New-York tribune., 1905-04-10
THE CECILS AT BAY.
Traditions of One Prime Minister
and Strategy of AnOther.
London. March q

II
ceeded the late Lord Salisbury he has found
his most mercfess critic IN his cousin LORD
Hugh Cecil The present Lord Salisbury willis
he in the Commons had the reputation OF
being an arduOus worker but a nsiadrols
speaker. with a perverse talent for saying the
right thing IN the wrong way. As cold in tsna-
perament and as clouded in style as his brilliant
brother was ardent and humorous he seemed
destined for a heavy part In the drama OF Brit
fish politics, and the Prime Minister has pro-
vided him with a Cabinet office where drudgery
Is its own reward. Not content with routine
work, he has suddenly emerged as his brothers
defender and the expOsitOr Of his fathers opin-
IONS and he has attacked Mr.. Chamberlain at a
moment when the tension between the BaIfour-
ties and the tariff reformers is already ap-
preaching the breaking point. Mr.. Chamber
Iain in justifying the action Of the Greenwich
tariff reformers in nominating a candidate
against Lord Hugh Cecil has quoted the father
against the son on the subject Of fiscal policy
and the present marquis has rushed 70 the aid
Of his brother with the emphatic declara tion
that his father profoundly disseuted from the
Birmingham leaders tariff policy. Whether 80
capable a man Lord Hugh Cecil who Is
never az a disadvantage in fighting his own
battles will be grateful for this Of fraernaI
devotion may be doubtful; but it Is certain
that Mr. BaIfour win be embarrassed by an
| other act OF CABINET Intervention In the work
Of the local associations Of the Conservative
party. It was necessary to explain away the
chief whips letter respecting Lord Hugh CeciFs
oflcial status at Greenwich, and to call OF Lord
Stanley when he had agreed to support Mr.
Gibson Bovles at Kings Lynn; but Lord Sails
bury's reputation of Mr. Chamberain's pol
icies is a more direct attack than either the
whips or the Postmaster Generals. and it Is
made by Cecil IN the Cabinet on behalf Of an
other Cecil who has been speaking. II not
voting, steadily against it.
There cannot be any doubt respecting the
late Lord SaHsbury's public utterances on the
fiscal question. His famous Hastings speech
raised the issue that devotion to Free Trade.
while it might be a beautiful thing by itself was
not business and that a nation which gave
away it's markets gratuitously was not in posi-
ton either to make bargains or TO defend its in
terests. That speech. delivered over twenty
years ago. had the promise of whatever potency
the Balfourian policy OF retaliation may have,
and it was followed by other addresses. in which
the weakness Of the Free Trade system was set
forth and the necessity for preferential raIa-
tions and commercial union with the colonies
disclosed Mr.. Chamberlain may not have
shown good taste in quoting the father against
the son. but he fully justified in referring 10
the late Lord SaIisbury's speeches as proofs
that retaliation and colonial preference were NOT
to be regarded as Birmingham nOsJruns so much
as prescriptions by distinguished Conservative
practitioner. The present marquis does not deny
that his father for many years was Inclined to
favor policy of retaliation, Yet he asserts that
the great statesnan's views were altogether op-
posed to those Of Mr.. Chamberlain the dseaI
question. The interval during which this change
of opinion effected was certainly short It
was not until May. 1903. that Mr.. ChamberIsn's
first speech retaliation and colonial prefer
ence was made in Birmingham, and in tine course
of three months the late Lord Salisbury was in
his grave. During those three months the re-
tired statesman was in feeble health and any
opinions expressed by him on the fiscal question
must have been confined 10 the Birmiu CHAM
speech. since the tariff reform campaign was
not opened IN Glasgow until two months after
his death. Such comments must have been brief
and desuItOry and less Importance is TO be at
tached to them than 10 the public utterances
made at Hastings and before the United Empire
Trade League when ne in the ulenitUde OF
his power and influence He became cautious
IN his closing years. and perhaps twelve months
before the Chamberlain change OF base at Bir-
mingham contended that the relations OF the
mother country and the colonies could not be
worked out hastily. but there was no repudia-
ton OF his Hastings speech
What the dying statesman thought about
Mr. ChambeFIain's Birmingham speech during
those closing weeks or 1dlllAg strength ne
whispered to members of his family or explained
IN private correspondence. He did not take the
nation into his confidence nor warn his party
against the economic heresies for which Mr..
Chamberlain and Mr.. BalfOur We're responsible.
The fact that he dissented IN general way
from the new views of fiscal policy IS less in
teresting than the use made Of it by the Cecils-
The present marquis considers it necessary to
vindicate his brothers opposition to fiscal re-
form by a sweeping generalization that his
father dissented profoundly from Mr.. Chamber
lain's policy That is an indication that he re-
sents with passionate intensity the attack made
upon his brothers seat at Greenwich. which the
Prime Minister sought to save That assault IS
apparently regarded as a family affront. and Mr.
Chamberlain is to be deprived OF the privileges
Of referring to the late Lord Salisburys speeches
at Dumfries, Hastings. South London and else
where in favor Of fiscal reform and colonial
preference and is warned that there was some
thing like a deathbed repentance which com
pIetely nuIIifed all previous arguments and cons
victions deliberately formed and unequivocally
stated. The Liberals may be Influenced by par
tisan bias when they assert that the breach be-
tween the Cecils and Mr. Chamberlain IS now
complete. and that the Prime Minister, as the
head OF the clan must destroy hts rivals pres
tfge and influence; but II is fairly certain that
the tariff reformers viii be intensely irritated
bv this attempt OF n member OF the Cabinet %
prove that the late Prime Minister was an ire
sponsible advocate OF retaliation twenty years
ago and that he would have stood with LORD
Hugh Cecil as an irreconcilabIe opponent oe
colonial preference II he had lived 20 this day.
How Mr. Austen Chamberlain and the Marquis
Of Salisbury can remain together in the Cabinet