On Tuesday Sir Henry James, while presiding over a meeting
of the Liberal Union Club, took the opportunity of denying the ridiculous rumours as to there being any friction either between the Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists, or among the Liberal Unionists themselves. The allisnoe of the Liberal Ilaionist party with the Conservatives, was as firm as it had ever been, and this was due in the main to Mr. Arthur Balfour and to Mr. Chamberlain. With respect to.M.r. Chamberlain, it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the unjust and ungenerous criticism which had been levelled at the
• Leader of the Liberal Unionist party in the Commons. 'Every mistake of the party was ascribed to Mr. Chamberlain. Bat he was sure they would agree with him when he said that the party were bound to Mr. Chamberlain, not only by feelings of political loyalty, but of personal affection, and his right hon. friend had led them with conspicuous ability, loyalty, and success, and with an utter absence of personal motives or personal ambition. Whatever individual differences of opinion on matters of detail there might have been, there had never been a serious difference of opinion as to the general action of the party between Mr. Chamberlain and his followers." That is perfectly true. There never was a time when the confidence of his party, as a whole, was more firmly enjoyed by Mr. Chamberlain. A year or two ago, the Whig wing was still a little timid about Mr. Chamberlain's rolicy. That is not so now. Again, Mr. Chamberlain never occupied a better position as regards not only the Conserva- tive leaders, but the Conservatives in the country. The fact that a few Tapers and Tadpoles among the Tories dislike him is absolutely immaterial.
Previous page
