The disintegration of the Unionist party owing to Mr. Chamberlain's
reckless adoption of Protection, and to Mr. Balfour's willingness to acquiesce in, and even further, his views, has been exemplified in a striking way at Bristol this 'week. Sir Michael Hicks Beach announces that he will not seek re-election,--a decision, it is true, foreshadowed when he left office two years ago, but one which would most probably have been reconsidered but for the split in the party. In the same city Sir Frederick Wills, M.P , a Liberal Unionist and a Free-trader, withdraws from the Liberal Unionist oraanisa- tion; as does also the Right Hon. Lewis Fry, a former M.P. for Bristol. Both, though remaining convinced Unionists, retire on the ground that the organisation has promised its "support
to tariff, reform candidatea. ju this context we may also note that vihen.Major Seely resigns this Seat in open defiance of the Government, and stands -again, the Government and Chantbetlainite organisations dare not contest the seat, nor will they accept the challenges given them by Mr. Churchill and Sir John Dickson-Poynder, who express their willingness to resign and test the opinion of their constituencies if they are asked to do so by the local Unionist organisations. And yet there are people who believe that Mr. Balfour by yielding to Mr. Chamberlain, and doing the bidding of his lieutenants over the Wharton amendment, is keeping the Unionist party together. Let our readers recall what the Unionist party was this time last year, and then compare it with what it is now.
Previous page
