Our contemporary the Star surpassed itself on Friday week in
a most venomous attack on the Foreign Secretary. For reasons that will soon be apparent, Mr. Balfour did not attend the Pilgrims' dinner to Mr. Page. Upon this the Star wrote :- " We profoundly regret that Mr. Balfour, our Foreign Minister, was prevented by ' other pressing engagements' from speaking at the Pilgrims' dinner last -night. What were they ? Lest our American comrades should construe the failure of Mr. Balfour to keep his engagement as a slight upon the United*States, let us say that the Prime Minister spoke for the British democracy, Con- servative as well as Liberal. Let us also say that the British people would not tolerate for an instant any lukewarmness in the attitude of our Foreign Office towards our American ally. We stand•where Sir Edward Grey stood. Mr. Balfour must speak his unspoken speech. He must line up with democracy. We refuse to interpret his absence as a sign of dissent or discord. The thing is unthinkable. If there be reactionaries who refuse to identify themselves with Mr. George's welcome to the Russian democracy and the American democracy, let them take care. In Ireland as well as in Poland freedom is marching on."
This ridiculous diatribe from the organ of " Captain Coe " reminds us of Mrs. Gamp—" Some people may be llooshans and others may be Prooshans ; they're born so and will please themselves. Them which is of other naturs thinks different." If the Star did not know why Mr. Balfour was absent, it could easily have found out. To base on its own ignorance the totally unfounded theory that Mr. Balfour dislikes America is really inexcusable, especially at such a time as this.
Previous page
