The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE. THURSDAY. NOV., 1, 1894.

Waikato Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 3486, 1 November 1894, Page 4

The Waikato Times AND THAMES VALLEY GAZETTE.

THURSDAY. NOV., 1, 1894.

Equal and eiact justice to all men, Of whatsoever state or persuasion, religious or political,

The speech of Lord Rosebery, the heads of which appeared in our issue of Tuesday, can hardly have come as a surprise to any man who has given but passing attention to political events during the past year or two. The House of Lords has rejected by an aimost unprecedented majority the Home Rule Bill, which was carefully sandwiched in the Newcastle programme, with other vote-catching planks in,order that its ugly angles should be as little noticed as possible by those whose votes were counted on other grounds than the piactical dismemberment of the Empire. The managers of the campaign: were well aware that undue prominence to Home Rule would be calculated'to alienate votes which they hoped to secure on thestrength of other promises, all

more or less impossible of fulfilment, There can be little doubt that had it not been a foregone conclusion that the Lords would throw out the Home Rule Bill many thousands of votes recorded for Gladstonian candidates would have been cast for opponents. The Newcastle programme . promised what they wanted and they could support those who undertook to secure it for them, without running any serious risk of damaging the country by means of the Irish Bill. After its rejection their turn would come, was the idea of thousands. It was manifest from the first that it was only by the most skillful log-rolling the Gladstonian Government could carry any measure of importance. The largest log, and those 'who rolled it have all fallen over the cliff together. The House of Lords put them off their balance. An agitation to deal likewise with that Chamber on this ground alone was a miserable failure; -many who supported the Government in and out of the House never expected anything else. It was not a wise step to agitate against the Lords for rejecting a Bill which all recognise would never have passed the Commons had the Upper Chamber, with its power of veto, not existed. Lord Kosebery was unwise enough, from a party point of view, to point out that Great Britain was the paramount partner and that Home Rule must remain in abeyance till the electors of that division of the Empire hai been educated to believein its wisdom and justice. He endeavoured; somewhat weakly, to explain away the verbal meaning of his utterance, but the words are recorded, and they have sunk so deep into the minds of his Irish supporters, without whom be cannot retain power, that he has been forced to start on the only course possible by which the aspirationof these men, his masters, can be realized. Its does not require very much acumen to read between the lines of the cablegram that nobody regrets more than himself that political exigencies should have compelled him to take the lead in attempting so stupendous" a task," a task which, it must be noted, he does not intend to commence till he is backed by an overwhelming majority at the polls. He clearly does not aim at the wiping out of the House of Lords altogether, and does not appear to have sketched the measure by which he would secure that the House; of Commons shall be unequestionably secured the predominant partnership. He can hardly dispute that this has been the relative position of the two Houses for many years, the- Peers have in every instance bowed to the will of the people by passing suspended measures after their having been clearly put to the country and approved, There is a difference of opinion amongst political l thinkers as to whether an hereditary second Chamber is in keeping with the spirit and requirements of the nineteenth eentury but there are very few, whose, opinions are entitled to serious consideration, who would venture on toe experiment of Government by one only. When the electors are called upon to vote on the question of the reform of the House 'of Peers, they will doubtless not be allowed to overlook the fact which we have pointed out that the people are practically paramount through the Commons. The fact which we have stated above makes their so in practice. The rejection of Home Rule, the Evicted Tenants and the Employers Liability Bills will no doubt afford the reasons given to electors for curtailing the power of the Lords. The question they will naturally ask will be —why did you.not go to the* country on these three measures ? The will of the people is only matter' of, surmise. When the surmise has been substantiated by an election and the Peers again refuse to pass the Bills the time will have come to seriously consider the curtailing of the power of veto. So will all reasonable electors reason, and, in consequence, we believe that the new plank to the Rosebery platform will prove a source of weakness rather than of strength.