The Times on the Situation.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2192, 27 July 1886, Page 3

The Times on the Situation.

The House of Co unions at haif-past one o'clock this morning (June Sth) lejected the Lish Separation Bill 0.. Ljrrl Hartington's amendment to the .sc-nnd reading by a majority of 341 against 311. This unequivocal declaration of the judgment of Parliament on Mr Gladstone's disruptionist policy, in the most crowded Bouse that ever assembled at Westmiuster, will give the Loyalists ot Ireland encouragement to hope that, thenkinsman in this country will never aban"don them to the uncovenanHv) nv-roies of the National League ami its paymasteis beyond the Atlantic. Even if the hill had been earned by a narrow majority, it had been so pmned and trimmed in successive attempts to conciliate independent opinion, that its latih'cation "in principle" could not have been paiaded as a triumph for Mr Gladstone. It is satisfactory to get rid at last of the subterfuges and intrigues in w Inch the rescue of this unhappy measure has been persistently sought. 7 ' * ■- The Hou*e was impatient to hear Mr Gladstone's last word«, and, we need hardly gay, he exerted at this crisis in his career all his marvellous powers of intimidation, mystification, and persuasion. But, substantially, he was unable, to give the Unionist Liberals any real guarantee that the forthcoming Home Rule Bill would he, in essentials different from the unfortunate measuie introduced with so loud a flourish of trumpets on the Bth of April. Inevitably, then, the Bill was doomed, and we rejoice that the majority • against it was, beyond expectation, decisive and crushing. If, indeed, every member of the House had voted according to his honest convictions, we have little doubt that Mr Gladstone would have been left in a ridiculously small minority, supported only, as Mr Bright has said, by the Parnellites and, perhaps, a score of Englishmen and Scotchmen. As it is, immense and unprecedented advantages have been used and abused to pervert the declaiation of the national judgment, though, happily, in vain. Mr Gladstone's unique and almost absolute personal ascendency has turned ronnd the Liberal majority won in the constituencies of England and Scotland at the general election of last year from an Anti-separatist to a Home Rule policy ; he has enforced this astonishing act of apostasy on a reluctant party by the energetic and rigorous application of the screw, in spite of the fact that the 'original organizers of the caucus have revolted against his new departure ; and, above all, he has been able to provide for filling the gaps left in the Ministerial ranks through the withdrawal of Liberals true to the traditions of their party by purchasing, on strict terms of bargain and sale, the'votes of the highly disciplined faction led by Mr Parnell. Yet, with all thes'e\ad vantages on his side, Mr Gladstone has not only failed to secure even a nominal majority— for a majority composed of Parnellite votes would on this question have no inotal weight whatever — in favour of his disastrous scheme, but has been beaten by no less than thirty. On the following day The Times remarked :— "No one can glance at the list of Unionist and Gladstonian Liberals which we give today without perceiving that the disruption of the Liberal party is complete. Nothing in the honourable record of the united Liberal party becomes it better than its end, for it sacrifices itself in order to maintain the Empire, and from such a baptism of fire we may confidently trnstthut something will emerge worthy to carry on its gieat mission."

Mr Gladstone's address to the electors of Midlothian, which is, practically, a manifesto directed to the people of the British Isles, lias made its appearance. From the standpoint of the politician it is an exceedingly clever document, but it is, also, an exceedingly unsatisfactory one. Its political cleverness lies in the way in which the real issue is feuppte^ed and a false one raised. Mr Gladstone being defeated in Parliament on his Home Kule Bill has appealed from the Parliamentary decision to the general opinion of the country ; but yet a question remains as to what is the precise issue on whiqh he challenges a verdict. His Home Rule Bill was rejected by the votes of Liberals, not because they obiected to Home Kule in the abstract, but because they did »otf like that particular

scheme of Home Rule. Ami now docs Mr Gladstone ask the countiy to endorse his defeated scheme, or simply to sustain the abstract principle of Home Rule? That is the point on which Ins manifesto throws no light, and that is the reason it is unsatisfactory ; but it is «»lso the reason of its cleverness. It evades, so to speak, all cotitioversial matteis, and harps on the general topic ot Home Rule, to which there is little or no oppo sition. But we venture to think lint before the heatod contest, w liv h is now beginning, is h.ilf ovi-r, Mi Gladstone will lie ioiecd to dt Hue h>s portion moie accurately, <md to say whether he will accept Mctoiy <is an anthon/.ition to proceed with a scheme which his suppojters admit to be illogical and absurd.