Omaha daily bee., 1883-08-04

lack of confidence in the ministry and
was so taken by Mr.. Gladstone, who,
prior to the putting of the vste rose and
explained that if the motion carried the
government would Immediately resign.
The motion was rejected by a vote of
210 to 30. On Monday the important
question of the Suez canal came to an
issue. The problem which had been
troubling England since the first of July
was simply whether England was pre-
pared to admit the right OF
the De Lesseps company to a
monopoly of the waterway
across the Isthmus of Suez. Mr.. Glad
stone on the 18th of July stated as fol-
lows the view of the government:
In the Governments view Mr.. De Les
seps is in possession of that exclusive
right, 80 they are advised by their legal
advisers, and the Egyptian Government
was similarly advised some time ago. On
that supposition, too. all the money, was
subscribed for making the present canal,
ilu ol Jllhb buDDOblllOll DuDllC OIllllDll
has proceeded down to the present time,
and unquestionably, on that supposition
the whole of the arrangements made pre-
viously with NJ. De Lesseps were abso-
lutely founded.
Asting upon this basis, with the GER
tainty that any other would surely pre-
cipitate a war between England and
France, the premier concluded his pro-
v%isional arrangement with De Lesseps,
to loan the Government credit to the ex-
tent of $40, 900, 900 for the con-
struction of parallel canal.
Public indignation ran high and
Mr.. Gladstone was forced two weeks age
to bend before the storm by asking a re-
lease from his agreement. The tories,
however, under the stupid leadership of
Northcote were not content to let the
matter rest at that point. A resolution
was prepared for introduction in parlia-
ment, declaring NJ. de Lesseps claim to
a monopoly of the right of waterway be-
tween the Red and Mediterranean seas
untenable and incompatible with British
interests and therefore not to be
respected. On Monday night the
resolution was rejected and an
amendment declaring it undesirable to
prelude the action of the government,
was passed by a majority of 90 votes.
Mr.. Gladstone's victory was complete
and satisfactory, and will strengthen ma
terially the hands of the government. 1t
is difficult to see how the sober sense of
parliament could have acted otherwise
than it did. Sir Stafford Northcote's
resolution meant war with France. Its
adoption would have necessitatcd the
resignation of the Gladstone ministry
and the succession of the tories. The
latter, to be consistent with themselves
in order to carry out the policy OF which
they won, would be obliged to take
measures to promote the emitting of a Sec
ond canal through the isthmus without
De Lesseps' assistance. The F%renchman
would resist, and would be backed by
his government. The other European
powers that have guaranteed the neutral
ity of the canal would not be disinterested
spectators. A majority for the resolution
would therefore be peculiarly embarrass-
ing for the tories themselves, and the
sensible ones preferred submitting to a
crushing and overwhelming defeat.
But the Norwood amendment was at
least by implication a vote of confidence
IN the ministry. 1t indicates that p%arlia-
ment, however much it may have disa-
greed in detail, with the premiers policy,
is not yet ready to hand over the gov
eminent to the lingo majority. On this
account it is the first satisfactory result
of an unsatisfactory session.