THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OPPOSITION. T HE struggles of the Session
are now pretty nearly over, though, on the vexed question of Indian Judges, there was to be a Party demonstration in the House yesterday, while the South-African policy of the Government will pro- bably be challenged in a thin House early next week. On neither subject, however, can the Conservatives be regarded as either hopeful or desirous of victory, but only as anxious not to let it be supposed that they drop any count in the long indictment which they bring against the policy of the Govern- ment. They wish to enter on the campaigns of the long vacation,—for the long vacation has now become a series of provincial campaigns,—with the declaration that they have often lately made, that the policy of the present Government has been one unbroken series of failures, wherever they have not taken a leaf out of the book of the pre- decessors whom they denounced ; that in Ireland, in India, in Egypt, in relation to the Suez Canal, in South Africa, and universally at home,—for instance, as regards Parlia- mentary procedure, Mr. Bradlaugh, agriculture, and finance,— they have surpassed themselves either in achieving disaster, or in copying a better policy than their own. Such is the Con- servative contention, and if their statements are to be trusted, the Government will close this Session far weaker than they opened it, and with a moral certainty of defeat whenever they submit their policy to the judgment of the constituencies.
Let us consider, with as much impartiality as is possible for those who have in almost every case of difference held with the Government and against the Opposition, how far this con- tention is true. We should say, then, that in relation to Ireland, India, Egypt—including the Suez-Canal negotiation— Parliamentary procedure, the condition of agriculture, and the finance of the country, the Government will close the Session far stronger than they opened it ; and that only in relation to Mr. Bradlaugh and South Africa can it be reasonably said that they may have failed to gain, even if they have not lost ground. Let us first take the case of Ireland. Even Conservatives do not deny that the condition of Ireland at the present time is far more satisfactory in every respect, than the condition of Ireland even half a year ago. What they assert is that that improved condition is due solely to the application of the Conservative policy of repressing crime, and is not due in any respect to the Liberal policy of reviewing rent in the interest of the tenant. Now we do not very well know why the policy of repressing crime efficiently is called more a Con- servative than a Liberal policy. It is a policy conceived and 'effectually applied by the Liberal Government, and the only distinctive Conservative contention on the subject is that it alone should have been applied, and that the Land policy,—to which, in our belief, more than half the pacification is due,—should not have been concurrently adopted. But the country, we think, will not be disposed to endorse the Conservative claim to a power of intuitive analysis of a compound result. The pacification of Ireland is a fact, and it is also a fact that it has been brought about after the administration of a double remedy,—one remedy intended to strike at the root of just discontent, the other intended to punish unjust violence. Is it common-sense to say that the constituencies will be per- suaded by the Conservatives to ascribe the whole result to the remedy which strikes only at crime and not at the disposition to commit crime ? Is it reasonable to maintain that tenants who are availing themselves of the provisions of the Land Act by hundreds of thousands, are as likely to subscribe to Secret Societies and to encourage Ribbon Conspiracies, as they were when they regarded the whole Land legislation of the country as oppressive to them I Admit, if you please, that they prefer Mr. Parnell's policy to that of the Government,—that is to be expected, for they hope to gain more by it, and they are easily persuaded that it is not unjust,—but let them be ever so anxious to repudiate the Government for Mr. Parnell, is it human nature to assume that when they are availing themselves in masses of the policy of the Government, they are as ready as ever to support a revolution- ary movement which would endanger the very privileges they have just received. It is true that they will support Mr. Healy, when he promises them a yet more liberal land policy than that of the Government. But would they support Mr. Healy if he were again to bid them refuse their rent, as the Land League bade them to refuse their rent two years ago? No sane man will believe it. And, therefore, we say that the Constituencies look upon the contention of the Conservatives that Ireland has been pacified by coercion alone, as a foolish and unsupported statement, due to the vehemence of Conserva- tive party spirit, and not to any sort of evidence or probable presumption. Ireland is not transformed, but Ireland is already in a better condition than any which pure coercion could by any possibility have brought about.
