THE TACTICS OF THE OPPOSITION: A DEFENCE.

FRO

ROM the point of view of the devoted Parliamentarian there could be no greater luxury than to be in Opposition in the House of Commons just now. There is a great Bill to be discussed, an amiable Chairman presiding, a knightly and scrupulously constitutional Prime Minister in charge, and a patriotic Opposition to support every manœuvre that can be devised to bar the way. The House has, therefore, become a paradise for any adroit Unionist seeking the road to fame. On every clause of the Home Rule Bill every other clause can be discussed, on every amendment the whole principle of the measure arises, and whenever principle has to be debated, every amendment is relevant by way of illustration. Moreover, the labours of the Opposition are infinitely lightened by a consciousness of pure patriotism, for the task of preventing the disruption of the Empire, the ruin of the loyal minority in Ireland, and the reduction of Great Britain to the position of a tenth-rate Power is sweet to the party which enjoys the monopoly of love of country. This adds the final touch of beatitude to the Parliamentary situation. So, if your speeches be dull or bright, applauded or groaned, they, at any rate, are made with the formal approval of a good conscience and are certain to awake a throb of responsive sympathy amongst all rightthinking men. Mr. Chamberlain's style always affords the House very good "cricket." It is probably preferable to that of any of the Opposition, and it should be studied as a model. He is, on the whole, the purest patriot in Parliament. Beginning always by announcing that the amendment then under discussion is the most important yet brought up, he first secures a prelude of attentive recollection from a wondering House. He next, with a phrase of respectable surprise at its impatience, gives a fillip to the jaded Chairman, whose thoughts, perhaps, have begun to stray amongst the mazes of the Rules of Procedure, with special reference to that upon "tedious and irrelevant repetition." Then a plaintive note is struck full of rich feeling towards his "right hon.

friend at the head of the Government," of whom Mr. Chamberlain complains, more in sorrow than in anger, that in his insufficient reply Mr. Gladstone has entirely failed to realise the tremendous consequences which will result to "the heritage which has been handed down to us by our forefathers," if the Bill at this point is allowed to remain unamended. The safeguards to which the Premier points are mere "paper safcguards," but these, if he is well advised, can be converted into genuine cast steel by the Bessemer processes of Birmingham. Besides, the Government and the Irish members are wholly inconsistent, and, unlike all the real statesmen of modern times, they now hold entirely different language from that they used twelve years ago. Here Mr. Chamberlain suddenly remembers himself, and stoops to his bench for a volume of quotations, edited and prepared by Sir Ashmead Bartlett (price one shilling a large reduction to country associations), from which refreshing draughts soon flow bubblingly. Possibly at this point some foolish Ministerialist, considering that the case of the Battle of Waterloo is not strictly germane, rises to a point of order. In the breathing time thus afforded, Mr. Chamberlain turns to his note-book, and under the head of "Impromptus" finds an observation suitable for use on being interrupted on a point of order. The Chairman then rules that on an amendment dealing with “naval and military forces" a brief allusion to Quatre Bras is merely illustrative, whereupon the outraged orator impales with his impromptu the brutal interrupter, and flings his harpooned carcase at the feet of a persecuted but vindicated Opposition. This gives a fine opening for play on the subject of "toleration." What! This vital amendment has only been two hours under discussion, while we have only been thirty days on four clauses, there are only six hundred more amendments, thirty-six clauses and seven schedules to be disposed of; yet this is the kind of liberty an anarchic combination would allow to the minority! This attempt to gag a leading representative at the opening of his remarks would never succeed, and so he would now proceed to consider the amendment in detail. Perhaps, after an hour or two, thinking to shorten debate, the Government yield a point, and then Mr. Chamberlain is excellent. Either the concession made is absolutely worthless except so far as it admits and justifies the contentions of the Opposition, in which case debate must necessarily continue in order that the country may understand the gravity of the position, or else an alleluia of gratitude is poured out for the substantial abatement thus made in the powers of the Parliament to be given to the wicked Irish. The wicked Irish are

then reminded in detail what powers these were and how completely the amendment has cut them off. Mr. Chamberlain then sits down amidst an Irish keen with an expression of unalloyed satisfaction on his countenance, such as might deck the faces of the Just on Judgment Day.

Between Mr. Balfour's style and this there is considerable difference. The Tory Leader always puts in what sporting writers would describe as a "useful" innings, but now that he is no longer on the defensive, as when Irish Secretary, the passionate personal note is absent. He plays the game more delicately, but the coarser Chamberlain touches give better sport to the House. It was to the Irish party that the creation and uprise of Mr. Balfour is due, and therefore he regards them without violent hatred, and violent hatreds give great piquancy to debate. This disadvantage Mr. Chamberlain is entirely free from, for it was by the Irish Maelström his career was swallowed up. Politics are but personalities writ small. The setting up of an Irish Assembly would mean a personal defeat for Mr. Chamberlain, whose plans for the structure the Irish ungratefully rejected. To Mr. Balfour it would only mean an interesting ingredient added to British politics, of which he would have to take party account.

