There was no element of surprise about Mr. Balfour's speech in the House of Commons. It was known beforehand—indeed it was authoritatively anounced in many of the Unionist newspapers in the morning—that the Prime Minister had resolved neither to resign nor to dissolve Parliament in consequence of the Government defeat on Thursday. He, was in capital form; in fact it must be dificult for his bitterest political opponent to withhold admiration for the perfect coolness, self-possession, and imperviousness to clamour and abuse which Mr.. Balfour has exhibited throughout the crisis. It was a really admirable speech which he delivered, quite answerable from the point of view which he chose to adopt. He marshalled a formidable series of precedents to show that a Ministry was under no obligation to resign because it was defeated on a vote la Supply, or indeed on any vote except a direct vote of censure moved after due notice. Ho went further and argued most effectively that to resign would be a dangerous precedent. It would place a Government with a comparatively narrow majority of supporters at the mercy of a coterie such as the Nationalists, who would be able to take advantage of the inevitable occasions when a few more Ministerialists than Opposition members might chance to be absent from the House. So strong was Mr. Balfour's position in this' respect that not a single member of the Opposition attempted to traverse his arguments, The Argument for Dissolution.
The weakness of Mr. Balfour's position is that ho knows, and everybody knows, that beand his Government have lost the confidence of the country. If it were not for that there would not be the slightest necessity for him to resign on account of such a vote as that of Thursday. On the other hand if it were not for that would be quite willing to dissolve ment. The present Parliament is within a fow weeks of the ago of the last Parliament when Lord Salisbury dissolved it. Me. Balfour touched very lightly on this side of the question. Ho did quote from a letter of Mr. Gladstone in which that statesman expressed the opinion that Government detents at by-elections wore not a reason for resignation, but against that opponents wore able to quote Mr, Glad-stove as holding the opinion that a series of adverse by-elections were a strong reason for appealing to the country. In 1874 Mr. Gladstone apologised to House for not having dissolved Parl ment in 1873, and added: "It is repugnant to my foolings and not compatible with the best interests of the country that Government should continue to govern even with a numerical majority, when there are daily increasing evidences that it no longer represents the will and opinion of the constituencies."
Will it Come in the Autumn?
There is, however, a very general belief that although Mr. Balfour would not commit himself he has fully made up his mind to dissolve Parliament in the Autumn. According to the theory of the Constitution it is the Sovereign who dissolves Parliam and it is contended that it would be discourteous to the King for the Prime Minister to announce a coming dissolution before his Majesty has sanctioned it. In practice, of course, the King is bound to act on the advice of his first Minister; and the general belief is that Mr. Balfour has already made up his mind to advise his Majesty to direct an appeal to the constituencies in October or November. Mr. Vince, the Secretary of the Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association, believes it will be in November; and there are few persons in a better position to form an accurate judgment on the matter than he. On the other hand there are many who still believe that Mr. Balfour means to cling to the reins of office through the recess, to introduce his Redistribution Bill next Session, and then to ride for a fall on it. It is thought that this would give him a good electioneering cry for an appeal to the country about April next.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.