The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-13


day, reelected Lady HENRY SOMERSET
as it's President.
Has a Ministerial Crisis in England
Been Averted?
When the debate in the House OF Com
mons was adjourned on Tuesday evening
it looked as il Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN would be
constrained to resign forthwith the Co
lonial Office. Not only was it certain that
overwhelming defeat awaited the amend
ment to the budget proposed by his pro-
tectionist supporter, MIR. CHAPLIN ana
condemning the repeal OF the registration
fee on grain and -four, but not one OF his
colleagues in the Government had said
word in his behalf, while his project OF a
preferential tariff for the Colonies was
denounced by two OF them, Mr.. RICHIE,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
Mr.. ELLIOTT, Financial Secretary to the
Treasury. When, on the other hand, the
debate ended on Wednesday evening, the
situation had been somewhat changed.
1t is true that the Chaplin amendment
was beaten by the tremendous majority
Of 800, but, temporarily at least, Mr..
CHAMBERLAIN was rescued .from the
necessity Of esigning by the extraordi-
nary declaration on the part OF Premier
BALFoUR that the momentous issue OF
free trade versus protection was one
about which members Of a Cabinet might
properly agree to disagree. Let us look
somewhat closely at the significance OF
these incidents.
II we analyze the vote-424 to 2s-by
which the Chaplin amendment was de-
feated, We must recognize that 1t by no
means proves that decided majority
OF the Unionist members of the House OF
Commons are opposed to Mr.. CHAMBER
LA1N's programme. 1t is obvious on the
face OF the figures that 2l9 members OF
the House were absent, or refrained from
voting on the division. Not many are
likely to have been absent, for the House
must have been unusually full, owing
to the sensational nature Of the issue
raised by Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN. Now we
know that the Liberals and Nationalist
we're to man 7f vorable to the repeal OF
tho registration duty on grain and Hour,
and, consequently, must have opposed
the Chaplin amendment. Their COM
bined strength is at least 27o votes. 1t
follows that the Unionist contribution
to the ostensibly great majority was only
about l54 votes. This is much less than
half of their normal strength, which was
40 when the present House of Commons
Was elected, since which date the Union
lists have lost only about dozen seats.
We cannot we'll escape the conclusion
that at least half OF the Unionists are pro-
tectionists at heart, and were friendly to
the Chaplin amendment, but, after lis
tening to Mr.. BALFouR, deemed it mop
perfume to avow their opinions. ltwould
be. at all events absurd to assume that
there are but 20 protectionists in the
Upionist party because Mr.. CHAPLIN
managed to secure only that number OF
supporters for an amendment which, II
successful, would have compelled the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to resign.
Mr.. BALFoUR saved Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
for a moment by declining to make any
collective statement on the Cabinets part
of the views entertained with reference
TO the project of a preferential tariff. So
long as such statement is withheld, and
a question is not inevitably raised by
bill or resolution before the House, the
Premier maintained that his colleagues
we're at liberty to differ concerning that
question. The question OF free trade
versus protection was not raised, he add
ed, by the registration duty on grain and
-Four, because that duty had been long
retained BY free traders after the aboli-
ton of the Corn laws, and had only been
of late reimposed to meet transient need
OF money, which had passed away. 1t
ia true that, technically, the question Of
free trade versus protection was not be-
fore the House, for the Speaker had ruled
at the outset Of the debate that it was not
raised by the Chaplin amendment. I'm
der the circumstances, Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
need not feel himself called upon to offer
his resignation, unless his official chief
should ask for it, and this, evidently, Mr.
BALFouR is unlikely to do, unless he
should be subjected to more pressure
than has yet been applied. If it shall
prove true, however, that the Duke of
DEvoNsH1RE, Lord LANsDowNE and Lord
SELBoRNE are as firmly opposed to a
preferential tariff as are Mr. RITcH1E and
Mr.. ELLIOTT, the Premier may deem it
expedient to let Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN go.
1t is evident, from the position taken
by Mr. BALFoUR in the crucial passage Of
his speech, that he deems the question Of
a preferential tariff as yet unripe for
party action. The passage which we
have in mind is this: It would be folly
and rashness to interfere with the great
system which has been in operation for
so many years, without the most careful
examination, and without due regard for
history and the traditions OF the past;
while, at the same time, the new prob
lens which the ever-changing face Of
- l,,,+,-; nj lie prooaptc for dooiaion q md