The Evening Star FRIDAY OCTOBER 6, 1911.

Evening Star, Issue 14690, 6 October 1911, Page 4

The Evening Star FRIDAY OCTOBER 6, 1911.

Wl cannot agire with our eminent and entertaining contributor, Mr Chamberlain Sir Henry Lucy, that ltt?BS6snd 1303. llr Joseph Chamberlain j v-nn be charged or credited to the viewpoint) with "breaking up the liberal j arty in 1886, **«nding it into the wilderness of Oppoei- ' **tioa to wander, with one brief Te-entry "to the Promised Land, for ;i period of "19 "veSTv." The pcrsonnje primarily responsible for the srreat Liberal split in 1886 •was Mr Gladstone, who suddenly, and ■without consulting his lieutenants, brought down a Hcnvj Rule policy which the majority of-the clc.-toic* and a large section of '"" the. "Liberal party were quite unprepared tp accept. But if it could be allowed that the party were broken up by the action of the Liberal ■ Unionists, it " would not be just to point to Mr Chamber- ■ lain a* the chief culprit or champion (again according to the point of view). If that statesman had adhered to Mr Gladstone in 1886, the party would still have been jent asunder; for at least two of the other dweentients weie men of greater importance and influence. We refer to John ■' Bright and Lo~d Hartinjrton (afterward.* i" Duke of Devonshire,'. Xo doubt Ml Chamfe- berlain's' continued allegiance would have j". been of sifrnal service to Mr Gladstone, *' bnfc it-would-not have saved the p-jrty from I wreck. Lord Morley, dealing with the i tune when the fate of that fir>t Home «", Bale Bill was in sespenae, writes: "It *■ - faetxas to have been mainly the moral f- , of Mr Bright that sent down the 3 '••icale. • ■ ■ He hoped that every man i!* *'WOuld vbo his own mind, but far his part jjjj "be must vote against the Bill. This jsj'"!*lptier was afterwards described as the '^f'^wtth-warrant of the Bill and tho Ad-jfj't-;f*ministration." And again, iii reference ifijieih.t&e subsequent election campaign: W3l?/'M' I $& election was ever fought more and-never did so manv powerful IllCf <■&*&• fling thsinsetiHMt with livelier actiThe heaviest v attack came from Mr

Bright, who had up to now in public been studiously silent. Every word, as thev s.i'd of Daniel Webster, seemed to weigh a pcund. His arguments . . . were delivered with a gravity and force that told powerfully upon the large phalanx of doubters all over the kingdom. If .Mr Bright and Mr Chamberlain had been en different sides there would have been hot work in Birmingham; but our point is that Mr Chamberlain's attitude was not solely or even chietty instrumental in breaking up the Libera! party. A'> regards the developments dating from 1903. it is a moot whether the introduction of the question of Tariff Reform has been n:ore harmful than beneficial to the. Unionist party. It has brought an element of discord, no doubt, but it has also engendered a fresh enthusiasm. Tariff Reform is : i very live isr,ue in many of the rural constituencies, as well as in some important towns; and th«- result of the Canadian elections, with the rejection of Reciprocity, is not likely to decrease its vitaiitv.