The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-09-29

Inc speech WHICH MI 1LADSTONE uellV.
cred on Wednesday evening at Edinburgh
was looked forward to with lively inter-
est, because it was uncertain how far he
would support the demand for the mending
or ending Of the House Of Lords. put for
ward in the manifesto Of the National-Lib-
eral Federation and vigorously pressed by
many Radical newspapers.
II his speech has been correctly reported
by telegraph. it is scarcely calculated to
please the Radicals, for he evidently does
not favor a movement against the upper
House at this time. That such a position
should be taken by one who Is acknowl-
edged. even by his enemies. to be the
shrewdest Of political strategists. is due
probably to recognition OF the fact that.
in this instance, the Lords have an advan-
tage which they have never before pos
sessed when in conflict with the Commons;
for they now have behind them a majority
OF the elected representatives Of the voters
OF Great Britain, and 1t remains to be seen
whether that majority will not bear the
test Of another general election. IT, as
the result of such test, Mr.. GLADSTONE
shall have at his back not only majority
OF Irish. Welsh, and Scottish members.
but also majority of English members.
the proper time will have arrived to
speak Of Transforming or abolishing the
House Of Lords. should it again venture to
obstruct the fiat Of the people. 1t is Mr..
GLADsTONE's present business to see that
the coming test is applied under condi-
lions favorable to his party, and. to that
end, he scouts the unconstitutional notion
that the Lords can compel an immediate
dissolution. and announces his purpose to
proceed with measures framed to meet the
wishes and gain the confidence Of the mass
Of the electors OF Great Britain. By the
speech in which such intentions are de-
clared. it is not the Radicals only who will
be disappointed. for both what Mr.. GLAD
STONE means to do and what. for the
moment. he means to leave undone. are the
opposite of what the Unonists desire.
But. while on grounds Of political ex-
pediency Mr.. GLADSTONE Is disposed to
leave the Lords alone until the verdict of
the nation has been pronounced at new
election. he leaves them in no doubt as to
the penalty with which a second attempt to
thwart the Commons will be visited. There
is an implied threat in his language on this
subject, and no one who has marked the
recent outgivings Of Unionist newspapers
and speakers will deny that the threat was
called for. No sooner did the Unionists dis
cover that the Government would not re-
gard the rejection Of the Home Rule bill by
the Lords as sufficient cause, or. indeed.
as any cause at all. for an appeal to the
country, than they began to pave the way
for a second recourse to the obstructive
powers of the upper House in the
Of n frin nh NJ
the next general election. For. say they it
Is only when reference Is made to the peo-
pie Of the specific question Of home rule
unconfused with other issues. that the re-
Spouse can be explicit and peremptory, and,
therefore. binding on the upper House.
Should Mr.. GLADSTONE. SO they argue. 60
to the country on a number OF issues.
among which that OF home rule might be
the least interesting to English voters. the
expression OF confidence which he might OBJ
tain would have no distinct and decisive
bearing on the Irish question, and. there
fore. the Lords would be justified in again
opposing the separatist programme 1t is
this ultimate move in the Unionist pro-
gramme which Mr.. GLADSTONE has in view
when he reminds tho Lords that their
chamber rejected the Reform bill in 1881,
and yet. six months afterward. were
coerced into passing it by the threat of
wholesale creation OF new peers. That such
a creation would be reasonable. even on the
enormous scale that might be required to
overcome the Tory majority in the upper
House. Mr.. GLADSTONE demonstrates by
an argument, which, so far as we know. Is
new. What. he asks is the penalty inflicted
upon the majority of the House of Com
mons for rejecting measure which. as a
subsequent election shows, Is heartily ap-
proved ofby the people The penalty is that
the majority invested with legislative and
executive powers Is transformed into mi
norty invested with no powers at ALL
What reason is there in the nature OF
things why similar penalty should not be
inflicted upon the majority OF the upper
House. when they reject a measure. which.
as subsequent election shows. is heartily
approved Of by the people? Why. in this
case. also. should not the majority be
transformed into a minority? The trans
formation is as easy to effect in the one
case as in the other; there is only differ
once of means. In the one case 1t is effected
by popular election; in the other. it is
brought about by the royal fiat. put forth
on the advice OF a Prime Minister who is
himself tho outcome OF the popular election.
This argument, obviously intended to JUS
tify tho eventual creation OF peers on a
large scale. was not needed TO convince Mr..
GLADsTONE's Radical followers; and we are
probably warranted in thinking that. when
framing it, he had in his mind Queen VIC
ToRIA, who is believed to be as reluctant
as was her uncle. WILLIAM ~, to make
any material change in the composition OF
the upper House.
The substance OF the speech at Edinburgh
is that the time has not arrived for an or