Lord James of Hereford and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who
took part in the debate, both strongly criticised the position occupied by the Government. What they wanted, said Lord James, who spoke with a sense of indignation which he made no effort to conceal, was a simple " Yes " or "No" as to whether Mr. Chamberlain's interpretation was correct. Lord Balfour asked, but he got no answer to the question, whether it was a correct interpretation of the Prime Minister's speech to say that those Unionists who did not approve of the Colonial Conference were to be drummed out of the Unionist party. The Lord Chancellor, who followed Lord Balfour, made an attempt to retrieve the position by declaring that the Government were only answerable for what they themselves said and did, and that he should absolutely ref use to answer any question as to whether or not the Government assented to Mr. Chamberlain's statement. That was a lawyer's point which we venture to think will not impress.the country, unless it reminds them of the attorney who headed all his love-letters "Without prejudice." The Lord Chancellor may label all Mr. Chamberlain's speeches "Without prejudice," but their effect will not be diminished thereby. Lord Rosebery, • who concluded the debate, made a speech which will be memorable in the controversy for its power, directness, and lofty eloquence.
Previous page
