New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-12
MIR. Balfour Again
Copyright. 1912. by G. W. smalley,

o.cenber, he has become a more re-
sont figure than ever. l said then
.hore was no one to replace nm as
der of the Unionist party. No one has
- found. Mr.. Bonar Law was made
t;tular leader, but what happened
I'm that party resolved to move the
..ot,on of the Minimum Wage bill?
AIR Balfour was asked to do It, ana he
ga # What happened when he re-
,or,. the House of Commons? Not
&c own party only but the whole House
.ose 70 greet him, and the chamber rang
18th cheers of welcome TO the man
loco supremacy it thus attested. / be-
,,ove even the Irish Nationalist, or some
% them. ioined in this reclamation. 1t
,.os q tribute rarely offered to any man;
certainly TO none since Mr.. Gladstone,
unless Mr.. Chamberlain be an exception.
WIN cared for the ceremonial of party
oboice? Where MacGregor sat was the
had Of the table. The forms were OBJ
,orved Mr.. Balfour took upon him. for
chat occasion, the duty Of leadership by
,.ouest of Mr.. Bonar Law. Let Mr..
Ronar Law have the credit of making
that request. 1t was none the less
clear recognition of the fact that Mr.
palfour was the natural chief, and indis-
pensable.
What has happened now on the Home
Rule bill? 1t is Mr.. Balfour on whom
deyolves the duty of intervening in de-
hate with a speech Of what / can only
call destructive criticism. He spoke
Yesterday. Sir Edward Carson had re-
r,ied on the first day 10 the Prime Min
lister. Sir Edward Carson is a very able
man and he made very able speech.
Rut he is a lawyer and his speech was
forensic. The Unionists considered that
argument of a more statesmanlike sort
vas needed, and again Mr.. Balfour was
asked TO come forward. 1t is true that
the proprieties are TO be observed. and
Mr.. Bonar Law is to wind up the debate
for the Opposition. But when MIR. Bal
four sat down yesterday afternoon it was
felt that the work Of leadership had been
accomplished. For what the House
wants in such a case as this Is INTEL
lectual leadership, just as presently,
when the bill gets into Committee. 1t will
want tactical leadership. There is but
one man among the Unionists from
whom it can get both, and that man is
MIR. Balfour.
/ suppose il would be quite useless 10
suggest TO you to reprint Mr.. Balfour )
speech. 1t fills five columns in The
Times" Nor, in what l an going to say
about it, do 1 deal with 1t as a statement
Of the case against Home Rule. l deal
with it as a debating speech; as an ex-
ample of the highest order of Parlia-
ment oratory; the highest now extant.
Oratory is an art and debate is an art,
and here in this one speech you may find
the best art of both kinds. AS piece OF
argument it is knit together with con-
structive skill of which only Mr.. Balfour
and Mr.. ASquith have now the secret
OF the two Mr.. Balfours range is the
greater. Mr.. Asquith is almost too much
the Parliamentarian. He keeps TO the
great traditions; keeps to them so closely
that sometimes they fetter him. Mr..
Bafour is just as completely saturated
with them as is Mr.. Asquith. But he Is
their master; not they his. Each ID
splendid in lucidity, but there goes with
Mr. Balfour's clearness a felicity Of die
ton in which he has no rival. Mr.. Win
ston Churchill approaches him more
closely than Mr.. Asquith, but, on the
whole. Mr.. Balfour stands alone. His
style is one of graceful urbanity. and be-
meath that he hits harder than any man
who finds coarser methods essential.
take the first passage which occurs only
because 1t is the first. 1t is no better
than a score of others in the same
speech:
so that now we work against The
Government who had the admirable in
genuity to take a double precaution
against failure. They have taken care
that the public should never be con-
suited before they bring in their bill.
They have also taken care that the pub
lie shall never be consulted after they
have brought in their bill.
ton to the political dexterity which has
produced that very anti-democratic re-
suit in a party which is never weary OF
talking Of democracy"
He discusses the guarantees" against
oppression Of the Irish minority by the
Irish government which this bill is sup
posed TO provide. There were guar
sntees." says Mr.. Balfour, in 1856 We
heard of others in 1898 and now we hear
Of them in 1912. And his comment is:
all times"
He deals with the supremacy of Par
lament" as reserved by this bill:
There were some centuries in which
Kings OF France. 1t appeared on all
their coins, upon all their formal State
documents. But 1t did not make them
Kings Of rance. They could not order
an office boy about on the other side OF
the Channel, and the power of our Sow
ereigns as Kings Of France is exactly
equal to and parallel with that su-
premacy of the British Parliament about
which you talk so much and give such
nsnboyant orders TO your craftsmen,
and about which you know. az we'll as
i do that. speaking as practical poll
uclans, II never could be exercised in the
only critical moments when its exercise
would be necessary and desirable"
Can aDVh0dV faka 0ffepCa AT Yhat7