« ПредишнаНапред »
It appears scarcely too much to this fate befel even one or two say that the results of the winter British subjects who were taken campaign of 1886-87 in Upper prisoners),-such were some of the Burma have fully equalled the main features of the existence of most sanguine expectations of all the rebel Burmese forces. who are most interested in the I say “rebel," because such is pacification of that country. The the term in vogue. But, as a change that has come over its face matter of fact, up to the close during the past few months may of the winter of 1886–87, the reasonably be said to be a sur- annexation of Upper Burma was prise, a pleasing surprise, to those rather nominal than real. The who were eye-witnesses of its dis- brief lull that followed the occuturbed condition during the hot pation of Mandalay and the deand rainy season of 1886, and who position of Theebaw in Novemhave since seen the flame of rebel- ber 1885, followed by the peacelion brought well under control by ful visit of his Excellency the a brief but arduous and energetic Viceroy of India in January and campaign of barely two months' February 1886, was but a temduration. I, of course, except porary delusion. The rebel leaders, from the number of those to who have now become notorious whom this surprise has afforded by their prolonged and successful gratification the rebel leaders them- resistance to British domination, selves and their adherents. What no doubt required time to collect a change has come over the spirit and organise their followers, and of their dream! A few months prepare a plan of operations. The ago all, or almost all, was for them fire of rebellion was but smouldercouleur de rose. To loot mails and ing, and the august visitors from convoys, ambuscade small bodies India had barely shaken off the of troops, shoot down officers and Burmese dust (it really was dust men from almost inaccessible places then, though if the British soldier in scarcely penetrable jungle, to were asked for what Burma is rush on unprotected and weakly most remarkable, he would say garrisoned posts, to shoot sentries emphatically “mud ") from their at night, to fire and pillage villages feet, when it burst forth into a friendly to or under the protection flame, strong, lurid, and menacing. of the British forces, and massacre From February to November 1886 their inhabitants; to quarter them- almost every day was marked by selves and their adherents on any some skirmish or engagement with unprotected village, extorting sup- the rebels. It has been the cusplies, money, arms, and recruits, tom to designate the Burmese the penalty of refusal being death forces who took the field against and destruction of property by fire us when King Theebaw's army or plunder; to make stern ex- was broken up, as dacoits. Such amples of those Burmans whom a term is erroneous. Undoubtedly they deemed traitors to the na- some of the Burmese leaders were tional cause by putting them to dacoits under Theebaw's rule; but the horrible death of crucifixion à in taking up arms against the la Burmese (it is to be feared that British army of annexation they
temptuous disregard of the pro- inconsistencies of Mr Gladstone prieties of debate, and the ill- is indeed a superfluous task; but advised sympathy with obstruc- it is almost inconceivable to an tionists which has been evinced ordinary mind how any man who by the most prominent among his had played the part which fell to lieutenants, appear to have aroused his lot in 1881 could have taken the within Mr Gladstone's bosom no course which he has deemed it right more generous feeling than one of to adopt under very similar cirsatisfaction that his political ad- cumstances in the present session. versaries should have been an- There is hardly a single point upon noyed. Indeed, he absolutely con- which he has not contradicted his descends to accuse the Government own teaching, acted in Opposition of not being careful of the time of in a manner directly antagonistic the House, because they have been to that which he followed in office, unable to perform the impossible and discarded all respect for partask of keeping within the reason- liamentary tradition and preceable limits of fair and orderly dent. Contrast for moment debate the unruly and turbulent that appeal of January 28, 1881, body which recognises him as their with the demand made by Mr leader. It is this practical abdica- Gladstone of the present Governtion of the duties of leader of his ment upon the ist April of this party, when that party requires year of grace 1887, that they restraint, accompanied by a readi- should give more time for debate ness to come forward
their upon the introduction of their spokesman and defender when they Bill for the amendment of the seek still further to delay the busi- criminal law in Ireland. In the ness of Parliament, which cannot first instance, the session had fail to have weakened—and justly lasted from the 6th to the 28th of weakened—Mr Gladstone's posi- January. In the second instance, tion in the country, but which at the session had lasted from the the same time has exercised a most 27th of January to the beginning pernicious influence upon the pro- of April. In the first case, the ceedings of the House of Commons. debate upon the Address had oc
