New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-06

follow the speaker in MS argument" luz 90
not. but as good specimen OF the right way VI
saving things to the House OF commons
,rutb is the two men most unlike each other
90 tho two men who have taken almost Identical
v;ows ON the Soudan business-Lord Randolph
and Mr. John Morley. This single sentence Is
a reminder 10 the House Of all the disasters thac
hoferl Mr.. Gladstone's policy in Egypt ana
earning 70 the present Ministry that they are
o,.ering unon the same road That is wnat
coli a debating manner. and House OF Commons
manner. ,.,.. J..
Still more striking is the passage In when ne
rors off mart of his debt to Lord Salisbury. Inc
question I mentioned above was duesUoh do
70 Lord Salisbury's statement in the Houso Vi
Lords that the retention Of Suahim was OF no
advantage to Egypt. That was private opli-
ion. said Sir James Ferguson. who IS Lord sails
bury's mouthpiece in the Commons. such al
answer" now said Lord Randolph, is nlppah1
20 saw that declaration by the Prime Minister
roado in n debate in the Lords after full
notice is a mere private opinion is preposrerous
nronosition. l should like to know what would
have been the concentrated fury OF honorable
and right honorable gentlemen on this side OF
the House if the member for Mid Lothian had
ever taken ND such an attitude" The hit was
nalnable. but what followed went further home
Nothing has of late brought so much discredlt
on Lord Salisbury as his GAZING nr
Naoroji black man. pro'es''
proceeded Lord Randolph, against inc
idea that Ministerial utterances on ministerial
responsibility are to be treated as private opin-
ions when it is convenient i can quite under
stand that the opinion of the Prime Minister 'ne
other day as to the color of people IN lndla is
a private opinion which does not bind MS col
leagues, and which need not bind them' out Is
truly a private opinion-and perhaps temporary
onnon y The House, Oh rather the Opposition,
received this with shouts of laughter and cheers.
Tory faces grew blacker than Mr. Naorolfs.
It. WAS not mere sally of wit, 1t was an illustra-
ton perfectly germane to the question at issue,
ond that was what made IL so effective.
As he proceeds, the speech becomes closer IN
orcrnent and more and more evidently hostile
IN urpose. / have heard him in the House,
oereciaIlv In earlier days, when his
tone was one of mere banter, and when
sincerity was not the thing that most 1mp pressed
his hearers He has more styles than one TO-
day his style is serious enough to suit tie duieS
vet point after point Is made with ciearn' IS
md rhetorical force to which the dullest cannot
no insensible The voice, though not very
various or deep, Is what the French call carry
ing voice; it penetrates everywhere WITHOUT
apparent effort. At times 1t is slbllant WIN pas
sion at all times the g is meaning In every tone
He leans slightly forward, is sparing OF gesture,
cares little apparently, for mere orator1cal orna-
ment. But the lips open and shut with an I'M
usual degree of muscular energy, and the eyes
have a light in them which burns He watches
the House as closely as the House watches him.
he speaks for half an hour. When he sits down
he is again cheered from the Liberal slde and
again the silence Of those about him is unbroken.
The English, said Montesquieu, want man to
be q man. There is in that phrase hint OF the
source or Of one source, of Lord Randolph's power
He is without party in the House. without any
considerable following, but he is man to be
reckoned with from sheer force of character and
courage even more than from bis extraordinary
abilities 1t is far too soon to sum up career
which perhaps has hardly more than begun.
There is much, If you like, to be said against
him. but what does it availp Here is the one
man among the English Tories who has shown
capacity for leadership in something more than
n marty sense He it was who saw the meaning
of tho new suffrage; who perceived that II the
Tory party had any hope OF future less sterile
than the past it lay in coming TO terms with the
new masters of this country. To struggle against
I'll. new Democracy was hopeless, but to win
over the new Democracy was not hopeless lie
IT was who taught his party how they might
become the popular party. lie showed them The
road. He set up the guide-post. 1t is hardly
too much to say that he gave them power, and
brought them into office with a fair prospect OF
a long tenure of office They he've shown their
gratitude in the way we all know. We'll, the
day will come when the Tory Ministry will again
be in difficulties, and must again appeal to the
country Then If not before, they will bctmnk
themselves Of the discarded colleague who has
the ear of the country. u. ". D.