New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-07

STRIKE - COPYRIGHT - DR.
FoRDYcE BARKER.
raY CABLE TO THE TsIBUSEI
Copyright; 1891. BY The Tribune Association
London. June 6-The BehrinG Sea discussion
m the House Of Commons on Monday was amlaDle
throughout let us have peace" cry the British OF
both parties and peace there is to be. The bill which
the Government have introduced is the browning
and complete justification of the American policy
| do not saw of Mr.. Blaine's policy. hecause MI
Blaine has BEEN during the greater part OF these
negotiations the exponent and Interpreter oil ohe
settled nolicy of the country and of the ideas TO
which the name American truly belongs Inc
wisdom of his proposals touching arbltrauon Is
now clearly seen. The English themselves see
H. and have assented TO his views. and this Dill is
20 carry them out What the bill does is TO es-
tablish the modus vivendi while arbitration pro-
ceeds; leaving to the arbitrators to dispose IN
their own way of the main questions at issue be-
tween the two countres-or three. if Canada is to
count. Meantime there is to he no sealing north
of the Aleutan Islands. Russia has been invited
IN ioin in the close time agreement and Germany
may be.
The Leader of the House asked the House to
accept the bill as a friendly act toward friendly
Power. The House did so. Sir William Har
ooprt one of the most bellgerent leaders OF
Opuosition ever known. eulogized it as wise
md prudent settlement of very difficult ques-
,ion. Mr. Chamberlain though still mindful Oh
his own failure to adjust the Fishery question:
less difficult than this, approved trifie more
coldlv. Mr. Bryce approved, though Mr. Bryce is
disturbed by legal objections which he mantully
suppresses in his sensible and very English pleas
ure at the compromise. So the bill was read a
second time unanimously, amid general applause.
The press approves. If there be an exception,
IL is that Gladstonian organ which seems unable
TO approve heartily any measure which tends to
a good understanding between England and the
United States 1t serves as fresh opportunity
to misrepresent and revile Mr. Blaine, who is,
according TO The Daily News" " a very skilful
aiplomatist but mere child compared to"--whom
think you p" to Mr.. Hamilton Fish, with whom
the late Lord Granville not unsuccessfully con-
tended Yet there people who say that The
Daily News" is not comic paper.
Much has been said in the House of Commons
and elsewhere about Sir John Macdonald. There
is a general feeling among English of all par
ties that his death-now hourly eXpected-may
prove a disaster for Canada. and disaster from
the English point of view They recognize, at
any rate his great services The leaders Of both
parties have spoken of him in a tone never used
here except about man whose importance Is
felt 10 he imperial He is regarded as the creator
of the Dominion of Canada and the man who
has done more than all others to keep that great
colony loyal to the Crown. BE the merits or de-
merits of his domestic policy what they may, Eng
lish gratitude TO him is profound and the Queens
messages of inquiry and regret express, as they
so often do, the sentiments of her people.
The peace of Europe seems now to be In charge
of that eminent dpomatist Mr. Henry Labouchere.
He is opposed 10 the Triple Alliance, opposed StlIl
more TO England having anything to do with IL,
anxious about Lord Salisburys engagements with
Italy, has asked questions in the House OF Com
mons, is not satisfied with Sir James Ferguson S
categorical denial that any such engagements exist,
and threatens TO raise debate on the question
later A Boulangist Deputy has written him
letter on this matter, embodying testimony from
the late Prince Napoleon. whose statements were
not received with implicit confidence while he was
living, and do not gain strength when coming In
the form of hearsay from NJ Millevoye 1t is an
Interesting trio-A1r Labouchere, General Boulanger
and Prince NapOleon-and the whole, the
destinies Of Europe do not yet depend on them.
There is no secret treaty between England and
Italy that pledges England to defend the Italian
coasts should France attack them. There could
be such treaty. No English Minister could
bind himself, still less his successors, in that
way. 1neIc Is no euSdScIhcHN. lhCiC ID PAO"
ably an understanding based community of
interests That, as Lord Salisbury is reported
10 have said is the only basis which any treaty
can safely rest, and it makes a treaty needless
Certainly England would not look on idly if
France should once more undertake to turn the
Mediterranean into French lake.
AS for the Triple Alliance-that too rests on
community of interests, and the Marquis di Ru-
dini who is credited with wish TO end it. is
about 10 renew Italy's adhesion TO it. There
could be no stronger proof Of the wisdom OF the
policy on which the peace of Europe does, indeed.
depend.
The Queen has suddenly become the topic of
political controversy, and in the oddest way.
The life of the late Archbishop of Canterbury is
hardly book which one would expect TO give
rise 10 a debate a point of constitutional law
affecting the Sovereign herself; but it does. His
bographers have had the Queens permission to
publish her letters 10 Dr. TAFT on the Irish Church
question in 1869. They present Her Majesty in
the act Of direct intervention in political
versy which divided the two great parties in the
State and reused the bitterest ecclesiastical pas
sions. Her sympathies were with the Irish
Church. She was opposed 10 the bill for discs
tablishng it which her own Minister brought
In and carried. She calls in the Archbishop
As an intermediary. She asks him To
zee, first Mr.. Gladstone, then the peers.
Her objects were two. She wanted Mr. Gladstone
to make his bill moderate, give the Irish Church
good terms That secured, she wanted TO prevent a
collision between the Commons and the Lords who
were disposed to reject the bill which the Queen
saw must ultimately pass-as Lord Brougham
said of still greater bill-through or over
the House of Lords Her aims were wise, her
views of policy sound; but the question these
letters raise is whether the she took In order
TO give effect 10 them were in truth constitutional
and whether she did not OveIstep certain we'll
defined limits within which the personal influence
Of the Sovereign is now supposed to be confined
There is no wish except perhaps among the wilder
sort Of Radicals, to discuss such questions IN
spirit OF hostility 10 the Queen. People are in
1act-and the better part of the press still more