The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1901-08-31
ENGLANDs, SAD PLIGHT.

| ANVAnNOS SAV ELouIs
A careful student of the industrial
and political conditions in England has
contributed an article to the Fort
nightly Review Of August, which has
attracted more than ordinary atten.
ton among British statesmen. This
writer deals with the position of Eng
land at home and abroad, and he does
not mince matters when exposing the
weak spots or suggesting the remedial
measures that should be taken to re-
store or recover national prestige. Eng
land, he declares, has reached the lin
it Of empire, and in future it will not
be so much a question Of adding to
the imperial territory as of safeguard
ing what has already been acquired.
The nation, he AYERS, is now called
upon to fight for its very existence as
a leader in trade and manufacturing.
He makes no specific declarations re-
speeding the baleful effects of the Boer
war upon the industries and the finan-
ces OF the country, but there is an
undertone of admission that this dis
astrous military enterprise has marked
the decline Of British greatness and
prestige among the nations.
The chief cause Of the present de-
pressed condition he attributes oddly
enough to the inefficiency of the Lib
eral party. Ii the Liberals had been
united and had had a definite policy
with the courage to fight for it, he
contends that the Tory government
could have been overthrown and the
nation saved. This is queer con-
clusion to draw from the facts and
circumstances of the political situa-
ton, says the Boston Republic Eng
land went mad over the Boer war,
and the people would not tolerate
either opposition to it or criticism of its
conduct. Whoever raised an objection
on either score, whether in parliament
or on the platform, was promptly de-
nOunced as a traitor to his country
Liberal electors broke away from their
party affiliations on the question and
supported the Chamberlain policy of
glittcring Imperialism. The govern
ment carried the country upon the war
issue by $50 majority. To hold the
Liberal leaders responsible, therefore,
is simply absurd. No opposition party
could succeed while the policy of inn
perialism was rampant.
The writer in the Fortnightly sug-
gests Il remedy which is as foolish as
his criticism of the Liberal leaders.
He thinks that n coalition between the
forces that follow Lord Rosebery and
those that follow Chamberlain could
be effected with profit both to the
country and the Liberal party. We
cannot see the possibility Of n change
in policy under such a combination of
forces. Chamberlain is rampant
Tory and Rosebery is a rank imperial
list. 1t would make little difference
whether these men worked together as
the heads of new party combination
or with Lord Salisbury and Arthur
Balfour as they have been doing. The
Liberal masses would not follow them.
The Irish contingent would be in op-
position to every measure they brought
forward for the reason that both de-
serted and abandoned the Liberal pol
icy Of home rule.
1t is quite true. as this critic OBJ
serves, that the Liberal party lacks
competent leadership. Bannerman and
Harcourt and Asquith and Morley and
Ttosebery are ut odds, but surely the
suggested coalition of the Chamber
lain and Rosebery forces would not
produce harmony. England's craze for
empire has led her into her present
pitiable plight, and she cannot extri-
cate herself except by returning to
private life the very men whom the
writer in the Fortnightly would ele-
vate to supreme power.