New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-17

those uncompromising free traders would have
remained in the Cabinet IL they had known Of
the Colonial Secretary's resignation. That is
another way Of saying that Mr.. Chamberlain's
retreat from Office would have meant more to
them than Mr.. Balfour's manifesto IN favor OF
reciprocity and retaliation, and that they might
easily have compromised with principles If they
had understood that they would be relieved from
association with the chief protectionist Mr.
Balfour has high sense of honor. and it is
hardly credible that he has dealt unfairly with
any Of his associates. When he explained his
policy to the Cabinet his associates were at lib
erty to stand by him or to desert him as a mat
ter Of principle, and he was not under obligation
TO reveal prematureiy Mr. Chamberlain's pref
erence for retirement. especially when he prob
ably entertained the hope that the resignation
would be withdrawn. The imputation that Lord
Miner has been cold and calculating in his re-
fusal TO take Office In a weak and discredited ad-
ministration is as unjust as these structures
upon the Prime Minister. If he had been
selfshly ambitious he would have accepted
Office. Lord Miner is an imperialist heartily in
accord with Mr.. Chamberlain's policies for unit
ing the empire. II he had succeeded Mr. Cham
berlain at the Colonial Office he would have
placed himself In line for the leadership Of the
cause Of fiscal reform after its ultimate triumph
Premiership itself. Enlightened self-interest
might have tempted Lord Miner to disregard
rigorous sense Of duty and moral obligation in
persevering with his work in South Africa.
The parallel between the Liberal and Unionist
parties the Home Rule and protection issues
is too obvious to require explanation. Mr..
Chamberlain. like Mr.. Gladstone. has broken up
powerful and homogeneous party by attempt
ing to convert 1t suddenly to new policies In
which he had implicit faith The probable con-
vergence Of the two disturbing issues in the near
future is not equally plain Home Rule, which
was defeated by the breaking up of the Liberal
party. is likely TO be brought about by the crea-
ton Of Unionist divisions through the raising Of
the protection issue. If the general elections are
ordered either next month next year the Lib
erals are likely TO carry the country but not by
majority large enough to enable them TO dis
pense with the votes Of the Irish members
Even IL the hopes Of the most sanguine sup
porters Of Mr.. Chamberlain are fulfilled, and the
elections can be deferred until the country is
adequately educated on the new issue Of fiscal
reform, Mr.. Balfour's party can hardly fail to
emerge from the contest with greatly dimin-
ished body Of followers in the Commons.
Whether the Liberals succeed prematurely or
the Unionists ultimately after a prolonged cam
paign Of education. the Irish contingent without
doubt VIII hold the balance Of power and be en-
abled 10 block legislation unless full measure
q autonomy be conceded to them. In that event
Mr.. Chamberlain who defeated Home Rule
under Mr. Gladstone may be instrumental in
carrying it under Lord Rosebery or Mr.. Balfour.
There is even a heater paradox The Irish. who
have persisted in voting the free trade side in
America decade after decade, may obtain Home
Rule in the end through British protection.
l. " T.