LAST SATURDAY NIGHT.
rE scene of Saturday night in the House of Commons was thoroughly discreditable to everybody concerned, except the members of her Majesty's Government and Mr. Richard. In the first place, Mr. Labouchere had no right to spring a vote of "No confidence" on his own party, in the midst of a debate on Supply, without notice and without any warning of his intention. He has a right, of course, to oppose Supplies of which he disapproves, but not to turn out his own party by an unexpected motion which, as he knew, could not be carried except as a surprise, and by the aid of a party which is not only the object of his constant hostility, but on the subject-matter of the vote itself is utterly opposed to his ideas. The Member for Northampton hates the occupation of Egypt, and has a right, of course, to hate it ; but to overset the authors of that occupation by a snatched vote, only obtained through the party which desires to make that occupation stronger, is not fair fighting. The only excuse for such a trick is that Mr. Labouchere is not a serious politician at all, and cannot resist the impulse of bedevilment which Irish Members, in the days when they understood humour, used occasionally to plead ; and we do not suppose that Mr. Labouchere will offer that excuse for himself. In the second place, the Tories had no right to snatch at such an opportunity of a third debate on the Egyptian Question. They have had chance after chance, have -talked night after night, have been fairly beaten, and are now repeating themselves only to embarrass the Government in operations of the highest difficulty and moment. The Lord Mayor says they have a right, because the Government has broken from the Constitutional usage of allowing opportunity for a Vote of Censure but he forgets or ignores all the facts. The Tories have had full opportunity for upsetting the Govern- ment, and never, by the confession of their own partisans, was an opportunity so wasted. They talked for five nights ; they had nothing to say, except that Tories would have managed much better ; and they were beaten by a majority of fifty, counting Sir Arthur Otway. The Government is not bound to help them to propose Votes of Censure every week, and so make all business impossible ; while they are bound to abstain from motions which are senseless, or worse, with- out information which, as they know, cannot be given, in the midst of the hurry of events moving so rapidly that the most experienced cannot follow them with any sense of certainty. "We are refused information I" the Tories shout, and on certain points they are refused. Lord Hartington, in the name of the Cabinet, tells them all he can, going sometimes to the very verge of prudence, or even, as Lord Dufferin would say, a long way over it ; but still he re- fuses some, and for a very simple reason. The Cabinet has not decided, and cannot for a moment decide, on its whole policy in the Soudan. Ministers are not dealing with ab- stractions, but with States, tribes, events, and men ; and to frame a final policy for the Soudan before Osman Digna is subdued, before they know what the fighting clans want, before they have heard General Gordon's matured opinion, before they have ascertained to what Turkey will consent, and before they have even considered the cardinal facts about the Egyptian situation, which Mr. Vincent has come over to ex- plain, would be to act with a rashness which the whole country would condemn. They cannot decide without the facts, and nobody would ask them but for that infernal electric telegraph, which is not only making all men sciolists, with its snippets of sensational information, but infusing into the public mind a ruinous spirit of impatience. There is nothing in the electric telegraph to enable a Cabinet to digest masses of obscure facts, reported from regions which a few weeks since were absolutely unknown ex-
cept to experts who themselves avow that some of the facts reverse all the teaching of experience. There is not a man in the world who thought himself instructed on the Soudan who is not at this moment utterly perplexed to explain why the Soudanese clans bore with Egyptian rule, and whether, for the future, they will bear with any rule what- ever. Suppose the sheep bit the collies to death, would not naturalists, as well as shepherds, want a minute to think ?–.-and that change in the order of affairs would hardly be a greater one theni has occurred on the Red Sea, where Osman Digna, but yesterday a slave to Egyptian Pashas, to-day declares that defeat by Europeans is no.evidence that he is not unconquer- able. The Government must have some time, and an en- deavour to force its hand is neither more nor less than an endeavour, by a great and responsible party, to compel it to decide rashly, and therefore wrongly. That is not a patriotic course in any case, and when it is taken in the hope of office only, it is factious.
It is useless to argue with Mr. Labouchere, who, sincere Liberal though he is, would destroy a Government for the fun of the thing, but we would ask graver Liberals like Mr. John Morley to consider once more what they are doing. They say the Government in its present policy in Egypt and on the Red Sea is doing wrong, and is obeying either the voice of the ambitious or that of the clamorous philanthropists. Well, if they opposed the occupation of Egypt from the first, they are consistent, and we not only understand their vexation, but feel a certain respect for them. There are men, some of them among the best in the world, who cannot believe that war is ever right ; and there are others who, in spite of all the teaching of all the ages, deny that conquest can ever be for the ad- vantage of mankind. They would have fought for the Canaanites, stood by the Druids, and left North America to the Red Men. We understand their views, but we cannot understand why, in upholding them, they should link them- selves with alternative conquerors, whom they admit to be far worse ; why they should fight Joshua to let in Pharaoh, resist Caesar to give Britain to the Gauls, or drive back the English settlers to make a path for Spanish buccaneers. What is the sense of defending Egyptian independence against Mr. Gladstone, in order to hand over Egypt to Lord Salisbury ? We do not pretend to know what the Tory policy is in Egypt, and are quite aware that Sir Stafford Northcote has left it open to himself, if the Protectorate is declared, to move a Vote of Censure on the Liberals for their "reckless spirit of aggrandisement ;" but we do know what Lord Salisbury would do. He would hold Egypt by force, on the ground of British interests alone, —that is, would do in a cynical form precisely what these Radicals blame the Government for doing in a humane form. All his party might not be on that side, but the force which could alone sustain his party in power would be on that side to a man. Nobody doubts for a moment that this would be the ease, and Mr. Morley and his friends, in voting for a motion by which none but Tories could benefit, which was in terms as well as meaning a direct vote of "No confidence," are stultifying themselves. It is open to them on their principles to upbraid the Government, and to refuse to vote for the Government on Egyptian questions ; but it is not open to them to turn out the Government, and so introduce another still more hostile to their own principles. They may say they looked for no such result, and only determined to manifest their own consistency ; but long before the division arrived, its mean- ing and its possible result were perfectly clear. There could be no mistaking the spirit in which Ministers faced Mr. Labouchere's amendment. Had it been carried, they would have had but three alternatives,—to resign and let the Tories dissolve, or to dissolve themselves, or to demand a special vote of confidence upon Egypt ; and in any one of the three contingencies, the non-interventionists would probably have found themselves weaker than ever. We ask no man to vote against his prin- ciples, or to remain silent when his principles are attacked ; but honest Radicals may at least abstain from overthrowing a Government which on all questions but one is in accord with them, in order to introduce a Government at variance with them on that and every other. If they cannot bring them- selves to this degree of self-denial, Government by Liberals will soon become impossible, the party containing so many groups, each of which may at an unexpected but vital moment join the permanent Opposition. The Parnellites do it already, and if the Non-interventionists, and Moderates, and anti-Irish- Liberals, and other groups are to do it too, action must stop, for there will soon be sanction obtainable for nothing.
Previous page