With entirely different motives for action, the object of the allies is the same. The Home Rule Bill is the breakwater which shelters the Opposition from the nipping winds of Parish Councils, One Man One Vote, Registration Reform, Land Reform, Fiscal Reform, Payment of Members, Disestablishment, and the Newcastle Programme generally. Moreover, it enables the House of Lords to figure "patriotically" for the first time since the Revolution, and a Bill which accomplishes these miracles deserves the tenderest handling and dandling from careful Tory nurses. Then, in addition to the Parliamentary gain in time wasted over amendments, there lurks for ever in the Unionist breast the hope that the Irish party will some day go to pieces. When that happy hour arrives, of course, all will be well, and Ireland must become a land flowing with milk and honeycarried freight-free to market, on brand-new light railways. Unlike British, French, German, or American parties, in which jealousies, rivalries, misunderstandings, and resignations are unheard of, the Irish can only know two conditions of existence. They must either be the craven slaves of an imperious dictator, or else they become all would-be dictators themselves, unwilling to sink any feeling for a common object. It was not patriotism that kept them together in the past, but the subtle

power of Mr. Parnell, whose absences by the month from Westminster and by the year from Ireland only displayed his genius for submerged direction. Consequently, say the Tories, the Irish party, lacking the saving creeds of all other combinations, is bound to disappear, and Home Rule with it.

Then there is Mr. Gladstone. At eighty-three erect and vigorous, subtler and more eloquent than ever, he is the wonder of Parliament, but can he, forsooth, stay the pace set by Mr. Chamberlain? With him, too, Home Rule would go, and with that the break up of the LiberalIrish alliance. Hence to the Tory faithful Time is of the essence of the game. Killing time is not hard with 315 talkers, and as on a balance of gain and loss the chances are that delay may bring benefit, the Tories would be fools if they did not exhaust every artifice to waste the Session. Dignified people think that by lecturing the public on the iniquity of obstruction and the consequent degradation of the House of Commons, opinion will forsake the Opposition and veer round to the other side. But the masses of the people care little how the battle is fought. They want to see who wins, and will criticise the tactics by the result. So if, as the upshot of the most riotous Parliamentary debauch, the Opposition break down the plans of the Government, the public will hold their tactics perfectly justifiable because they have succeeded. If the rules of the House of Commons permit myriads of amendments to be moved why should they not be moved? If myriads of speeches are permissible, why not make them? Long ago the Irish used to be preached at for "abusing the forms of the House," and told they were destroying a weapon which minorities would afterwards sigh for. But what is the good of a weapon if it is not to be used when you want it, for the sake of enjoying the luxury of wielding it on a hypothetical occasion which may never arise? Accordingly the Irish went on insisting upon their undoubted rights, until the rules were altered, and the Tories, if they are wise, will do the same. A befooled majority is the most laughable spectacle in the world. "Serve them right” is the only possible verdict on their failure.

It is, of course, true that the Liberals have to be more circumspect in "railroading" a bill than the Tories, for there is the House of Lords. But as their lordships, through the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Salisbury, have kindly announced months ago their intention to throw out the Home Rule Bill, the idea that a closure would lend any value to the argument of "giving them an additional excuse" does not appear VOL. IX.-No. 50.

H

very weighty. Nobody cares what plea the Peers pretext for their action. The main thing is that they mean to reject the Bill, and an excuse more or less in their mouths is not a capital matter. Nobody, save the individual peers concerned, will be discredited by the rejection. of the Bill by the Lords. But every supporter of Home Rule in the Commons and the country will suffer discredit from the smothering of the Bill by amendments in the popular Chamber. It is impossible at the present rate of progress that it could be finished by September, and as nine-tenths of the talk is wholly idle, is it not alphabetic that means should be taken for killing off frivolous amendments by a less cumbrous quillotine than the Division Lobby affords? The spectacle of Mr.. Courtney, who presided for so many years with dignity and strength over Committees of the House, moving to confer on the Irish Parliament powers to protect against English imports, while declaring that he was himself a Free Trader and that his amendment was most mischieYous, beats anything in the Parliamentary record of those members whom Le so often "named" and suspended. Had he been in the chair himself when such an amendment, supported by such a speech, was proposed, Mr. Courtney would have risen peremptorily and told the offender that *he could not be allowed to trifle with the Committee." The unblushingness of the performance is best shown by the fact that, the "amendment" having been talked on until the closure had to be moved, Mr. Courtney frankly advertised its character by allowing his proposal to be negatived without a division. When an old and respected exChairman of Ways and Means who is also Privy Councillor of Her Majesty acts in this way, what need be said of the minnows of debate?

So far from condemning all this waste of time, however, every judge of tactics must hold it perfectly warranted. It is at present the business. of the Opposition to waste time. It is equally the business of the majority to prevent waste of time. A majority is a majority; a minority is a minority, and there are, it is understood, considerable limitations of power between one and the other. Scores of members of the present House of Commons never enjoyed the luxury of acting with a majority before, and they are now waiting curiously to learn the difference between the relative advantage of the plus and minus signsin point of strength.

T. M. HEALY.