With regard to India, popular feeling is, we suspect, absolutely satisfied with the results of Lord Ripon's policy, and well convinced that wherever he has reversed the policy of his predecessor, he has turned evil into good. As concerns Egypt, the country has never doubted that the Government are doing all in their power for the benefit of the people of Egypt, and all in their power to establish a Government there which may one day be independent of our aid,—though we ourselves have little hope that that day is near, or is as yet even growing nearer. Still, what the English people cared for was this, that what we did in Egypt should not be done for the purposes of annexation or the greed of empire, but solely to re-establish order and to establish justice in a country which we are bound to protect against anarchy and tyranny. If we can re-establish order and establish justice only by keeping our control of the affairs of Egypt,—if it would involve far more Buffering to Egypt than it would humiliation to England for us to retire, the constituencies will be well content to approve of our remaining. But they do not want to see the lust of terri- tory overpowering the sympathy of the British people with native aspirations, and we believe that they are quite content with the evidence that the policy of the English Government is one long struggle to help Egypt to help herself. They do not believe and have no right to believe that in overthrowing Arabi, the Liberal Government took a leaf out of the Afghan policy of Lord Beaconsfield. And all the efforts of the Tory Press to prove this calumny, have, we believe, been so much wasted ink. The result of the recent debate on the Suez Canal has unquestionably been to convince the English people of the absolute good-faith of the Government in resisting a policy of annexation, even at the very time when they are forced, in the interests of Egypt herself, to counsel the Egyptian Government to do much which no Oriental Govern- ment, except under European tutelage, would ever dream of doing.
In South Africa alone, we believe that the Conservatives may fairly say that Liberal policy has not as yet produced any satisfactory result. It is true that nothing could be worse than the legacy of complications which the Tories left us, but it is equally true that we have not found a satisfactory solution as yet for any of these complications. The retroces- sion of the Transvaal has not as yet worked well, and the con- ditions on which it was given back have been broken. The restoration of Cetewayo to Zululand was just, but it has not been successful, and it has ended in his defeat and destruction by a still less educated barbarian. No other result could have been expected when the mistake was committed of stipulating that Cetewayo should not create an army. But this mistake was made in deference to Tory prejudice. The Basuto question is still unsolved. Thus the best any Liberal can say is that some very false steps, taken by the Conservatives in ignorance, have been retraced, but that we are as yet only groping our way to a more moderate and more successful policy. But we do not think the country will resent a new failure, following on a long series of failures even grosser still, but will do the Government the justice to say that it is honestly trying to solve a nearly insoluble problem. As to internal questions, we wholly deny that the Govern- ment is regarded as having lost ground during the Session. It is true that on the Affirmation Bill they were defeated, but it is also true that Mr. Gladstone's speech has made the question better and more fully understood all over the country ; and that in the great towns, at least, the Government is far stronger than it was six months ago. Members who, like Alderman M'Arthur and Mr. Jerningham, deserted the Govern- ment on that question, are urged by their constituencies to resign their seats, while a very strong and eager feeling is growing up in favour of the passing of a similar measure. We do not know how far this change of feeling has spread to the counties, and are quite ready to believe that in many county con- btituencies the Bradlaugh question is still full of the promise of Conservative gain ; but in the country as a whole, there is far more confidence that the Affirmation Bill was a right measure than there was six months ago,—and this feeling is steadily growing, instead of being on the decline. For the rest, the Government have gained steadily by their honesty, their tenacity, and their obvious conviction. In relation to the farmers, the Agricultural Holdings Bill will tell strongly in their favour, es-lecially since their wise persistence in refusing to accept Mr. Balfour's chance victory, and in insisting that the tenant shall recover not only the outlay on his improvements, but also such fair profit -on that outlay as the market value of these im- provements will give him. In relation to Procedure, the Grand Committees, though not an indisputable success, will give us three valuable measures which certainly would not have been carried without them, and will mark the first step in the recovery from the era of Obstruction. And in relation to Revenue and Expenditure, Mr. Childers's admirable National Debt Bill will, we believe, late as it is for a second reading, redeem the financial policy of the Session from the charge of colourlessness and unprogressiveness. Mr. Gladstone was fully justified in saying on Thursday that the great majority of the people strongly desire to see a final step taken towards the substantial reduction of our Debt, and that the great majority of the House of Commons represent in this matter the great majority of the people. Indeed, the Conservatives have themselves sanctioned the principle, though not the detail of the Bill,—a Bill of which it is the principle rather than the detail that is important. On the whole, we do not think that the Con- servatives will commence their Long-vacation campaign with any very hopeful augury. If they will take the advice of an opponent, we should recommend them to harp as much as possible on the subject of South Africa, but even on South Africa to refer as little as possible to the Tory policy, which landed us in such a chaos of perplexities. On every other subject, from Mr. Bradlaugh to the Suez Canal, they will find the tide gradually but steadily turning against them.
Previous page
