On Wednesday Sir William Haroourt reappeared in the House of
Commons, and, we are glad to say, " like a giant refreshed." We do not agree with his speech, and even think much of it wrong-headed and unfair, but there is no dis- puting its vigour and width of view. It was also conceived in the true tradition of Parliamentary opposition, a tradition of which we have seen far too little of late, but which, never- theless, is the antiseptic of our Parliamentary system. One may not agree with Sir William Harcourt, but no one who cares for the efficiency of the House of Commons could possibly regret seeing him lead a vigorous and united Opposi- tion. Let us hope that we may soon see him doing so. On Wednesday Sir William Harcourt's chief object was to criticise the financial proposals of the Government, and also the general conduct of the war. He ended what was in truth a rattling party speech by some excellent general propositions directed against exaggerated Imperia ism and in favour of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, answered the party portion of Sir William Harcourt's speech very effec- tively. He pointed out that Sir William entirely begged the
question of the origin of the war, and assumed that we began it. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach ended by refusing to commit himself to any statement as to the amount of burden to be placed on the gold mines. That was wise. The gold mines must pay their fair share, but the new State to be founded in the Transvaal must not be overburdened. To discover the equitable amount is s. task which mast take time and consideration.
Previous page
