New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-07-06
Mr.. BRIGHT.
THE TORY ATTACK ON HIM AND ON NIX.
CHAMBERLAIN.

t1"oA 'N NV LONDON, juno 20.
II ia not easy to see what Sir Stafford Nortnco'e
hopsd to gain BY bringing Mr.. Bnghts speech a.
birmingham before the House as question OF
swryilege. Mr.. Bright said last Thursday AT inc
dinner in the Town Hall that the conservatives
not few of them, are found in alliance with an
Irisb rebel party obstructng the business OF legsa
tion. No doubt that is damaging charge ana IL
ia natural that Conservative leader should be
anxious to refute it, and should be angry with MI
Bright for having made it. Bat leader VINO taxes
r,onnseI of passion is apt to land himself ana MS
marty in a difficulty and that Is what Sir STAFFORD
Northcote has done. The thing important 10 MN
was TO persuade the country that the account given
by Mr.. Bright was not true but If he had carriea
his motion ON Monday he would not have been
ss.,v nearer this desirable conclusion de wouid
merely have induced the House OF Commons 10 us,s
clare that the accusation constituted preach Vi
privilege The country does not much care wne'hei
il was or not If Mr.. Brghrs words had s'ooo oi
themselves, people would have formed tneir owl
conclusions as to their accuracy. But they wouid
soon have been forgotten by the majority OF the puD
lie. whereas now they have been kept before every
body's mind. have been the subject OF newspaper
parasraphs announcing the proposed motion 10 the
House have been debated In Parliament ana taikeo
oxer bv everybody out of it, till the sembiance Oh
them ba. become familiar, and the memory oil tnem
is likely TO be permanent.
That is what Sir Stafford has managed to ae-
complish He has also, no doubt. put on recoro us
denial of the existence of any such alliance as MI.
Bright imputed to thee Conservatives winch thoseMhi
accept who disbelieved Mr.. Bright withoutn- ihS
Conservative leader lie honest in bis DENIAL put 'nep
what be denied ia an alliance in the sense OF COM
pact and that is not what Mr.. Bright meant to
Il " 10 r..af Ia m
the House are reported daily. though imperfectiy.
The country is TO some considerable extent IN po-
alton TO form its own judgment on the matter ana
its Judgment will no. be much affected by anything
that can be said 1t is what has been done ana con-
tin,,es TO be done in the House that signifies Inc
leading instance selected by Mr.. Bright In confrma-
ton of his statement not perhaps the pest ioi
his purpose 1t is true that the Affirmation Dill was
resisted by " combination of Tory opstructives
and Irish rebels But it was also resisted by many
men who do not fall under either OF those categoros
1t is true also that the question nuisance Is que
chiefly to the men at whom Mr.. Bright In the hrs'
instance pointed. But the guilt OF obstruction
rests on many men whose responsibility In these
two instances is not particularly conspicuous
More than that Obstruction consists in the daily
hindrauce of the business of the House by futile
talk of the most persistent kind. by divisions Oh
points which offer no fair occasion for aformal vote
and by starting ubiccts Of debatecr conversation
really of the most idle kind. or by magnifying tpose
really insignificant This obstruction is carried on
by the Fourth Party by the Irish rebel party IN In
innate conjunction with Them and by very con-
siderable section of the Tory party proper without
whose aid it would be difficult for the others 10 pro-
tract their proceedings IN the race Oh al
overwhelming majority and the rulings OF the
Speaker Now this latter contingent acknowledges
n%o IIah IN "a
has little or no share in their peculiar tactics, but
he is responsible for them because he does not exert
his authority to prevent them So much th'hk
AIR. Bright might fairly have stated in the House.
II he had stated i, he woull have had the support
of the whole Liberal party and the taclt assent Vi
many Conservatives Who really disapprove OF oo-
struction.
On the point of alliance Mr.. Bright was thought
10 have refined little. but. il his words are con-
ridered they strengthen rather than weaken DIS
case He had no idea, he said. that there was
formal arrangement between the Tories and the
Irish. But they had a common object, to worry tine
+. Ministry and destroy the Government ana tns
state If things led naturally TO combined action III
debate and DIVISION. Precisely. When Loru-hah
dolph Churchill wants to waste al hour OF TWO anu
moves the adjournment In oriof TO prhg Oh uo
haze and forty members are asked by the Speaker
mort him. When MIR. ParnslPs turn comes. Lord
Randolph and his friends repay the favor III KIND.
Al times as in The Sneiinan case. Sir Stafford him.
aeif moves the adjournment / am disposed 10
think Suleiman. hanged though he had been. was
a proper subject for debate, but 1t was none Inc
less noticeable that Lord Randolph proiited by the
sion for " hsh he was indebted TO bis nominal
leader And so 1t goes Sometimes under one
nretext sometimes under another. sometimes
plausibly and more often impudently. the men In
dictated by Mr.. Bright systematically sduahoer
the time of the House. and delay legislation ana
hiring the House into contempt with the public.
In the end Sir Stafford Northcote's motion was re-
iected in small Houss by 81 majority. If 1t had
passed he would then have had to found some other
motion on 1t; perhaps one of censure upon Mr.
BRIGHT Imagine the spectacle Imagine Mr. war
ION and Mr. Aslnead Bartlett and Lord Randolph
Churchill aud Mcssrs. Parnell, MCCARTHY oDon'
nell and Bggar soemnly voting to reprove MT
bright for language spoken to his constituents 10
the discharge his duty TO them, true IN itself ana
right to be uttered. Imagine the reception the
country would have given 10 performance OF that
krnd. Imagine what Sir Stafford himself would
have thought of it, and judge whether he is moi
clad In be ont of the business altogether.
M, BRIGHT not for the first time has done public
service by the plainness of his speech about the
Irish and description of the Parnslllte faction
as an Irish rebel party. The Attorney-General once
referred to the same band stepped to the lips II
treason Bat no man of anything like Mr. Brighfs
authority has ever before said in public quite a.
much as he now has. The description is of course
serfectly true one. Mr. Bright offered to withdrt
At. and make the most complete apology that cou's
BE- nut into words. if the Irish would but declare
shat they were loyal to the Crow it they VII
say that the opinions and the feeling of tho assocla
ton in America are not theirs or If they will dis
sociate themselves from these associations" Bu
Of course they would not. Dsloyalty is thei
stock In trade. Mr.. Parneli is their leader