The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1888. THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1698, 14 February 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1888. THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT.

The English Parliament has been opened once more, and the troubles of the Tory Government have commenced. Sir Chas. Eussell has moved amendments on the Address-in-Eeply, traversing their outrageous treatment of the Trafalgar Square meetingsMr Parnell has attacked their Irish policy, and Mr Gladstone has accepted the Queen’s Speech as a challenge to Home Eulers. There is, therefore, evidently some rough weather ahead of them—and, rough as it may be, it will not be as bad as they deserve. Never within the memory of man has a more truculent, cruel, and tyrannical Government ruled England, The old Conservatives who governed England under the late Lord Beaconsfield, and Lis predecessors, were gentlemen first and politicians afterwards. Tbp last of these died in the person of Sir Stafford Northcotg, and he baa left behind a gang of political adventurers who are tyrants first ■ and last. Eecently a deputation waited on Lord Salisbury, and urged upon him the necessity of doing something to relieve the distress of the unemployed of London, but bo declined to commit himself to any promise pu the subject, or to show any sympathy for the starving poor. More recently still a deputation of Irish landlords waited upon him, and complained of the action of the Courts of Justice in reducing the rents of their Irish tenant*. Lord Salisbury was all sympathy with the Irish landlords, expressed djpapproval of the action of the Courts in reducing rents, and pfomisei t,p look after the landlords’ interest- s"°w, with regard to these landlords the position was as fol ows ; —When some years ago the times were good they exacted from their tenants the highest rents they could possibly pay. fell by 50 per cent.—many of the

commodities which the farmers had to dispose of would not sell at all —but the villainous landlords still insisted upon getting rents which were paid to them in the good times. To protect the tenants from their rapacity, an Act of Parliament was passed appointing Courts of Justice to settle disputes between landlord aud tenant with regard to rent. These Courts have reduced rents in some instances by 50 per cent.; in others by 45 per cent, and so on, while in a few notable cases the reductions amounted to nearly 75 per cent. Now, what does this mean P Simply that the Irish landlords were charging their tenants 50 per cent, more than they had a moral right to. Their exactions amounted to nothing less than legalised robbery, and what they complained of was that the law prevented them from continuing their villainous and unholy work of living on the sweat of their poor tenants. Lord Salisbury was all sympathy with these landlords, while turning a deaf ear to the famishing cries of the unemployed of London. Lord Salisbury’s conduct was monstrous with regard to the Irish landlords. He professes to aim at compelling Irishmen to obey the laws, yet when a body of IrLh landlords represent to him that the law has curtailed their abilities to exact 4 m P oßß ihle rents from their tenants he encourages their dissatisfaction with the law by expressing disapproval of the action of the Jedges who reduced the rents! Is this the way to make Irishmen respect the law ? How can these landlords be satisfied with the law when England’s Premier incites them to manifest dissatisfaction with it and expresses sympathy with them ? It is apparent from this that the law which Lord Salisbury wishes to be respected in Ireland is the law which allows the landlord to rob his tenant. He sends the tenants to gaol for manifesting dissatisfaction with the impossible rents the landloids exact from them; he pats the landlords on the back, and says to them that the Courts of Justice which reduced their rents had done them an injustice, and sympathises with their demand for compensation. Lord Salisbury’s idea of justice must, therefore, be that the poor ought to obey any law, however cruel, while the rich ought to be dissatisfied with any law which does not exactly suit them, and this is how he expects to create respect for law in Ireland.

He has had it all his own way for sometime past, butnowthat Parliament is reassembled he will find that to con” tinue his cruelties, both in England and Ireland, will not suit the country as a whole. We do not blame him, however, so much as we do the Liberal Unionists. To them the tyranny of Lord Salisbury is naturally repugnant, but sooner than grant Rule to Ireland they are keeping him in power. Their number is getting small by degrees, and beautifully less, however, and without a doubt the next election will see them wiped out of the House.

THE KAKAHU RAILWAY. "We are glad that Mr Tripp has taken up the Kakahu railway question, but we are afraid he is too late. As regards placing reliance on local bodies, we do not think any good can come of it. There is a little bit of routine business to be done by the local bodies in this district, and nothing can lift the minds of the members above this. Had the local bodies of district looked after the matter long ago, they would have succeeded in getting something done to develope the mineral wealth of Kakahu, but they have not troubled themselves with the matter, The fact is, the district is asleep, and its indifference and apathy is due to the fact that our local bodies never take any interest in anything beyond the narrow limits laid down for them in an Act of Parliament, We should be very glad to see Mr Tripp’s suggestion of a tramway carried out if nothing better is possible, but when millions upon millions are being spent wholesale everywhere we see no reason why this railway, which would soon be a profitable one, should not be made. It is, we are afraid, too late to look after it now, but at the same time we must express the pleasure we feel at finding that our remarks on the subject have set to work so influential and energetic a gentleman as Mr Tripp. __