolidly Conservative people to adopt " advanced " ideas?
Previous page
