LABOUR AND TITLES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 113, 4 July 1911, Page 4

LABOUR AND TITLES.

At :i recent meeting in the Dunedin Trades Hail, Mr.'A. it. Barclay mado certain statements rogai dini? the Coronation honours conferred cn Sir Joseph Ward, and other members of the Now Zealand Liberal Goverainont, and mention was made of the late Mr. 'A', If. Gladstone's unwillingness to assist in the promotion ol class distinction. To this the Dunedin “Star” replies: “/Whv, Mr. Gladstone created more peerages than any Prime Minister since Pitt, and it is quite a mistake to suppose that his own refusal of a similar distinction was dne to any ultra-democratic sentiment, lie thought that he canid better work in the House ol Commons than in,the House of Lords, and also considered that his private fortune was hardly equal to the obligations of hereditary rank. He wrote to Queen Victoria on Juno I I. 1 880: ‘Mr. Gladstone offers his humble apology to your Majesty. it would nor ho easy for him to describe the feelings with which lie has read your Majesty’s generous, most generous, letter, lie prizes every word of it. . It will be a precious possession to mm and to Ins children alter him. All tliat could recommend an earldom to him it already lias given him. He remains, however, of the belief that he ought not to avail himself of this most gracious offer. ,Anv service that he can render, if small, will, however, be greater in the House of Com-

mons than in tlso House of Lords; and it has mover formed part of his views to enter that iiistoi ie Chamher, although ho (Ices not share the fooling which led Sir !L Purl to put upon record what Seemed a perpetual o 1 almost a perpetual ccif-clonving op. (I in a nee for his family.’ ” After pointkg out that ouo of Mr. Gladstone's sons is ■ new a peer, mu' contemporary goes on the say that “Ah. Gladstone never ‘declined to assist in the promotion of class distinctions.’ As a matter", of fact, it would bo more reasonable to say that he had rather too marked a weakness for such distinctions. The pith of the matter is that while we disapprove the Prime Minister’s acceptance of an hereditary title, wo more strongly disapprove the terms in which his action was denounced at the Trades Hall.”