Ir is not. surprising that independent Conservative newspapers like the Standard should again urge the formation of a coalition Ministry. The Morning Post, which poses as the organ of Lord Salisbury, had previously advocated what the telegram describes as a strong Cabinet after the defeat of the ministerial candidate for the Spalding division of Lincolnshire. Both these journalistic departures may be merely speculations of the Editors on the look out for telling leaders, but they may also be the expression of the opinions and of the vexation of spirit experienced by the unofficial supporters of the Cabinet, backed, perhaps, Wy those ministerialists who wish to see Lord Randolph Churchill again in office. The proceedings in Parliament during the passing of the Crimes Bill and the Inish Land measure have been quite sufficient to make the independent Tories, the men who desire to sustain the reputation of their party, chafe under the irresponsible control which the Unionists exercise over its policy. Iwo instances of this, out of several, may be cited. One of the most important clauses in the Crimes Bill was that by which the trial of those who were accused of breaking it might be removed to London. The whole body of the Unionists in Parliament could not be prevailed upon to support this provision and therefore the clause was withdrawn, A. similar course was pursued with regard to the Bankruptcy clauses of the Land Bill, and for the same reasons. Now, whether the proposals of the government were good or bad, it is a novelty and we venture to think a dangerous one, that Lord Hartington and his followers should thus make or mar the measures which Her Majesty's responsible advisers have submitted to Parliament. The Cabinet may, as a matter of course, propose such alterations in their measures as appear to them fitting after they have introduced them into either House, and it is needless to say that either the Lords or the Commons may do the same. But it is if not unprecedented at all events, it has been of extremely rare occurrence in British politi since the nation has had parliamentary government. There ave been many instances where statesmen out of office have exercised and even paramount influence over the Ministries of their time, but they were in full political accord with the ministers whom they controlled, though temporarily not sitting in Cabinet with them. But it is a very different thing when the leaders of some eighty members of the House of Commons, who, in the present constitution of the House, hold the balance of power in their hands, can dictate their policy to a ministry. The exercise of that power, as in the two instances which we have giver, must have been galling to many ministerialists and cannot have been pleasant even to members of the Cabinet, and the ready acquiescence of the latter tended, very directly, to lowering the public estimation of. the leaders of the Tory party. This feeling would disappear if the leaders of the Liberal Unionists entered the Cabinet, which thereby would be strengthened.
We doubt if Lord Hartington will accept office in a coalition ministry, even although his political views are very similar to those of the bulk of the ministerialists. His hereditary whigism is probably the strongest part of his political life, and he must see that the Irish trouble if not effectually settled, will be so dealt with by large measures of local government, which all parties will agree shall have a trial, that the two sections of the Liberal party may reunite. He will then be in a position to take any place or play any part which pleases him among his old political associates. Then, again, he has to consider the case of political friends, such as Lord Derby, and others of lesser note, who could not follow him into a coalition ministry and whom he could not throw over. It is also doubtful whether the Liberal voters who returned him and several Unionists to Parliament would continue their support when he had joined the Tories. The result of some elections this year does not indicate that the strength of the Unionists is maintained, far less increasing, as witness Burnley and Spalding, in which a Liberal Unionist and a Conservative respectively were succeeded by out and out Gladstonians. But there is no doubt that if nearness of political opinion always led men to fight under the same colow Lord Hartington and those Union Liberals who were Whigs and not Radicals should unite with the moderate or modern Tories. Mr. Chamberlain, who was never a Whig but a politician of extreme opinions, sees a possibility of the formation of a great national party in which he and his followers may join with rational Tories, of which Lord Randolph Churchill is the representative and his Dartford speech the platform. This would be a conjunction of the stars to be wondered at in fear and trembling. Not that it is altogether improbable that something of the sort should be attempted, forthe Republican and descendant of injured Jurors and the Tory Democrat have much political profligacy in common, and if the old parties are to break up why should they not come together But as we are believers in the continuity of political life in England, we expect that when the Irish question has been got out of the way, there will be only tivo parties in England, essentially those which have hitherto been known as Whigs and Tories, Liberals and Conservatives.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.