New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-25
PRICE FIVE CENTS.
THE NEWS IN LONDON.
LORD ROSEBERY'S POLICY.
NO MATERIAL CHANGE AT PRESENT
FROM THAT OF HIS PREDECESSOR
THE PRIME MINISTER'S MEMORABLE WORDS Al
ST. JAMEss HALI~-AN APPEAL TO THE PE0-
PIE WHICH BETOKENs A NEW ERA IN
POLITICS AND IN THE HISTORY
OF THE KINGDOM.
10y CABLE TO TIE TR!DCSE.l

10y CABLE TR!DryE
Copyright iSa.: By The Tribune A",ias0nJ
London March 24-It is now possible to form
some notion Of the aim and policy OF the new .
Government. and Of the extent to which 1t differs
from Mr. Gladstone's. Lord Rosebery has sup
plemented both his Foreign Office speech to the
Liberal Members Of the House Of Commons and
his speech the same afternoon in the House or
Lords He has spoken at Edinburgh and has
spoken in London. He has stated his views with
frankness The frankness is so marked that Mr..
Chamberlain, who followed him in Edinburgh
calls it cynical; but Mr.. Chamberlains adjectives
are apt to be highly spced.
The first thing whici: comes out clearly Is Lord
Rosebery's loyalty to his late leader, from whom
he took over his present inheritance. Mr.. Cham
berlan describes 1t a heritage OF woe. This Is
a world In which veal and woe are commonly
mixed. The true question is. Which predomi-
mates. Lord Rosebery is at any rate too much
man of the world not to accept the conditions
in which he finds himself To inquire what he,
might have done If he had entirely free handf
is to venture into the region of speculative poll
tics He inherited Cabinet, Parliament and
q policy He has rearranged his Cabinet In part,
as his accession to the Premiership compelled
him TO do: but II remains the same Cabinet
minus Mr. Gladstone and plus Lord Tweed
mouth None of the changes in Office imply q
change in measures
Mr. Gladstones majority in Parliament or
ra her in the House of Commons. was but 3d.
new Prime Minister with so narrow surplus
as that must choose between two methods. He
must preserve 1t intact, or ne must dissolve
As he was not ready to dissolve, he had to ap-
ply himself 10 keep together the rather distracted
and divergent sections OF his party in the House
which he cannot himself lead. His speeches, !
and especially his explanation of his speech IN
the House Of Lords, have to be read In the light
Of that necessity. There Is nothing in any one
OF them to indicate the least intention Of DEPART
ing from the policy which is the policy Of the
party There is, If anything, too marked defer
ence to the party and to certain sections of It
whose loyalty may be thought to depend on cir
cumstances. Making allowance for the stress OF
circumstances, we can discern the policy Of the
present Ministry pretty clearly. II there be any
change it is a change not in principles but in
methods not in doctrine but in spirit, not in
measures but, perhaps, in the order OF tneir
precedence.
First Of all Home Rule Is hung up Indefinitely.
Rut as Mr. Gladstone had already hung II up
indefinitely there is no novelty in that. Ihere
arose. nevertheless, the difficulty when created
Jme excitement last week among 'he ITS"
ationalists: The declaration by Lord Rose
berry in the House Of Lords that Home RUE
could not pass till England as the predominant
mariner Of the three Kingdoms, should De con-
vinced OF its justice. With the Edinburgh gloss
on that declaration you are already laiiii'ar'
II was made last Saturday evening Loro i'ose-
herv stands bv his words but he puts an inter-
nretation on them different from that OF those
who heard them or read them different from
friav Ic al Ike
70 do that He is entitled to say what ne
meant if his words did not express wnat ne
meant.
THO ,ttemnt 10 reconcile the two is perhaps
academic Mr. Balfour described it as an at
,ep,n, to explain the unexplanable. Mr.. Goschen
said with point that though Lord Roseoefy was
entitled TO explain his own words, he was not
entitled TO explain away Lord Salisburys, with
which he declared himself in entire accord MT.
Chamberlain alleges that even the new state
ment leaves the Prime Minister conditional
Home Ruler and that as in 1893. the Engnsh
majority had not been reduced To 40, and the
whole majority in the House OF Commons Tor
Home Rule was not even the half or lOo, Loro
Rosebery ought not to have voted for the Dill,
and cannot condemn the Lords for rejecting H.
A logical or scientific explanation is one thing,
an exclamation adjusted to the exigenc!es Of
practical
berv now SAYS is that the process Of bringing
conviction 10 the heart OF England ought to
proceed until the English majority against Home
Rule is reduced from 70, where 1t now stands, to
%. or 49, That would leave, or might leave.
ioin. majority Of 100. and majority Of 100 is one
70 which he thinks the House of Lords ought to
bow and would bow.
With this modification Of his former statement,
tho Irish Nationalists profess themselves con-
tent Mr. Dillon is content and Mr.. Healy Is
content and as they are the leaders OF the two
wings of the party over which Mr.. Mccarthy
pres.des their bcnediction ought to be sufficient
Mr. Redmond apparently is not content, and MS
discomfort undoubtedly constitutes a danger.
and the greater danger since Mr.. Redmonds s 'n-
fuence in Ireland is said to be increasing. He
has nine votes in the House OF Commons. Mr..
Labouchere, who has now gone openly into OPP
position, seems able TO muster eight more on an
emergency. Whether he could muster them for
the avowed purpose of turning out the Ministry
is doubtful Ii he could and il he formed q
union for that purpose with Mr.. Redmond, the
Ministerial majority would be reduced to one or
TWO and a dissolution Would be inevitable. Yet
If anything is certain, IL is that the Ministry
do not mean or expect to dissolve this summer.
They must, therefore, have some reason for be-
lieving that the threatened heunond-Lapou-.
chere cabal will prove innocuous. Nothing, at
any rate, could be clearer than Lord Rosebery's
profession OF unquestioning faith in the value
and in the permanence Of the alliance between
the Irish and Liberal parties.
The question Of the House Of Lords was dealt
with in a way which seems to have satisfied the
Radicals, who want to abolish 1t. Yet abolition.
like Home Rule. is indefinitely postponed. The
existence OF the Upper Chamber in its present
form Is, in Lord Rosebery's opinion. a great
danger TO the State, but it may be inferred that
he believes 1t still possible to mend rather than
to end the House. He is, at any rate, for SEQ
ond Chamber of some kind, very strongly for It.
and he leaves the whole subject for the serious
consideration of the whole Liberal party. He