SIR GEORGE GREY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1190, 21 December 1894, Page 8

SIR GEORGE GREY.

London, November 3

I have for some time past, as I stated in my last reference to Sir George Grey, entertained the impression that he has been meditating the contingency of becoming a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons in the event of a dissolution, which every day becomes more probable, early next year. On my last visit I mustered tip courage to put the question point blank. To my surprise he admitted that some such idea was in his mind, and said that a certain party, by which I presume he means a section of the Liberals or Home Rulers, have invited him to consider the possibility of his being called upon next year to enter the political lists. This may in some measure explain , the prolongation of his stay in England, and his desire to, remain in touch with the party. . THE HOUSE OF LORDS. In the course of further conversation, Sir George made no secret of his disapproval of the recent speeches of Lord Rosebery and tfie Marquis of Salisbury on the question of reform in the House of Lords. He condemns on the one hand the strident bellicosity of Lord Rosebery’s utterances, which ho thinks are calculated to inflame the passions of liis supporters, and on the other the defiant tone of Lord Salisbury. Both of them, he says, lack statesmanlike calmness, dignity and moderation, and neither have suggested any practical constitutional method of overcoming the existing difficulty.' But his own suggestion for a solution are singularly bold, if not revolutionary. He thinks on any important measure, such as the Home Rule Bill, or Church Disestablishment, the House of Commons should declare that it shall come into operation on a certain date, with or without the consent of the Lords. This would throw upon the latter the responsibility of resisting the measure, and would present an opportunity of testing the will of the nation. If the people were with the House of Lords, the measure would have to be sent back for their concurrence. If, on the other hand, the nation was in accord with the Commons, the House of Lords would be powerless to defeat its will. Sir George Grey does not advocate the abolition of the Peers as a separate legislative Chamber, but would leave it to die a painless death. It would, in fact, remain in abeyance Hu any great question upon which the will of the people was distinctly expressed through the House _of Commons, but would remain in reserve to be again called into activity whenever the feeling of> the nation found expression in a desire for its intervention.

" “ But,” I venture to ask, “is not the existence of the House of Lords necessary as a revising body ? ”

“ That," replied Sir George, “ is the most mischievous feature in the legislation of the country. It is productive of all kinds of evils. There is really no actual necessity for a revising Chamber. We had none in New Zealand under the Provincial system, and there was never any mistakes in the laws passed by the Provincial Councils. The very fact that they were not subject to revision by an Tipper House caused the Councils to exercise the utmost caiition and care in framing their laws. "Where you have a revising Chamber there is a tendency to scamp legislation, and to pass hasty and crude laws. And there is always a certain degree of doubt and laxity in the popular Chamber, because of the feeling that its acts are not final, and that it has not to bear the "whole responsibility of them/ 3

I should not be at all surprised to find these views embodied in an article in one of the magazines for next month, and if Sir George Grey's health does not fail him before next year, you may see his name among the list of candidates for Parliament.