The Northern Guardian. — 1893-02-24 (Hartlepool, Cleveland, England)

WEST HARTLEPOOL.  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. DEATH.  LAUDERDALE--On the 23rd inst., at 42, Eden Street, Rachel' Lauderdale, aged 61. To he interred on Monday, at 2.30. Friends please accept this (the on], ) intimation. Gone home.  THE NOTED MARTON HALL GARDENS .1 have been taken In W. STRIKE, Florist, STOCKTON and MIDDLESBROUGH, where he intends devoting the whole of the spacious Glass Ranges to the production of FLOWERS and FRUIT to meet the growing demand of the dietriet. All Orders will Ivo, ice prompt attention  gar Telephone No., 4,158. lal  FRIDAY, February 24, 1893.  Furness will explain away this little inconsistency. His innocent description of the power of the veto, too, which is to maintain I the etremacy of the British Empire, is delightftilly naive and ingenuous. "It [the ' Bill] . not only provides an Executive Government for Irish affairs, but it declares and maintains the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. The veto of the Crown can be applied through the Lord - Lieutenant acting on the advice af Irish Ministers." On the face of it, that statement appears clear enough and frank enough for anything. The phrasing is in the good old style, and at first blush we might deem it sufficient to quiet our feelings on the subject. But, when seriously considered, it is by no means satisfactory. The veto is to be applied on the advice of the Irish Ministers. Well, it must be apparent to every sensible man that the veto is not likely to be brought into I frequent operation, for the Irish Ministers can, scarcely be expected to invite the LordLieqtenant to veto measures which they have taken the trouble to draft and pass ' through the two Chambers. We fail to see the value and " workableness " of a veto left in the hands of politicians who themselves introduce the legislation. That is another point which Mr Furness might have dwelt upon at greater length. We fail with equal absoluteness to see how the Legislative Council can in any way protect, as Mr Furness says it will protect, minorities. The Council will be composed of 48 members. Those members may be largely recruited from the loyal Protestant minority of Ulster. They will possess the power of throwing out a Bill passed by the Lower House; but at the end of two years the measure can be reintroduced, and if the Council is still obstinate, the two houses must sit in final consideration. This simply means that the members of the Legislative Council, at their very worst, can only retard legislation for two years, at the end of which time they are at the mercy of the Roman Catholic majority. And yet the arrangement is described as effectually protecting minorities. When our local member comes to speak of the possible opposition of the House of Peers argument is dropped in favour of the more attractive method of using threats. Mr Furness does not think that the Peers dare throw out the Home Rule Bill. He does not precisely say why Mr Gladstone intends creating the Irish Legislative Council as a check upon "hasty or immature" legislation, as well as to "protect the minorities." He must therefore believe in a second chamber as a guard against reckless law-making; and we should like to know why the House of Lords dare not exercise its functions should the Home Rule Bill not conform to ordinary ideas of what is safe and just. Mr Furness should remember that the electors of the United Kingdom have not yet had an opportunity of sanctioning or rejecting Mr Gladstone's measure, and in forgetting that important fact he makes the mistake of supposing that the contest may be between the "expressed opinion of the people" and the House of Peers. There cannot well have been an expressed opinion upon a measure which has not yet been before the country. Altogether, Mr Furness is not happy in his remarks upon the Bill. He clears away no awkward point. He does not attempt 'to moth over' any of its difficulties, and we Cannot imagine that his criticisms will in any way help to reconcile the measure with the ideas of his constituents.  Juvenile precocity has ;received a couple of illustrations within the past few days. A boy in Cheshire on Wednesday committed suicide because his father objected to his falling in love with a certain young lady. The boy was 14 years old. To-day, a lad of barely 16 was charged at Blackburn with murdering his employer. Youngsters seem to be making advances upon the youthful habits of former days. They now map out a crime with the calmness and deliberation of practised desperadoes.  —