In that debate of the 28th cupied a fortnight, and that on January 1881 of which we have the Protection of Life and Prospoken, Mr Gladstone appealed to perty Bill had lasted three days. his Irish opponents to allow the In the second case, the whole of House to divide, mainly upon the the time from the 27th January ground that, since the meeting of to the first April had been conParliament on the 6th, there had sumed by the debate upon the been, in one form or another, suf- Address, the Rules of Procedure, ficient discussion upon the subject and unusual and desultory discusbefore it. This appeal was refused, sions upon Supplemental Estimand the division was not taken ates, whilst the debates upon the until after a continuous sitting of question whether "urgency" should forty-one hours, which terminated be applied to the Government Bill upon the 2d February. Imme- to amend the Irish criminal law, diately after the division, Mr and whether that Bill should be Gladstone gave notice that the introduced (which practically dealt second reading of his “Coercion” with the same subject), had occuBill would be moved at 12 o'clock pied nine days, and only wanton upon that same day. To expose the obstruction could be served by a
further postponement of the divi- to take a common-sense view of sion. Yet Mr Gladstone pressed occurrences which have transpired for further delay and more debate, before their eyes. They see that and his friends have been hurling the whole time of the House of their denunciations against the Commons has been absolutely Government for having moved the wasted since the meeting of Parsecond reading of their Bill—not, liament—that the Government according to Mr Gladstone's own have not been able to bring forprecedent, at 12 o'clock the very ward their measures, and that day and within two hours of its in- speeches of almost interminable troduction being carried, but after length have been continually made an interval of three days, accom- at times and upon questions which panied by a promise to afford full could lead to no result but delay. time for its discussion.
Seeing this, they will at the same It is absolutely monstrous and time recognise that Mr Gladstone unreasonable to pretend that any has been again and again proundue limit was placed upon the claimed as their leader by the discussion on the motion for leave very men who have been foremost to introduce the Bill. If Mr in this policy of obstruction, and Gladstone and his friends chose they will naturally come to the to debate at great length the de. conclusion that a leader must be mand for urgency made by the more or less responsible for the Government upon their responsi- conduct of his followers. bility, and to employ in their pro- To every impartial mind, and test against granting that demand to every man who cares for the all the arguments which more pro- character and efficiency of the perly belonged to a discussion upon House of Commons, it must certhe measure itself, they have only tainly appear that Mr Gladstone's themselves to blame if the House refusal to exercise his authority and the Government declined to over the unruly obstructionists allow a repetition of the identical who delight to applaud him as tirades which had been already their champion, conclusively proves delivered, and insisted upon allow- that either he fears lest that authoing to the responsible Ministers of rity should be disregarded if atthe Crown, after three nights' de- tempted to be exercised for the bate, that priviledge of laying their legitimate purposes of orderly proBill upon the table which, in the cedure, or that he is unwilling in Upper House of Parliament, is any way to assist the administragranted to any member as a mat- tion of law and order when the ter of right. Of course it will be responsibility for that administradenied that one single unnecessary tion happens to be in the hands of speech has been made, or that the his political opponents. One would Parnellite-Gladstonians have been have imagined that upon such a guilty of obstructive tactics. Above momentous question as that of the all, it will be insisted upon that, protection of the lives and properwhoever else may have been to ties of her Majesty's subjects in blame, the immaculate leader of Ireland, Mr Gladstone, and indeed the " regular Opposition " is above any man who had ever held office the censure, or even the suspicion, under the Crown, would have felt of ordinary men. But the people bound to cast upon the Governof Great Britain are apt to look ment the responsibility of demandmatters straight in the face, and ing urgency, and of producing at once the measure for which that Bill in that year. Upon the 6th urgency had been demanded. This January he told the House of would have been the true constitu- Commons that it was “the duty” tional course; and if the provisions of the Government “to state, in of the measure had afterwards ap- the inost distinct terms, to Parliapeared to be objectionable, no one ment and to the country," " what could have blamed the Opposition is the real state of the case which for resisting them in every legiti- constitutes the justification for mate manner. This, however, has asking for those powers." not been Mr Gladstone's plan. It justification," he went on to say, is all very well for Mr John Mor- . ris, not that we have not sufficient ley to tell the South London Radi- police and military force at our cals that “no leader has ever been command,—not that the stipenmore unjustly charged than Mr diary magistrates are unwilling to Gladstone is now with lending do their duty,—but that whatever himself to obstructive and factious is done by them to give effect to the devices." Will Mr Morly ven- laws for the protection of life and ture to say that no such devices property and to prevent illegai have been attempted, and if so, meetings is frustrated, and that we what are we to think of the leader are totally unable to restore life to who has made no effort to prevent the administration of justice in Irethem, and has gone so far as to ask land through, not the difficulty, for more delay, after nine days' but the impossibility of procuring preliminary debate, upon a ques- evidence." Let any fair man read tion of vital importance ?
