The sun., 1896-10-10
Exit Rosebery.

Exit Rosebery.
The reason given by Lord RosEBERT for
resigning the leadership Of the Liberals, is
that he finds himself in disagreement with
a considerable portion of the party. includ-
ing conspicuously Mr.. GLADSTONE. on the
Eastern question. This is evidently pre-
text, for in an interview published In the
London Daily Natl he is reported to have
said that 1.-The situation has been untenable
for some time" Another incorrect state
ment Of fact is made in the ex- Premier's s let
ter to the principal Liberal whip. ~ beg to
notify you," he says, THAT the post of
leader is now vacant" This is mistake
the post of leader of the Liberal party is
filled, and has been filled for the last
two years in all but name by Sir
WILLIAM HARCoURT. 1t was his budget
which extorted the admiration of his OPP
ponents, and which saved his colleagues
from derision during the last year of their
tenure of power; and it was his mastery
management OF weak minority which
brought to naught the plans of the over
whelming Unionist majority in the last ses-
sion Of Parliament. 1t was, in truth, a
double injury which Mr. GLADSTONE in
ficted on his party by his withdrawal from
public life. Had he remained at it's head,
no one believes that the Liberals in 1895
would have suffered such a crushing blow;
and il, instead of favoring Lord RosEBERY
for the place left vacant, he had insisted
that his chief lieutenant in the Commons
should succeed him, some fatal blunders
would have been avoided, and the Liberals
would have been in n far better position for
an appeal to the constituencies.
Scarcely had Lord ROSEBERY assumed the
function of leadership which Mr.. GLAD
STONE had renounced. than he betrayed his
political incompetence by declaring that the
advocates of home rule for Ireland could
never hope to attain their end until they
had gained the support of majority of the
voters in England proper. This extraordi-
nary asse tion he based on the ground that
England is 1.-The predominant partner" in
the United Kingdom. That was an opinion
which even the most fanatical and arrogant
of Unionists had not ventured to avow.
England, it is true, by virtue Of her greater
wealth and population, is predominant in
fact but she is not predominant in law.
The foundation of the Unionst position is
the theory that by the two acts OF union
the three kingdoms were so thoroughly and
irrevocably fused that politically they
constitute single State, every voter
in which is the equal OF every
other. Starting from this premise, it is
impossible for a logical Unionist to 20 be-
hind the returns at general election, and
inquire whether more moral weight should
attach to the wishes Of particular sec
tion than to those of another. Lord SAILS
BURY, IL consistent. must repudiate with
vehemence the notion that Parliament
ought to obey, not the will expressed at the
collectively, but only the will of the forty
odd counties grouped together In what used
to form the kingdom of England. BY put
ting forward this preposterous assumption,
Lord RosEBERY practically cast doubt on
the validity of the warrant by which he
himself held Office, for the majority OF
forty seats secured by Mr.. GLADSTONE
in 1892 was principally due to the sue
cess OF the Liberals in the former Kingdoms
of Scotland and Ireland and in the prnci-
pality OF Wales. That he failed to see this
proved Lord RosEBERY to be blind, not only
TO the fundamental principle of the present
British Constitution, but also to the vital
condition of the coalition between the
Liberals and the Irish Nationalists. When
he talked about predominant partner"
and the need of obtaining the assent of
England proper to legislation, he virtually
postponed the consummation of Nationalist
hopes to the Greek kalends. He also cast a
grave imputation on the wisdom of his ven
cradle predecessor; for what had Mr.. GLAD
STONE been fighting for so strenuously since
1885, If only majority OF England proper,
and not n majority of the whole United
Kingdom, would serve his turnP
Stultifying also was the selection by the
Liberals of peer for Premier at the very
time when, assembled in convention, they
had formally and definitely proclaimed their
disapproval OF the obstruction offered by
the House of Lords to the will of the House
of Commons, and their determination To
abolish the former body or reduce il TO a
nonentity, To choose peer for their leader
in such a campaign was obviously to expose
their sincerity to suspicion. 1t is true that
in the times of the commonwealth some Eng
lish peers were capable OF applauding n self
denying ordinance. but Lord RosEBERY
has not exhibited any relish for such re-
nunciation. While his Radical followers
were clamoring to be led against the foe