Nobody believes that Mr. Balfour can long continue this line of tactics, and there are all sorts of conjectures as to his reasons and his motives. It is, of course, possible that the Prime Minister's own explanation is the true one, and that he regards the fiscal question as outside the scope of the present Parliament and intends to go on indefinitely ignoring it, That is, however, an ox-planation which few in their. hearts accept. There is a wide belief that Mr, Chamberlain himself is strongly opposed to-the new tactics, and that he. has only consented to them as a temporary mea sure to enable the Government to introduce their Budget before the dissolution comes. Certainly these debates, in which the Free Traders have it all their own way, and in which some of the ablest speeches of the Seasion have been made, cannot but do harm to his cause. For although the Unionists boycott the debates they cannot prevent their being reported. Another suggestion is that the Government desire to hang on until certain matters in South Africa have been arranged; but the most universal belief is that the dissolution will come considerably before this session has reached its normal end.
Mr. Chamberlain and the late Lord Salisbury.
Perhaps the most damaging blow that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme has received outside Parliament is contained in a letter written by Lord Salisbury, who uow holds in the cabinet the dual offices of President of the Board of Trade and Lord Privy Seal, The Marquess took up the cudgel, with a declared reluctance which was me, in behalf of hia brother, gh Cecil: The official organise: tion of the Conservatives in Greenwich, on the advice of the Chief Government Whip, have readopted Lord Hugh as their ca date in spite of his Free Trade opinions, In view of Lord Hugh's devotion to the Unionist Party, his sterling honesty, and the transcendent abilities of which he has lately given proof, the decision is not surprising, but of course it does not please Mr. Chamberlain, and no one can blame that gentleman for strongly urging that a fiscal reformer should be nominated in opposition to Lord Hugh even though the result should b three-cornered fight, But Mr.
Chamberlain wont further than quoted Lord Hugh's Isto father agai him in euch a Way as to indicate, without actually saying, that the late Lord Salisburg was @ supporter of the new fiscal movement. Thereupon the present Lord Salisbury thinks it his duty in interest of truth to write that his father profoundly dissented" from Mr. Cha: berlain's proposals. That this is absolutely true is well-known to all who came in contact with Lord Salisbury in the last throe months of his life, for he was wont to express himself on the subject in no measured term but it has never been publicly and off ly stated before. Mr. Chamberlain and others have since engaged in a correspondence which may leave some doubt as to how far the late Prince Minister at differ-out periods of his career would have gone in the direction of a modification of our Free Trade policy; but it leaves untouch-his son'sdeclarations as to his profound dissent from Mr. Chamberlain, and that declaration will, I believe, have considerable influence upon Unionista of unsettled fiscal convictions.
The Theatre Manager and the Amateur " Dramatist, By far the most interesting lawsuit that we have had for some time has just been concluded in the High Court, though we shall probably hear more of it in the Court of Appeal. It is a case.in which Captain Frazer, a hitherto unknown dramatist, sued Mr. George Edwardes for damages for ed '*Hanijahn" to the well-known lessee, Plagiarism. Lil-lad submitted " pay call and it was accepted at first, but ultimately rejected apparently on the ground that the author had failed to remedy certain defects in it; and Captain Frazer alleged that certain' portions of this play had been appropriated and adopted
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.