TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE QUESTION.
THE grand debate of the week, of the session, indeed of many a year, took place in the House of Commons with nothing but a formal question before it—virtually, it may be said, without any question at all. No doubt, there was Mr. Disraeli's motion of cen- sure upon the Government; but how did that come into exist- ence ? It was only by the accidental movement of other parties that the idea grew upon him by degrees ; and he was careful to explain that he had not intended it. The explanation was very proper on his part, because there was so little ground to stand upon, and because he had but slight title to be the man moving. The censure was to be passed for ambiguity of language and un- certainty of conduct : it was enforced in a speech of studied ambi- guity, by a man of singularly uncertain conduct. The evidence to sustain it was entirely retrospective, almost entirely factitious; and so little was there of reality in the congregation of men to vote for it, that the issue was known beforehand. The motion of censure, therefore, was an accident for which the mover presented his excuses to the House.
It was overwhelmed by a crowd of amendments, two of which presented no question at all. Mr. Milner Gibson had, before Monday, a question, minimized to a hint; but that was with- drawn. Mr. Layard had a question ; but that was withdrawn. Mr. Gladstone had a very grave question—whether it is not better to accept the terms which Russia will concede than to carry on so unchristian a thing as the war ?—a composite question, but such was the small number of Members who sustained that proposition that they only ventured to argue it in speeches upon a motion that simply heightened the general expression of a desire for peace. Sir Francis Baring's amendment was no question ; for it was reduced to a negative expression of feeling in which the whole House might have concurred. With the exception, therefore, of Mr. Disraeli's problem, there was nothing to which a negative could be given. There had been a question some little while since, and that also a very grave one,—whether Ministers were sincere in professing their willingness to carry on the war with energy; and whether they were doing in accordance with their profession ? The public out of doors was decidedly uneasy, and an answer was required. The answer was given : moved by signs of the uneasiness, Ministers stated, with great explicitness, that they did intend to go forward with the war; and they showed that they were taking the neces- sary steps to do so, abandoning the hope of effecting any conclu- sion by the diplomacy at Vienna. Mr. Lowe's question came before the House, therefore, after it had been answered : there was nothing for the public to ask that Government had not told.
It is important as well as interesting to note that this question was put and answered- without the intervention of the House of Commons. So little, it seems, does the House represent the body of the people, or even the body of the constituencies, that it was anticipated and superseded in the commonest and easiest of its duties as " the grand inquest of the nation."
Is there, then, any pending question to stir the heart and head of a people P In truth there is, although it presents itself only in the vaguest and most entangled form of doubt. Is it practicable to accomplish the solution contemplated by " the third point" P Have the Allies teeth hard enough to crack the nut of Sebastopol ? If not, how are they to turn that position ? " The vital part" of Russia is covered by the timid neutrality of the German Powers; the German Powers will not stir till Russia shows that she has been touched in her vitals. Mr. Gladstone thinks, not only that a treaty would bind her, but a treaty founded upon her own mocking propositions after she has ascertained that the Western Powers can enforce no treaty at all; for such would be the position if they gave way now. Unless Sebastopol be con- quered, Russia lies behind ready to dart out again upon her prey. There is indeed one -solution quite simple to propose : it would consist in reducing the Russian empire to its elements, giving back to other countries the spoils that the Czars have taken, assisting the absorbed nationalities to resurge. But what gentleman of the Opposition, moving to displace Lord Palmerston, would go into office upon Mat principle ? Thus far we are living from hand to mouth. It is a charac- teristic of the day that there is nobody prepared to place a distinct issue before the public; nobody ready to indicate the point of attack ; nobody who can foresee the next stage; none who has a plan. Statesmen, in this country at least, are trusting to events, like a spendthrift whose fortune is out of his own control. It is a previous question, whether the public more than the Govern- ment or Parliament has ever asked itself whither it is drifting— what it proposes to do? Is it prepared for the next emergency, whatever that may be ? This is the grand question which lies beyond the debate. We are drifting without a principle, except the homely substitute of standing by our flag until it can be planted somewhere with sufficient honour to take it down again. Wanted a principle! What shall it be ? That, however, is hardly a question to be debated by the House of Commons, even if we saw the man to propound it. Meanwhile, the Government, which factions of equivocal tongue and unintelligible conduct accuse of ambiguity and uncertainty, is the only party that truly and in- telligibly clings to the substitute principle on behalf of the British nation.
Previous page