these words, and afterwards read Of course this importance is Mr Balfour's speech on introducing denied, and the necessity of any the Bill of the present Government, such measure as that proposed by and ask himself how it is possible Government is treated in the same that the statesman who uttered the way. Just as Mr Sexton told Mr words can now be denouncing the Gladstone in 1881 that there was Bill. Yet so it is: that which in no increase of crime to justify the Mr Gladstone is, we suppose, to be measure which he then introduced, termed a generous and noble inso Mr Gladstone tells us the same spiration, but which in the case of thing in 1887. In the assertion any other living man would be which he makes in a letter pub- called a factious and bitter spirit lished in the Observer' of April of partisanship, prompts him to 10, Mr Gladstone apparently dis- denounce a measure less severe putes the statement of Mr Sexton, than one for which he has himself for he says, “It is the first time been responsible, as “the worst, when coercion has been proposed most insulting, most causeless Cofor Ireland without an attempt by ercion Bill ever submitted to Parthe Ministry to show, what we liament." know they cannot show, a state These are the concluding words of exceptional, flagrant, or grow- of the letter of Mr Gladstone to ing crime." But, whether or no which we have just alluded, and Mr Gladstone was able to show we cannot avoid the remark that “ an increase of crime" in 1881, it the epithets are much more applicis a fact to be borne in mind that able to the letter itself than to the it was not only, nor even mainly, Bill. For, save and except his upon an increase of crime that wicked attempt to separate the he based his so-called “ Coercion” “masses " and the “ classes” (so
well described by Mr Goldwin land has been existing under the Smith as “a deliberate attempt to baneful rule of the National League, set class against class, and to poison and even to make light of a cruel the heart of society for a party outrage upon a girl who had compurpose”), Mr Gladstone has sel- mitted the crime of speaking to a dom written more mischievous and policeman, because, forsooth, some unjustifiable words than those in crimes of a similar character had which he has striven to excite the been perpetrated in the wretched mining population of the North days of 1798, and therefore it and the so working men of London ” could not be charged that this was against the measure of the Gov- a crime newly invented by the preernment. He is right when he sent party of disorder ! Again, he says that there is a “question of deemed it becoming to extenuate shame and dishonour for England ” agrarian outrage, upon the extrain this matter, for dishonour and ordinary plea that it was not shame it would indeed be if the Par- directed towards the abolition of liament of Great Britain should be rent, but only towards the lowerpersuaded to refuse that protection ing of rents unjustly high—as if to the law-abiding inhabitants of the amount of guilt to be attached Ireland which is the real and simple to an action in itself unlawful en. object of the Government Bill. tirely depended upon the result at Well, indeed, did Mr Hobhouse which the perpetrator ultimately write to the East Somerset Liberals aimed by its commission. as to the real difference between But the utmost amount of oratorhis own honest and really Liberal ical artifice or argumentative finesse views and those of the men who will not lead sensible men away are trying to drag the whole Liberal from the plain issues which are party at the heels of Mr Parnell, before the country. It is easy, of and seeking to reunite their broken course, to sneer at the instances of ranks by the cuckoo cry of “co- crimes quoted by Mr Balfour, which ercion.” “They," wrote Mr Hob- have been committed without dehouse, “object to the proposed tection of the criminal, and to call coercion of criminals by the law. them “unauthenticated” because I object to the active coercion of the names were not always given. law-abiding citizens in Ireland by No men know better than those intimidation, boycotting, and moon who sneer, how terrible would be lighting ;” and he goes on to tell the risk of those who had ventured a home-truth which we commend to tell the tale of their sufferings, if to Mr Gladstone's notice— " The their names were publicly announced present struggle is not between to the agents of that foul and lawLiberals and Conservatives, but less tyranny under which the loyal between those who desire to make part of the Irish population are the Queen's Government possible now so truly coerced Here, again, in Ireland, and those who wish to the people of Great Britain will render it impossible.” This, in- not be deceived, for they well know deed, is the issue which cannot be that a Minister of the Crown would evaded, and to which Mr Glad- never propose legislation to the stone will not succeed in blinding British Parliament, unless supthe people of Great Britain. Dur- ported by facts which he had taken ing the earlier stages of the debate care to verify beyond doubt-alit suited his purpose to minimise though, for such good reason as the melancholy state in which Ire- that to which we have alluded, he