The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUEDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1893. THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOME RULE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2898, 14 February 1893, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUEDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1893. THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOME RULE.

Mr John Redmond is probably correct in saying that there is no chance of Home Rule for Ireland being granted by the present House of Commons. There are several reasons for this conclusion, but probably the fact which will have most weight with hesitating members of the Government party is the diminution of Mr Gladstone's majority by the results of the byelections, which, when they have not gone against the GJalstonian candidates, have shown them to command greatly diminished majorities. The elections which are now taking place are being held on the new electoral rolls, and thns represent the Utest state of public opinion. Other influences ag&inst the passing of the Home Rule Bill are the determination of the Wels'i Church disestablishment party and the Labor party that their respective claims shall not be taken precedence of by any other matter whatever. If, however, the improbable should happen and the Home Rule Bill come before the House of Lords there can be no doubt as to the fate of the measure. The Marquis of Salisbury made this clear in a paper on " Constitutional Revision " which he contributed to one of the leading reviews last October. What the Lords will do is to throw the Bill out, and to insist that, before the Bill is carried, a General Election shall be taken at which the question of Home Rule or No Home Rule shall be voted upon directly by the whole of the electorate. Lord Salisbury declares, that but for the votes of Archbishop Walsh's pocket constituencies the majority at the General Election would have been against Mr Gladstone. England and Scotland gave a Majority of forty-two votes against Home Rule ; Wales and Ireland converted this majority into a minority of forty. His Lordship shows that in twenty-one constituencies a change in the disposition of 765 votes would have given a majority of two against Home Rule ; he asks whether the House of Lords could be threatened with extinction because 765 electors o*it of an electorate of 6,400,000 should have given their votes for Mr Gladstone rather than for Mr Balfour, and whether it is reasonable to allow an issue so momentous {p be decided by a majority so narrow as that which placed Mr Gladstone in Office. Lord Salisbury makes the situation an occasion for advocating the introduction of additional stability into the British Constitution. He points out that in all democratic countries the framers of the constitution found it indispensable to place some check upon the caprices of the people. The United States constitution requires the assent of two-thirds of the Senate and the House before the change is entered upon, and that of three-fourths of the States after the draft is settled. In Belgium the final assent of two-thirds ot each of the Chambers specially summoned is necessary. The same rule prevails in Holland and in Norway. In Greece the assent of a three-fourths majority is required." In England alone there is no check of any kind. The constitution can be remodelled by the vote of a majority of one-half plus one, and the only check which exists is that of the House of Lords. They algae possess the power of securing that in a great project of fundamental change—a change in the framework of the Empiwwthe nation shall be honestly consulted, and that its voice shall be faithfully obeyed. Lord Salisbury's gase is regarded in _ . ' ~w«tt fry t«he fcdyocates of England, b. '-**w«mto\*\ *nd 5 Home Rule, as uu« -~U. i tftm must be concluded that, ap*i. the improbability of the Bill which is now before the House of Commons being passed by that House, there is no possibility of Home Rule being granted until after an appeal to the country in which this will be the one point at issue.