To this very strong language Mr. Chamberlain replied in Thursday's
Times, by remarking that he never denied his own share of responsibility for the blunders of the Government between 1880-1885, but that he did not see how that precluded him from pointing out the errors they had made, and warning the country against repeating them. He further remarked, in reply to Mr. Morley's attack upon him for not resigning if Mr. Gladstone did not support him heartily enough in rela- tion to his Merchant Shipping Bill, that, as Mr. Morley knew, he did tender his resignation, but withdrew it " at Mr. Glad- stone's request, in view of the national interests involved in connection with the Franchise Bill." The truth seems to us to be, that if Mr. Chamberlain had reviewed the errors of 1880-85 in a candid spirit, acknowledging at the time his own share of responsibility for them, he would have done quite right. In fact, however, this was not his tone at Sunderland. He spoke as if the blunders of that Government were almost inexcusable, which is hardly the tone that, with his part- responsibility for them, he had a right to take. Still lees has Mr. Morley the right to make of it a charge so serious as almost to involve a loss of personal honour. In his letter to yesterday's Times, Mr. Morley appears to us to feel this, and modifies his inexcusably strong language, though he does not apologise for it. He explains that he did not refer to the Merchant Shipping Bill in asking Mr. Chamberlain why he did not resign, but to the general policy with which it appears that he did not concur.
Previous page
