The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-04-09
Mr.. Labouchere's Ideas.


As Mr.. HENRY LABoUCHERE makes no
secret Of his intention to level q second
blow at the RosEBERY Government. and as
the blow seems not unlikely to fall during
the coming week, 1t Is worth while to con-
slider the grounds Of his dissatisfaction.
These have been set forth In detail and
with emphasis In his weekly newspaper.
Truth, but q brief outline Of them will suffice
to render his position clear.
Let us first note what his own views are,
and then we shall find 1t easy to indicate
why he protests against the leadership Of
Lord Rosemary. Mr.. LABoucHKRE is q
stalwart and outspoken representative OF
what In contemporary England Is known as
the New Radicalism. That Is to say. on the
political side he is q democrat Of the most
extreme and aggressive type. while on the
social-economical side he Is to considerable
extent a State Socialist. He deems 1t alb
surd to expect democratic legislation unless
the legislative instrument be democratic.
and to that end he insists upon demo-
cratizing the House Of Commons by
paying its members. by extending the
franchise. abolishing plural voting and sim
plifying the methods Of registration. and.
interference on the part OF any who are
not elected by the possessors Of the fran
chise. His conversion to State socialism Is
ayowed In these words: I'VE have thou
sands on thousands OF our fellow citizens
honestly DESTROYS OF work. yet unable to get
fair days pay for fair days work: and
thousands on thousands who have found
work. doomed to pauperism In their old
age. hold that 1t Ii the primary duty Of
the State to alter this. 80 far as possible"
Such are his general views. What Is his
attitude toward home rule and the House
of Lords Mr.. LABoUoHERE maintains
that under Mr.. GLADsroSE's leadership the
British Liberals were pledged to stand or
fall by home rule; that II their party
should continue In ONCE after the next
general election. 1t would be bound to
bring In Home Rule bill. whether Its ma
jority should be large or small. and. more
over. that the measure thus brought In
should be one that recognized as an ire
ducible minimum the amount Of home rule
contained in Mr.. GLADsroNE's bill OF the
last session. II was on this understanding
that the Irish Nationalist gave. aud were
prepared to continue to give. their support
to the Liberals. AS to the House OF Lords
Mr.. LABoUcHERE believes not In mendlng
1t but in ending 1t. so far as the presence OF
any members deriving their title to lsgis-
late from Inheritance or appointment Is
concerned. He would not oppose. however.
the substitution Of q second chamber. all OF
whose members should be chosen directly
by the possessors OF the Parliamentary
franchise. who for this purpose might be
grouped in larger constituencies.
There is nothing ambiguous about these
views. and there is no doubt that in advo-
eating them Mr.. LABoUoHERE represents
the mass Of British Radicals. 1t Is also
plain enough that such opinions cannot be
reconeiled with those expressed by Lord
RosEBERY In the House Of Lords and after
ward explained with nervous sOlicitude at
Edinburgh. Even from the revised edition
Of the Premier's reference TO home rule IL
Is evident that he would consider this ques-
tIon In allegiance. provided the Liberals at
the next general election should obtain .
majority no larger than they gained In
1854. AS to the upper House. Lord ROSE
BERY allowed it plainly to be seen at Edin-
buTgh that he would not follow the Drece-
dent Of 1881. and ooerce the Peers. II recall
citrsnt; that he did not think that pub
lie opinion had clearly declared itself against
any trenchant change In the legislative ap-
paratus; and that. II Radicals wanted a
change. 1t was their duty to create great
popular agitation. which would furnish the
Premier with power to pass some sort Of
compromise bill that the House Of Lords
would accept. We need not point out that
such notions would naturally b repudi-
Gtsd BY thOss who believe thai he hour