New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-27
lBY cABLg TO THE TRIBUNE J
tcOpvysglt. is9.: By The Tribune A"Oeiasion.j

DELLA-MR. YATES.
lBY CABLE TO THE TRIBUNE
tcopvyight: is9.: Bv The rribuae AnOciasionj
London, May 2S.-The old game has been plsyeo
once more in France. and the Casimir-Per'eF
Ministry has gone TO join It's thrty-one preoe-
cessors who have lived and died since the es-
tabIishment OF the Republic. Once more 1t is
coalition between the Extreme Right and tho
Extreme Left which has brought about tho
catastrophe. The crisis was one OF those against
which no preparation could be made. because
Il occurred suddenly The issue was, as 80
often ne "opens a trivial one question whether
the men employed on State railways should be
allowed 70 attend n meeting Of the Railway
Worlxmen's Federation. II NJ. Jonnart, Minister
of Public Works 10 whom the question was put,
had been content 10 answer Yes or No, there
would have been no crisis. But In answering
No he launched forth into d lecture on the rea~
tions between the State and its servants souho
enough In doctrine rather aggressive IN tohT'
and very inopportune. The Radicals and social
ists at first angry, saw their cnance' Ihey
turned the question into an Interpolation Inc
Socialist leader NJ. Milleraud. rushed 10 the
tribune and attacked the Ministry as the enemy
OF the democracy NJ. Jourde and NJ Jaures.
two other Socialist frebrands, joined In. Votes
of censure were proposed The unucky NJ JON
mart confident as others were, in A Ministerial
majority, piled his opponents with fresh sar-
casms and taunts. A Radical, VI. Ouvre, VINO
sometimes votes with the Ministry. sprang up
20 denounce them. and 10 repeat private con-
versation with NJ. Jonnart The Right tnen
took a hand and sent NJ De Ramel into the
tribune to reinforce the Socialists. 1t was q
danger signal but the train could not be
day. asked for by the Prime Minister. was re-
1ected by thirty-four majority. Instantly the
Ministers quilted the Chamber, and resolution
Of censure, or want Of confidence. which comes
to the same thing was adopted by eighteen ma
jority. 1t is fair 10 say that half the Right
voted with the Ministers. The great bulk OF the
majority was Radical and Socialist. 1t consist
ed in other words, of the worst enemies OF the
Republic.
Lord Rosebery's visit TO Birmingham and his
various speeches IN Mr.. Chamberlains domtn-
ions present him in new attitude. Hitherto
he has held the balance fairly even between the
different sections Of his party. and has shown
desire to keep his hold upon that moderate
body which both inside and beyond the party
looked to him with hope. He would prefer, no
doubt, still to retain all the support he could
cumstances force him to choose. The Labor
party has not responded his appeal not
responded In a way which has much immediate
practical value to a hard-pressed Minister Tho
Parliamentary situation was critical The Bud
get coming on the Welsh four still mutinous
the Parnellites hostile, various cliques and per-
sons. whose interests principles are affected
by the Budget. wavering. 1t became necessary
TO take definite line, and Lord Rosebery took
the Irish line. There no compact body in
the House of Commons 70 whom he could ap-l
peal except that wing of the Irish Nationalists
nominally led by Mr. Mccarthy They were sup
posed 10 be friendly. but lacking in zeal. AZ
Lord Rosebery said OF himself last August with
reference 10 Home Rule he was witness but
not an enthusiastic witness. So Of the Irish
Enthusiasm was needed on both sides. Lord
Rosebery has supplied at Birmingham what was
deficient in his House of Lords speech and the
McCarthyites not to be outdone in good will.
respond by trooping over from Ireland in an un-
broken phalanx and crowdlng the Ministerialist
lobby In every division on the Budget.
Lord Rosebery now thinks 1t Insult to
ask him. as Mr.. Chamberlain did. whether he u
for Home Rule, and whether ne is for Mr. Glad
stones Home Rule bill OF last year Some OF his
own friends think that the very fervor Of his in
digna ton betrays a consciousness that his posi-
ton has been doubtful. or, II not his position,
his private feelings. Nothing. they say. is more
common than for Minister 10 oppose meas
ure in the Cabinet. and when he is beaten in
the Cabinet defend in Parliament what he
attacked In council with his colleagues. Not
otherwise can government by Cabinet be carried
There elsewhere the majority must rule
unless strong will rules Whatever dissen-
sions may exist in private among Ministers, they
must in public present united front TO the
enemy That view would relieve Lord Rosebery
from censure But he needs no relief. He is not
supposed TO have resisted Home Rule. Luke
varnness was his offence. He is lukewarm no
longer on the general principle He upholds the
principle with frmness. perhaps with something
OF the ardor Of the new convert. He reserves
his lukewarmness for Mr.. Gladstone's bill. He
does not think that any other bill perfect. He
treats 1t as a meritorious effort to carry out Q
Home Rule policy and promises to make an
other attempt to settle this question:; and hs
closes his series OF speeches in Birmingham.
four or five altogethe with testimony to the
closeness OF the union between the Liberal party
and the Irish party. and a profession OF graft
tude. plainly sincere. for the support OF the
Irish. In spite Of opposition in Ireland from .
powerful interest. "and in spite of their honest
and honorable poverty"
The moderate and rational view still prevails
in Lord Rosebery's mind respecting the House Of
Lords. II look 10 the Leeds conference" said
he for guidance and Inspiration and he added
the interesting information that the calling OF
the Leeds conference was spontaneous" Spon-
taneous suppose. with Mr.. Schnadhorst whose
name is appended to the summons. II Is still
more interesting to hear that Lord Rosebery
has never met with one human being who
could explain TO him the machinery. the consti-
tutional machinery. by which the House of
Lords could be ended Therefore he Is
mender. and not ender. He told the too-zeal.
Gus enders plainly that the House OF Lords can
be abolished only by bill duly passed by both