END OF THE FIRST ROUND

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8343, 1 February 1913, Page 4

END OF THE FIRST ROUND

The expected has happened., The House of Lords has rejected the Home Rule Bill by an overwhelming majority —326 to 69. Very appropriately, the resolution to defeat the popular will was moved by a duke, and, still more appropriately by the Duke of Devonshire, whose father, the Marquis of Hartington, sucoessfuly moved to throw out both of Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule Bills—in the House of Commons in 1886 and in the “ancient and picturesque” chamber of peers in 1893. There is, however, on this occasion nothing for the democracy to worry about or to cause responsible Ministers any s.euplessness nigbts. Tho House of Lords is simply resolved to enjoy alt its powers of delay- to the point oi exhaustion. That is ail. The decision just come to merely completes the first round of the figfit. The Bill will be passed by the Commons and rejected again twice over by the Lords, and then —well, then it will become law automatically by virtue of the Parliament Act. There is quite reasonable safety in predicting that before Christmas of 1914, or about a year before the expiry of tho present Parliament, Ireland will have been granted the boon of self-government for which her people have struggled so bravely and patriotically for nearly half a century. In the meantime, the House of Lords will have revelled in ample opportunities for advertising' its hopeless partisanship and its insolent contempt for the desires of the common people. AVe need not be at all surprised to learn that the “debate” on the Duke of Devonshire’s amendment was “lifeless.” It must have been, indeed, a grievous effort for the majority of those who voted to have put in an appearance at all. They do not often attend in such numbers, being inoorrigbly indolent as a class. A very small percentage of members pay- the slightest heed to their

legislative duties except on special occasions when the destruction of a popular measure is the first order of tho day. The fate of the hereditary branch of the legislature is, of course, decided. The House of Lords signed its own death-warrant in December, 1909, when it rejected Mr Lloyd George’s Budget. Tho treatment tho Home Rule Bill has just received justifies tho judgment of the people expressed at two general elections in 1910. Tho character of Britain’s Second Chamber will be entirely remodelled before tho Liberals have done with it. Wo have no desire here to recapitulate all the sins of tho peers nor to elaborate on the absurdity of allowing men who gain positions by birth instead of merit the privilege of kicking tho labours of tho House of Commons into tho waste-paper basket. It would he effort ill-spent to slay the slain in that way. But wo may be permitted to quote a bird’s-eye view of tho peers given to tho world by a gentleman for whom Conservatives nowadays entertain the most profound respect, Mr Joseph Chamberlain; “During the last hundred years the House of Lords has never contributed ono iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege. It has denied justice and delayed reform. It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.”