Waterbury Democrat., 1902-03-13
MINISTER'S IRE RESPONSIBLE
Must Take Blame of Abandon ing Kings Trip to Ireland.

Conservative and Unionist Papers Say
 Abandonment of Trip is a Slap at
 England's Government in Ireland
 London Times's Comment at To
 What Redmond Would Do Were He
 in The House When Irish Members
 Cheered.
 London, Mar 13-The official an nouncement yesterday of the abandon ment of the proposed visit of King Ed ward and Queen Alexandra to Ireland, whereby the ministers assume the responsibility for an imperial boycott, is quite unexpected in form and causes keen discussion, the general tone of which is distinctly adverse to tic ac- tion of the cabinet, which is interpreted as displaying petty spite and spleen. The suggestion sought to be conveyed, both by the announcement itself and the comment of the ministerial organs that the decision arrived at was direct ly due to the outburst of some of the Irish members in the house of commons when the news of the disaster to Gen eral Methuen's column, as it was offi- cially communicated to that house Is obviously false, as it was announced weeks ago that the visit would be post poned. There seems good reason to be- lieye that their majeSties themselves all along desired to carry out the cor onation visit, and though they have de ferred it. on the advice of the ministers, they have no intention of relieving the latter from the onuS of what is gen. erally regarded as a tactless move.
 The Irish papers keenly discuss the matter 'The ministers have put veto on the intended visit of the SOW erign to portion of his dominions. It would be difficult for his majesty to reject the veto of his constitutional ad- visers: but, it is plain that he insisted that the responsibility should be theirs and not his. His ministers could not venture to allow the king to see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears of the barbarous methods of the castle and the deep resentment of his people. His presence here would have been q sore encumbrance to the coer- cionists. There was imminent danger that his visit might have converted him to home rule or confirmed his ex- iSting conviction. Therefore, the min- AoLOAo, III lAAClI ON II luICISSIS3 III llC interest of unionism, have forbidden the visit''
 Even the conservative and unionist papers regard the abandonment of their majesties visit to Ireland as being a severe slap at England's government of Ireland, and as blazing advertise ment of barren statesmanship. In this connection, the London Times to-day prints letter dissenting from the sug- gestion that if John Redmond Ghe chairman of the Irish parliamentary party and chairman of the United Irish league, had been in the house of con- mons when some of the Irish members cheered the announcement of General Methuen's defeat and capture he would have rebuked his followers for their outburst of exultation. The writer re- fers, as evidence to the contrary, to the meeting at Chicago last Autumn ''in honor of the Manchester murder ers," which MT Redmond addressed. and to the proceedings whic hwere and to the proceedings which were officially opened by Finerty, the dyna-
 After quoting the resolution passed at that meeting, and also referring to MT Redmond's speech at New York, advocating the hanging of NIT Cham berlain, the writer asks .'Why should a man holding such opinions restrain the rejOicings of his followers at q British defeat"